Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive
in 2007 witii funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
littp://www.arcliive.org/details/demostlieneslastdOOpickuoft
76.
X.
y?
Q-^
r~
Heroes of the Nations
A Series of Biographical Studies
presenting the lives and work
of certain representative his-
torical characters, about whom
have gathered the traditions
of the nations to which they
belong, and who have, in the
majority of instances, been
accepted as types of the sev-
eral national ideals.
FOR FULL LIST SEE END OF THIS VOLUME
Iberoes ot tbe "Wattons
EDITED BY
f). tiOl. a, S)avf8
FACTA DUCI8 VIVINT, OPEROIAQUI
OLORlA RERUM OVIO. IN LIVI«M, ISS.
THC HERO S DEEDS AND HARD-WON
FAME (HALL LIVE.
DEMOSTHENES
DEMOSTHENES
AND THE LAST DAYS OF GREEK FREEDOM
384-322 B.C.
(^■)
a: wf pickard-cambridge
Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
XLbc ftnicftcrbocfter press
1914
JZQ5Q21
So. y<f
COPYKIGHT. I9I4
BY
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
X33
PC
"Cbe Itntcfterlwclier press, flew Korfc
PREFATORY NOTE
IN the main body of this book, references have
been given throughout to the chief original
authorities on which the statements in the text
are based. It seemed less necessary, and indeed
scarcely possible, to do this in those portions of the
work (especially Chapters II, III, and beginning
of Chapter IV) which are of the nature of an
introductory summary: and readers who wish for
fuller information must consult the larger Greek
histories and works on the Athenian constitution.
The work has been based on a study of the
original authorities throughout, but I have con-
sidered carefully the treatment of the period in the
leading Greek histories, and have made particular
use of the histories of Grote, Holm and Beloch, and
of Schafer's Demosthenes und seine Zeit, which, in
spite of the corrections which later work on the
subject has rendered necessary, can never be
superseded. I wish also to express my obHgation
to Hogarth's Philip and Alexander of Macedon,
Blass' Attische Beredsamkeit, and Butcher's Demos-
thenes (in Macmillan's Classical Writers series).
Among other works which I have consulted with
profit have been Francotte, Les Finances des Cites
iii
iv Prefatory Note
Grecques; W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens;
Edward Meyer, Isokrates* zweiter Brief an Philipp;
J. Sundwall, Epigraphische Beitrdge zur sozial-
poUtischen Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter des De-
mosthenes; M. P. Foucart, Les Atheniens dans la
Chersonese de Thrace au IV^ siecle; W. Reichen-
bacher, Die Geschichte der athenischen und make-
donischen Politik; A. Cartault, De causa Harpalica;
A. Motzki, Eubulos von Prohalinthos; U. Kahr-
stedt, Forschungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden
filnften und des vierten Jahrhunderts; E. Schwartz,
Demosthenes' erste Philippika (in the Festschrift
fur Th. Mommsen); J. Rohrmoser, Ueber den
philokrateischen Frieden; P. Wendland, Beitrdge
zur athenischen Politik u. Publicistik des vierten
Jahrhunderts; E. Radiige, Zur Zeitbestimmung
des Euboischen u. Olynthischen Krieges; J. Kro-
mayer, Antike Schlachtf elder; and other writings
to which reference is made in the notes.
It must be admitted that, time after time, the
evidence which has come down to us is not sufficient
to give certainty to the conclusions based upon it.
For the greater part of the period with which this
book deals, a historian has to be content with
Diodorus, who is notoriously untrustworthy in
certain respects, particularly in chronology; with
the meagre summary of Justin; with Plutarch, to
whom the moral was perhaps as important as the
truth of his story; and with the statements of
orators about themselves and about one another,
made, as a rule, in moments of strong feeling, and
Prefatory Note v
by members of a nation by which strict truth-
fulness was never felt to be one of the most obliga-
tory virtues. Here and there we receive valuable
help from inscriptions, but other contemporary
sources, apart from the orators, are almost
wanting, and we are obliged to rely upon allusions
in writers who lived centuries after the events with
which we are concerned. There are many points
at which the explanation of Demosthenes' conduct
and policy can only be conjectured, and different
writers have found it possible on the same evidence
to construct diametrically opposite theories of his
character and motives. I have attempted to
estimate these as impartially as possible, and it is
hoped that the account given in this book will be
found to be in accordance with the evidence, and
that, where gaps have to be filled by conjecture,
the conjectiu-es may be thought reasonable and
consistent with the more certain conclusions.
As regards the illustrations, I am indebted to
Lord Sackville for the permission given by him to
photograph the statue of Demosthenes at Knole;
to Dr. G. B. Gnmdy for a photograph of Ther-
mopylae and a sketch of the hills about Cytiniimi;
to Mr. M. S. Thompson for a photograph of the
Lion of Chseroneia; to Mr. A. B. Cook for a photo-
graph of Calaureia ; to my wife for a drawing of the
view from Thermopylae; to Messrs. Fradelle and
Yoimg for permission to reproduce their photo-
graph of Lamia ; to the Committee of the Egyptian
Exploration Fund for leave to photograph the
vi Prefatory Note
papyrus which appears at p. 317; to Dr. G. F.
Hill for casts of the coins which are reproduced in
this book; to Herr J. Kromayer and Messrs. Weid-
mann for leave to reproduce maps of Chaeroneia
and the neighbourhood; and for other help to
Prof. Percy Gardner and Mr. A. J. Toynbee. To
all of these my best thanks are offered.
I have also to thank the Delegates of the Oxford
University Press for permission to reprint passages
from my translation of the Public Speeches of
Demosthenes. I could have wished to quote much
more freely from the Speeches, which give a far
more truthful impression of Demosthenes than can
be given by any description ; but the limitations of
space imposed by the plan of this series did not
allow this ; and I hope that the translation and the
present volume may be treated as companion
works, and that each may be allowed in some
small degree to atone for the many deficiencies
of the other.
Postscript. — Since the above was written, it has been found
possible to insert some more illustrations. For these I have to
thank my wife, Messrs. Alinari, and the English Photographic
Company in Athens.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFATORY NOTE ...... iii
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE ..... xi
CHAPTER I
THE YOUTH AND TRAINING OF DEMOSTHENES . I
CHAPTER II
GREECE FROM 404 TO 359 . . . . 4I
CHAPTER III
THE ATHENIAN STATE IN THE FOURTH CENTURY
B. C 71
CHAPTER IV
THE BEGINNING OF DEMOSTHENES* CAREER . IO9
CHAPTER V
THE RISE OF PHILIP 1 43
CHAPTER VI
THE OLYNTHLAN WAR . . . . • I?!
CHAPTER VII
THE FIRST EMBASSY TO PHILIP . . . 228
CHAPTER VIII
THE SECOND EMBASSY AND THE PEACE OF PHILO-
CRATES ...... 264
vii
viii Contents
PACE
CHAPTER IX
THE NOMINAL PEACE AND THE RENEWAL OF THE
WAR 301
CHAPTER X
CHiERONEIA 359
CHAPTER XI
AFTER CHiERONEIA 392
CHAPTER XII
GREECE IN THE ABSENCE OF ALEXANDER . . 42O
CHAPTER XIII
THE AFFAIR OF HARPALUS AND THE LAMIAN WAR 45O
CHAPTER XIV
CONCLUSION 489
INDEX 501
ILLUSTRATIONS
FACING PAGB
The Acropolis of Athens . Frontispiece
The Statue of Demosthenes in the Vatican 30
Peiraeus, Harbour of Zea, from Munychia 42
The Arcadian Gate, Messene ... 54
A General View of Sparta ... 64
The Pnyx 76
The Statue of Demosthenes at Knole Park 120
(Front view)
The Statue of Demosthenes at Knole Park 122
(Side view)
The Temple of Hera at Olympia . .156
Coins of Macedonian and Thracian Kings . 168
The Theatre and Temple of Apollo at
Delphi
The Statue of ^schines at Naples .
Thermopyl^, the Pass
From a photograph by Dr. G. B. Grundy
The View from Thermopylae
From a drawing by H. M. Pickard-Cambridge
The Stadium at Delphi
(Scene of the Pythian Games)
is
172
246
278
282
288
X Illustrations
PAGE
Papyrus Fragment of Demosthenes' Speech
ON THE Embassy 316
The Athenian Treasury and Museum at
Delphi 358
The Grand Altar at Delphi . . . 362
The Pass of Gravia and Site of Cytinium 368
From a sketch by Dr. G. B. Grundy
Map of CHiERONEIA AND ENVIRONS . . 378
(After Kromayer)
Diagram of the Battle of CHiERONEiA . '384
(After Kromayer)
The Lion of Ch^roneia .... 388
From a photograph by Mr. M. S. Thompson
ACRO-CORINTHUS AND TeMPLE AT CORINTH . 4OO
Sparta 426
From a drawing by H. M. Kckard-Cambridge
The Temple of Zeus at Olympia . . 458
The Acropolis of Lamia .... 478
From a photograph by Messrs. Fradelle & Young
Calaureia, view near the Precinct of
Poseidon ...... 484
From a photograph by Mr. A. B. Cook
Statue of Demosthenes .... 498
As restored by Hartwig
Map of Greece and Surrounding Coun-
tries at end
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
fThe chronology of this period is often uncertain and there are
many differences of opinion among historians in regard to it.
The order of events in the years 355-348 is especially disputed.
The dates here given must therefore be regarded only as those
which the author himself regards as probable, and which he has
followed in the text. The table only includes events which fall
within the scope of the book, and makes no claim to complete-
ness).
B.C.
404 Athens capitulates to Sparta; the Long Walls are de-
stroyed, and the Peiraeus dismantled. The "Thirty
Tyrants" established.
403-2 The "Thirty Tyrants" overthrown and democracy
restored.
400 The Spartans begin hostilities against Persia in Asia
Minor.
395 Artaxerxes II . sends Timocrates to rouse the Greek States
against Sparta. Sparta sends help to the Phocians
against the Thebans and Locrians, but Lysander is
slain at Haliartus.
394 Beginning of Corinthian War, in which the Athenians
and allies oppose the Spartans. Spartan forces
recalled from Asia Minor. Conon defeats the Spartan
fleet off Cnidos, and Athens refortifies the Peiraeus.
393 The Long Walls of Athens rebuilt. Iphicrates in the
Peloponnese.
392 War continues in the Peloponnese, between Sparta
and Argos, Corinth etc. (aided by Athens). Iphi-
crates destroys a Spartan division. Abortive mission
from Sparta to Artaxerxes.
391 War in Peloponnese continues. Sparta also sends troops
to Asia Minor against the Persian general.
xii Chronological Table
B.C.
390 War in Asia Minor, etc., continues. Thrasybulus
brings Thracian princes and Byzantium into alliance
with Athens.
389 Sparta supports ^Eginetans against Athens.
388 Antalcidas (of Sparta) interrupts Athenian corn-convoys
from the Hellespont.
387 Peace of Antalcidas.
386 Plataeae, Thespiae and Orchomenus become centres of
Spartan influence in Boeotia.
385 Sparta destroys the walls of Mantineia, and recovers
influence in the Peloponnese.
384 Birth of Demosthenes.
383 Sparta enforces restoration of oligarchical exiles at
Phleius, and aids Acanthus and ApoUonia against
Olynthus. Phoebidas captures the Cadmeia at
Thebes.
Cotys^becomes Kling of the Odrysian Thradans.
382 Birth of PhUip.
380 Sparta besieges Phleius. Isocrates' Panegyricus.
379 The Spartans take Phleius, and compel Olynthus to
join the Spartan alliance. Being driven out of
Thebes, they invade Boeotia.
378 Attack of Sphodrias on the Peiraeus; Athens joins the
Boeotians against Sparta, and organises the Second
Athenian Confederacy. Second Spartan invasion of
Boeotia.
378-7 Symmories instituted for collection of war-tax at Athens.
377 Third Spartan invasion of Boeotia.
376 Fourth Spartan invasion of Boeotia. Chabrias defeats
the Spartan fleet off Naxos. Death of Demosthenes '
father.
375 Operations of Timotheus on the Peloponnesian coast
and about Corcyra, and of Chabrias on the Thracian
coast.
Jason of Pherae acquires ascendancy over Thessaly.
Thebes recovers power over Boeotia ; Pelopidas defeats
the Spartan army sent to help the Phocians.
Olynthus refounds the Chalcidic league.
374 Peace made between Athens and Sparta, but immedi-
ately broken by Timotheus. Timotheus operates
on the Thracian coast.
Chronological Table xiii
B.C.
373 Spartans devastate Corcyra, and are opposed first
by Timotheus, then by Iphicrates and Chabrias.
Thebes destroys Plataeae. Isocratee' Platcncus.
372 Iphicrates continues to operate against Sparta in the
West.
371 Athens makes peace with Sparta, and Sparta and
Amyntas acknowledge her claim to Amphipolis.
Thebes will not join in the Peace. Battle of Leuctra.
Theban supremacy established.
370 A congress at Athens confirms the Peace of Antalcidas.
Mantineia rebuilds its walls, and the Arcadians
found Megalopolis. Democratic movements in
Argos, Tegea, etc.
The Thebans massacre the people of Orchomenus.
Jason of Pherae murdered; Alexander acquires his
power.
369 The Thebans invade the Peloponnese to help the
Arcadians against Sparta. Athens makes alliance
with Sparta. The Thebans make the Messenians
independent of Sparta, and build Messene.
Death of Amyntas III.
368 The Thebans (under Pelopidas) unite Thessaly against
Alexander of Pherae, and bring Macedonia into
alliance, taking Philip as a hostage to Thebes. Per-
diccas III. becomes King of Macedonia.
Hostilities in the Peloponnese continue. Philiscus
summons a congress at Delphi, but without result.
367 The Thebans again in the Peloponnese. Embassies
from the Greek States to Persia.
366 The Congress of Greek States at Thebes rejects the
Peace proposed by Artaxerxes; Timagoras executed
at Athens.
The Thebans are unsuccessful in Thessaly. Themison
of Eretria gives Oropus to Thebes.
The Arcadians make peace with Athens, and begin
hostilities with Elis. Corinth and Phleius make
peace with Thebes.
Timotheus helps Ariobarzanes in revolt against Persia,
and conquers Samos. IsocraXes' Archidamus.
365-4 Hostilities continue between Thebes and Alexander of
Pherae, and between Arcadia and EUs.
xiv Chronological Table
B.C.
365-4 Athens sends cleruchs to the Chersonese. Timotheus
operates there.
364 Timotheus conducts hostilities against Cotys, and
attempts to take Amphipolis, but fails. Philip
returns from Thebes to Macedonia.
364-3 Demosthenes' prosecutes Aphobus, and is trierarch.
His first collision with Meidias.
363 Thebes sends Epameinondas with a fleet to the Thracian
region; defeats Alexander of Pherae at Cynoscepha-
lae (though Pelopidas is slain); and destroys Orcho-
menus.
Hostilities between Arcadians and Elis continue;
schism among the Arcadians.
362 Battle of Mantineia, death of Epameinondas, and
virtual end of Theban supremacy. A Peace made.
Alexander of Pherae commits hostilities against
Athens.
Timotheus recalled from Thrace; his successors are
unsuccessful.
Revolt of Egypt and a large part of Asia Minor against
Persia. Charidemus in Asia Minor.
Trial of Onetor.
361 Unsuccessful Athenian expeditions to Thrace. Milto-
cythes revolts against Cotys, and appeals to Athens.
Callistratus banished; Aristophon takes the lead in
Athens.
Corey ra deserts the Athenian confederacy. Athens
makes terms with Phleius, Elis, and the Achaeans.
360 Timotheus again fails to take Amphipolis. Charidemus
joins Cotys. Cotys is succeeded by Cersobleptes.
Charidemus forces Cephisodotus to make terms,
which the Athenians repudiate. Demosthenes co-
trierarch with Philippides.
359 Miltocythes murdered at Cardia. Partition of Odry-
sian kingdom between Cersobleptes, Berisades, and
Amadocus; the Chersonese nominally ceded to
Athens, but not actually taken over.
Death of Artaxerxes II., and accession of Artaxerxes
III.
Alexander of Pherae murdered; Lycophron and Pei-
tholaus succeed to his power.
ii
Chronological Table xv
B.C.
359 Death of Perdiccas III. Accession of Philip. He ac-
knowledges the title of Athens to Amphipolis, but
Athens neglects to garrison it.
358 Chares enforces the cession of the Chersonese to Athens.
Timotheus liberates Euboea from Theban control.
Demosthenes co-trierarch with Philinus.
Social War. Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium re-
volt against Athens; defeat and death of Chabrias
at Chios.
Philip, after a campaign against the Paeonians and
lUyrians, attacks Amphipolis, which appeals to
Athens. Secret arrangement between Athens and
Philip with regard to Amphipolis and Pydna.
357 Social War continued. Prosecution of Iphicrates and
Timotheus.
Philip takes Amphipolis. Olynthus, rejected by
Athens, makes alliance with Philip. Philip takes
Pydna.
Law of Periander.
357-6 Philip takes Poteidaea.
356 Birth of Alexander the Great. Philip takes Mt.
Pangaeus, and founds Philippi. Athenian alliance
with Lyppeius, Grabus, and Cetriporis.
Chares helps Artabazus against Persia; the Persian King
helps the allies in their revolt, and Chares is recalled
to Athens.
Androtion's commission to recover arrears of war-tax.
Isocrates On the Peace.
355 Philip conducts campaigns against the lUyrians and
Paeonians, and builds a fleet.
End of Social War. Athens recognises the independ-
ence of the allies. Mausolus of Caria establishes
oligarchies in Rhodes, Chios, and Cos. Athens
makes agreement with the Messenians. Athens
sends cleruchs to Samos.
Sacred War. The Phocians under Philomelus seize
Delphi, and the Locrians fail to defeat them. War
is declared against the Phocians.
Demosthenes' Speech against Androtion.
{End of year) Philip attacks Methone. Neapolis applies
to Athens for help. Isocrates' Areopagiticus.
xvi Chronological Table
B.C.
354 Philip takes Methone. Hostilities between Cersoblep-
tes and other Thracian princes.
Philomelus defeated by the Thebans; Onomarchus suc-
ceeds him, and makes a free use of the temple-
treasures. Chares with a fleet near Neapolis; he
receives money from Onomarchus, and defeats Philip's
admiral Adaeus.
Eubulus becomes Theoric Commissioner. Death of
Timotheus. Demosthenes' Speeches against Lep-
tines, and On the Symmories.
353 Athenian colonists established by Chares in Sestos.
Cersobleptes and Charidemus make overtures to
Athens; Aristocrates proposes a decree in favour of
Charidemus. Philip takes Abdera and Maroneia;
he is opposed by Amadocus; Pammenes (sent from
Thebes to help Artabazus in revolt against Persia)
joins Philip at Maroneia. Cersobleptes makes terms
with Philip. Philip evades Chares at Neapolis.
Onomarchus makes alliance with Lycophron and Pei-
tholaus of Pherae, defeats the Locrians, restores
Orchomenus, and occupies Thermopylae. The
princes of Larissa invoke Philip against Lycophron
and Peitholaus, who summon Onomarchus. Philip
defeats Phayllus, but is defeated by Onomarchus.
Sparta proposes restoration of territory to its original
owners. Arcadian and Spartan embassies to Athens.
Demosthenes' Speech for the Megalopolitans.
Athens refuses aid to the Arcadians, who apply to
Thebes. Hostilities begin between Sparta and the
Arcadians (aided by Thebes).
352 Onomarchus takes Coroneia, but is defeated and slain
by Philip in Magnesia, and succeeded by Phayllus.
Philip deposes the princes of Pherae, and takes
Pagasae; but retires on appearance of Athenian force
at Th-^rmopylae. Later, Phayllus is killed in Locri
and succeeded by Phalaecus.
Philip returns to Thrace, makes alliance with Amadocus,
Byzantium, Perinthus, and Cardia, and defeats Cer-
sobleptes, taking his son as a hostage. He besieges
Heraeon Teichos; the Athenians resolve to send an ex-
pedition, but abandon it on hearing of Philip's illness.
Chronological Table xvii
B.C.
352 Philip returns to Macedonia. Olynthus makes over-
tures to Athens.
Hostilities continue between Sparta and the Arcadians.
351-348 Sacred War continues indecisively between the Pho-
cians and the Thebans, Thessalians and Locrians.
351 Philip conquers the Bislatae and threatens Olynthus;
he afterwards goes to lUyria and Epirus. He
intrigues with parties in Euboea and Olynthus; his
ships commit aggressions against Athens.
Chares is sent to the Hellespont, inadequately supplied.
Artemisia succeeds Mausolus. The exiled Rhodians
apply to Athens for aid, but are refused. Demos-
thenes' Speech for the Rhodians and First Philippic.
350 Athens quarrels with Corinth and Megara.
Communications between Athens and Orontas (in revolt
against Persia) ; Phocion assists Euagoras of Cyprus
against Persia.
Peace between Sparta and the Arcadians.
Philip's party gain ground in Olynthus. Olynthus
again appeals to Athens.
Demosthenes' Speech for Phormio.
349 Philip requests Olynthus to surrender Arrhidaeus.
Demosthenes' First and Second Olynthiacs. Athens
makes alliance with Olynthus, and sends Chares,
but recalls him. Philip invades Olynthian territory,
but withdraws in order to reduce Thessaly to order.
Athens transfers Charidemus from the Hellespont
to Olynthus, but he achieves only slight results.
Demosthenes' Third Olynthiac (in autumn). Apol-
lodorus' decree respecting the Theoric money pro-
posed.
Trial of Stephanus.
348 {February) Phocion is sent to help Plutarchus of Eretria
against Philip's friends. Battle of Tamynas. Plu-
tarchus is thought to have played Athens false.
{March) Demosthenes, when choregus at the
Dionysia, is assaulted by Meidias. Phocion drives
Plutarchus from Eretria and Callias from Chalcis,
but his successor is a failure. The Euboeans obtain
their independence of Athens {about June). Demo-
sthenes' Speech against Bceotus.
xviii Chronological Table
B.C.
348 Philip takes Mecyberna and Torone, and besieges
Olynthus. {July) Philip expresses desire for peace
with Athens. Philocrates proposes to negotiate with
him. {August) Philip captures Olynthus, and de-
stroys Chalcidic towns. Lycinus prosecutes
Philocrates, who is defended by Demosthenes.
{Autumn) Athens sends embassies to rouse the
Greek States against Philip. ^Eschines in
Arcadia.
347 Informal communications between Philip and Athens.
Dissensions arise among the Phocians.
{July) Demosthenes becomes a Councillor for the
year 347-346.
{Late Summer) Thebes invokes Philip's aid against the
Phocians. The Phocians appeal to Athens, but when
Athens sends Proxenus to Thermopylae, he is insult-
ingly treated by Phatecus Demosthenes abandons
prosecution of Meidias.
346 Philip sends Parmenio to help Pharsalus against Halus.
{Early Spring) First Embassy from Athens to
Philip. {April) Debates upon proposed Peace.
Philip takes Thracian strongholds, and takes Cerso-
bleptes prisoner. {May, June) Second Embassy;
Peace of Philocrates ratified. {July) Return of
Second Embassy. Third Embassy sets out. Philip
occupies Thermopylae; the Athenians refuse to join
him in settling the Sacred War. Phalaecus surrenders
Philip, who becomes master of Phocis. Isocrates'
Philippus. {Late Summer) The Phocian towns
dismantle \ Demosthenes and Timarchus announce
their intention of prosecuting ^Eschines. {September)
Philip presides at Pythian games. Demosthenes'
Speech on the Peace. {Winter — probably) Mission
of Eucleides to Philip.
Demosthenes' Speeches against Pantaenetus and against
Nausimachus and Xenopeithes.
345 Timarchus prosecuted by iEschines and condemned.
Philip organises the internal government of Mace-
donia. Communications between Athens and
Philip with regard to Thracian towns. Repair of
fortifications of Athens and the Periaeus.
Chronological Table xix
B.C.
345 Revision of the list of Athenian citizens. Demosthenes'
Speech against Eubulides.
344 {First half) Philip conducts campaign in Illyria.
He also organises Thessaly, and is elected archon
of Thessaly for life. {Second half) Demosthenes
tries, but fails, to rouse Peloponnesian States against
Philip. The Argives and Messenians, and Philip
himself, send envoys to Athens to protest. Demo-
sthenes' Second Philippic. The Arcadians and
Argives pay compliments to Philip. Hypereides
substituted for ^schines as envoy to the Amphicty-
onic Council in regard to Delos.
343 Impeachment of Philocrates by Hypereides. He leaves
Athens.
{Spring) Philip sends Python to Athens to offer to
amend the Peace, etc. A Persian Embassy is coldly
received at Athens; Thebes and Argos send help to
Persia against Cyprus.
{Early Summer) Hegesippus sent as envoy to Mace-
donia. Disturbances in Elis, owing to growth of
Philip's party. Attempted coup d'etat in Philip's
interest at Megara prevented by Phocion.
{Summer) Cleitarchus, aided by Philip's troops, be-
comes tyrant of Eretria. Chalcis, under Callias,
makes overtures to Athens. Trial and acquittal of
iEschines on the charge of corruption on the Em-
bassy. Execution of Antiphonas a spy.
{Later) Tour of Athenian ambassadors (including
Demosthenes) in the Peloponnese and Thessaly.
Philip compels Arybbas to surrender the Alolossian
kingdom to Alexander, and threatens Ambracia;
Athens sends troops to aid Ambracia. Philip also
garrisons Nicasa and Echinus.
J 342 Philip in Thrace. He conquers the Odrysian kingdom,
founds military colonies, makes alliance with the
Getas, and passes the winter of 342-341 in Thrace.
Athens sends cleruchs to Cardia, and orders Dio-
peithes to assist them. Philip sends a garrison to
protect Cardia; Diopeithes commits acts of war
against Philip. Philistides becomes tyrant of Oreus,
assisted by Philip's general, Parmenio.
XX Chronological Table
B.C.
341 {Spring) Philip protests to Athens against the con-
duct of Diopeithes. Demosthenes' Speech on the
Chersonese. Philip continues his conquests in
Thrace. {Summer) The Third Philippic. Demo-
sthenes makes alliance (for Athens) with Byzan-
tium and Abydos, and with Thracian and lUyrian
princes: Hypereides renews alliance with Rhodes
and Chios. The Persian King sends money to
Diopeithes. Athens makes alliance with Callias of
Chalcis, and expels Philistides from Oreus and
Cleitarchus from Eretria. Demosthenes and Callias
organise a league against Philip. Chares stationed
at Thasos. {Late — or early in 340) Callias and
Athenian ships commit acts of hostility against
Philip's ships, etc.
340 {Early) Demosthenes crowned at the Dionysia. Exe-
cution of Anaxinus as a spy. Formation of league
continues. The Byzantines refuse to help Philip
against the Athenians in the Chersonese. {Summer)
Philip besieges Perinthus and Byzantium. After
his seizure of Athenian merchant ships, Athens form-
ally declares war. Chares in command at Byzantium ;
then Phocion. Demosthenes reforms the trierarchy.
{Autumn) At the meeting of the Amphictyonic
Council, ^schines accuses the Amphisseans of
sacrilege.
339 {Early) The Amphictyonic Council declares war on
the Amphisseans, but the war is ineflFectively con-
ducted. Philip raises the siege of Byzantium, makes
an expedition into Scythia, and is defeated by
the Triballi on his way back to Macedonia. {Early
Summer) Philip appointed commander against the
Amphisseans. {September) Philip occupies Elateia.
Demosthenes makes alliance between Athens and
Thebes. {Autumn and Winter) Demosthenes car-
ries financial reforms; the Theoric money applied
to military purposes. Athens and Thebes win some
successes against Philip.
338 {First half) Demosthenes again crowned at the
Dionysia. Philip takes Amphissa and (perhaps)
Naupactus; Athens and Thebes reject his proposals
Chronological Table xxi
B.C.
338 for peace. {Summer) Lycurgus becomes Theoric Com-
missioner. (/4 «gtt.sO Battle of Chaeroneia. Thebes is
garrisoned by Macedonian troops and severely
treated. Orchomenus, Thespiae and Plataeae restored.
Athens prepares for defence; Demosthenes is sent to
procure com and money; in his absence the "Peace of
Demades" is made. {Later) Repair of fortifications
etc., under Demosthenes' supervision. He delivers the
Funeral Oration. Philip settles Phocis and Euboea,
and is honourably received at Megara, Comith, etc. ;
being rejected by Sparta, he overruns Laconia. At
a congress at Corinth, he establishes a synod of the
Greeks, and makes arrangements for invasion of
Asia. Death of Isocrates, and of Artaxerxes III.,
who is succeeded by Arses.
337 Demosthenes becomes Theoric Commissioner. The two
parties in Athens assail one another with prosecutions.
Philip marries Cleopatra, and Alexander quarrels
with him.
336 Ctesiphon proposes to crown Demosthenes at the
Dionysia. .^schines announces his intention to
prosecute him.
Formal reconciliation between Philip and Alexander.
A Macedonian force is sent to Asia under Attalus.
Philip is murdered (in July); Alexander is acknow-
ledged King by the Macedonians, Thessalians, and
Amphictyonic Council. He marches to Thebes and
is acknowledged by Athens. At a congress at Corinth
he is appointed leader of the Greeks against Persia;
all Greek States are declared autonomous.
Secret overtures of Athens to Persia rejected. Acces-
sion of Darius Codomannus as King of Persia.
335 Alexander in Thrace and Illyria. Darius sends money
to Athens to be used against the Macedonians.
Thebes revolts, encouraged by Athens and other
States, and is destroyed by Alexander. Most of the
peoples friendly to Thebes submit. Alexander de-
mands surrender of anti-Macedonian orators but is
satisfied with banishment of Charidemus. The
Council of Areopagus undertake to investigate the use
of Persian gold to help Thebes, but drop the enquiry.
xxii Chronological Table
B.C.
334 Alexander in Asia Minor. Battle at the Granicus.
The Persian fleet received at Samos (tinder Athenian
control).
332 Alexander in Syria and Egypt.
333 Alexander in Asia Minor. Battle of Issus. Agis of
Sparta, assisted by Persian money, conquers Crete.
331 Alexander in the East. Battle of Arbela. His fleet
recovers control of the .^gaean, etc.
330 Alexander in the East. Revolt of the Odrysian King
Seuthes crushed by Antipater. Agis leads a revolt
in the Peloponnese, defeats Corrhagus, and besieges
Megalopolis. Demosthenes at first encourages the
revolt, but the Athenians fail to support it. Agis is
defeated and slain by Antipater. Prosecution of
Leocrates by Lycurgus, and of Euxenippus by
Polyeuctus. Trial and acquittal of Ctesiphon;
Demosthenes' Speech on the Crown; ^schines leaves
Athens.
329-324 Alexander in the East.
328 (about). Demosthenes is corn-commissioner. He is
accused of embezzlement, but acquitted.
327 Alexander accorded divine honours in Bactria. He
goes to India.
326 Lycurgus ceases to be Theoric Commissioner. Athenian
expedition to Samos.
324 Alexander returns from India to Susa. Flight of
Harpalus to Greece, with Alexander's treasure;
Athens will not surrender him, but takes the treasure,
to keep it for Alexander; Harpalus escapes from
Athens. Demosthenes and others are suspected of
receiving part of the treasure, and the Council of
Areopagus is ordered to enquire, but delays.
Alexander demands divine honors from the Greeks, and
orders restoration of exiles to Greek cities. Demo-
sthenes opposes. He is sent to the Olympian festival,
where Nicanor proclaims Alexander's commands;
on his return, he moderates his attitude.
Demosthenes is fined 50 talents for his part in the
Harpalus affair, and goes into exile. Death of
Lycurgus.
Athenian expedition against Tyrrhenian pirates.
Chronological Table xxiii
B.C.
323 {Early) Alexander receives embassies from the Greek
States at Babylon. {June) Death of Alexander.
Athens forms a confederacy for the liberation of
Greece, and recalls Demosthenes. Leosthenes with
L the allied army defeats Antipater and shuts him up
I in Lamia; but after Leosthenes' death, Antipater
\ escapes and joins Craterus. {Winter) Funeral
Oration of Hypereides.
322 The Athenian fleet is thrice defeated, and finally (in
August) the army of the confederacy is defeated at
Crannon. Athens submits to Antipater, and receives
a Macedonian garrison, and a less Democratic con-
; stitution. {October) Death of Hypereides and of
■ Demosthenes.
DEMOSTHENES
CHAPTER I
THE YOUTH AND TRAINING OF DEMOSTHENES
THE subject of this book is the last struggle of
the Hellenes for liberty, and the part played
in that struggle by Demosthenes. We shall see
him confronting, on the one hand, the external
enemies of his country's freedom — PhiHp, Alexan-
der, and Antipater; on the other, the orators who,
for whatever reason, viewed the resistance to the
Macedonian power with disfavour, and above all
iEschines, his lifelong opponent. It will not be
maintained that the conduct of Demosthenes was
at all points admirable or blameless; but since he
represented worthily, throughout a most critical
period, the highest traditions and instincts of his
fellow-countrymen, and expressed them in a series
of orations the eloquence of which was not only
worthy of their theme, but at its best has never
been surpassed, he is entitled to a distinguished
place among those heroes of the nations, the
2 Demosthenes
memory of whom is among the noblest possessions
of mankind.
Demosthenes the orator was the son of Demos-
thenes of Paeania, ^ a town lying at the foot of the
eastern slope of Mount Hymettus, about ten miles
from Athens. His mother, Cleobule, was the
daughter of Gylon of Kerameis. Gylon, accord-
ing to the story told by ^schines, ' had been ban-
ished from Attica, not having dared to face a trial
on the charge of having betrayed Nymphaeum
— a. town dependent upon Athens, and situated on
the Tauric Chersonese, a few miles south of Pan-
ticapaeum, ^ on the western shore of the Cimmerian
Bosporus. (All around lay the fertile corn-lands
whence Athens derived a considerable part of
her supply of grain.) After his banishment from
Athens, Gylon continued to live in the neighbour-
hood of the Cimmerian Bosporus, and received
from the Spartocidae (the princes who ruled the
league into which the towns on both sides of the
strait were imited) the place on the eastern side
called Kepoi, "the Gardens." There he married
a rich wife who was said to have been of Scythian
descent. She bore him two daughters, whom he ,
sent to Athens, where one of them married an {
Athenian named Demochares; the other married
the elder Demosthenes, and became the mother
of the orator.
The facts with regard to the alleged treachery
* Now Liopesi. »/« Ctes., §§ 171, 172.
s The modem Kertch.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 3
of Gylon cannot be certainly ascertained ; but it is
at least probable that Gylon 's crime amounted to
no more than the transference of Nymphseum,
towards the end of the Peloponnesian War, when
the Athenians were no longer powerful enough to
retain their outlying possessions, into the strong
and friendly hands of the Spartocidse, whose cor-
dial relations with Athens proved to be of great
advantage to her during the following century.
This wise step may easily have been misrepresented
at Athens, and may have led to Gylon 's condemna-
tion. The penalty inflicted was probably a fine,
with banishment until the fine was paid. But
Demosthenes himself tells us^ that although his
grandfather at one time owed money to the State,
the debt was wiped off before his death ; and Gylon
may even have lived his last years in Attica.
-^schines also taunts Demosthenes with his
descent from a Scythian mother.^ It is possible
that he is exaggerating, and that Gylon's wife was
the daughter of a Greek settler in this "Scythian"
district. But if she was in reality of Scythian
origin, it would have involved no serious stigma
in the eyes of the Athenians. In fact, if Gylon's
daughters were bom before the archonship of
Eucleides (b.c. 403-2) they would have been
legally in the same position as the daughters of
two Athenian parents^; and it is doubtful whether
' In Aphob. IT, §§ i, 2. » Cf. Deinarchus in Dem., § 15.
J Dem. in Eubulidem, § 30. Plutarch, Dem., iv., was unable to
test the statement as to Demosthenes' Scythian descent.
4 Demosthenes
the status of the children of an Athenian father
by a foreign mother was ever actually disputed,
even if they were bom after the year of Eucleides.
As the date of the loss of Nymphaeum to Athens
cannot be exactly determined, Cleobule's position
must remain uncertain ; but it is probable that she
was not more than about twenty-two years old
when her son was bom.
Demosthenes the elder was the owner of a large
number of slaves, of whom (at the time of his
death) thirty-three were engaged in the manufac-
ture of cutlery — whence he was named "the
cutler" — and twenty in making couches, and he
had considerable sums of money invested in loans
at interest. With a property which, as reckoned
up by his son, amounted to nearly fourteen
talents, he was considered a wealthy man. He
had performed his obligatory services to the
State not merely punctiliously but generously,
and was regarded by his contemporaries with
respect.'
The year of the orator's birth was probably
384 B.C. * In 376, before he had reached his eighth
birthday, his father died, leaving him with his
mother and his five-year-old sister. The dying
man entrusted his affairs to his two nephews —
Aphobus, his brother's son, and Demcphon, son
of his sister and Demon; and with then he joined
'Dem. in Aphob. I, passim; ^sch. in Ctes., § 171; Plut.,.De»».,
iv. See also Note i at the end of the Chapter-.
» Note 2.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 5
a lifelong friend, Therippides of Paeania.' Apho-
bus was to marry his widow, who was still young,
and to receive with her a dowry of eighty minas;
he was also granted the use of the house and fur-
niture, until Demosthenes should come of age.
The little girl was to be betrothed to Demophon,
and he was to receive a legacy of two talents.
Therippides was to enjoy the interest on seventy
minae during Demosthenes' minority, and in all
other respects the property was to be administered
for Demosthenes' benefit. But the trustees mis-
managed the property for their own advantage,
and neglected the provisions of the will. Had
these instructions been followed, Demosthenes
might reasonably have expected, after ten years,
to receive at least twenty talents, if not more:
instead of which, the estate, when handed over to
him, was not worth more than seventy minas, or
about one twelfth of its value at the time of his
father's death. ^
While Demosthenes' estate was being treated in
this disastrous fashion, how was he himself faring?
A boy of poor physique, thin and sickly,^ he is said
to have been forbidden by his mother to take part
in the vigorous exercises which were an element in
the education of a young Athenian; his delicate
appearance exposed him to the ridicule of other
boys ; and ^schines, '• when they were both almost
' The account of Demosthenes' guardians and their conduct
is based on the three Speeches against Aphobus.
» Note 3. 3 Plutarch, Dem., iv. " In Ctes., § 255.
6 Demosthenes
old men, upbraided him with his early indifference
to his physical condition, and his neglect of the
chase. So, we may perhaps infer, he grew up
solitary and unsociable ; and in the defects of his
early upbringing may possibly be found the origin
of a certain want of geniality in him, of which his
enemies in later days did not fail to make the most, ^
and which perhaps caused him to take an unduly
severe and unsympathetic view of the social
pleasures in which his contemporaries and col-
leagues participated. As for his intellectual educa-
tion, he went, he tells us,' to the schools which
befitted the son of a man of position, though in
another place ^ he accuses Aphobus of depriving
his tutors of their fees, ^schines, indeed, several
times,'* taimts him with being uneducated, but
the context proves that he is thinking of a want of
tact and of taste, rather than of mental equip-
ment. So far as he was really deficient in these
qualities, the fault was probably the consequence
of his early unsociability; and the deficiency in
good taste was shared in no small degree by
-^schines himself.
The determination of Demosthenes to become
a great political orator was formed, so Plutarch
tells us, s in his boyhood, and was prompted by
* Cf. Dem., de F.L.,% 46, Phil. II, § 30; and his attitude towards
the enjoyments of his colleagues in the Embassy.
' De Cor., § 257. 3 /« Aphob. I, § 46.
* In Timarch., § 166; de F. L., § 113, 153; in Ctes., § 130.
» Plut., Dem., V.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 7
admiration of Callistratus, whom he heard speak
either in the Assembly, ' or when making his defence
upon a charge of treason in connection with the
loss of Oropus. ' "When he saw Callistratus
escorted and congratulated by numbers of per-
sons," Plutarch tells us, "he admired his fame
and marvelled even more at his eloquence, as he
observed in him the strength of a born master
and tamer of men's passions. And so he aban-
doned all other studies and the pastimes of his
boyhood, and trained himself in speaking by hard
practice, determined to be some day an orator
himself." Whatever be the truth of this story,
Demosthenes must often have had the opportunity
of hearing Callistratus, before the latter was driven
into exile in 361, and may well have felt inspired
to emulate his example.
As the boy grew up, he naturally became aware
of the mismanagement of his affairs by his guar-
dians; he determined to demand restitution or
compensation ; and no sooner had he come of age,
in the stmimer of 366, than he instituted proceed-
ings against them for breach of trust, suing each
separately and claiming ten talents from each.
In preparing his case, he sought the aid of Isasus,
the most skilled practitioner of the time in cases
* Vit. X Oral. 844b.
'This is Plutarch's version; but as the trial with regard to
Oropus cannot have taken place until 366, the speech which
roused Demosthenes' emulation was probably delivered on some
earlier occasion.
8 Demosthenes
of disputed inheritance, and unrivalled in the
thoroughness and ingenuity with which he applied
every argument of which his case admitted. ^
The suit against Aphobus, of which alone we
have any record, came on first, and the case was
submitted, in the first instance, to arbitration.
Aphobus persuaded Demosthenes to entrust the
decision to three acquaintances, nominated, ac-
cording to custom, one by each party, and one by
consent of both. But the law of Athens allowed
either party to withdraw the case from arbitration
at any time before the verdict was given, and
Aphobus, on ascertaining that the verdict would
be unfavourable to himself, took advantage of this
possibility, and withdrew. The matter then came
before one of the public arbitrators, who were
annually chosen by lot from among the jxirors
appointed for the year. Aphobus tried various
shifts in vain, and the arbitrator pronoimced
against him, but instead of giving a final decision
himself, referred the case (as he was entitled to do
at his discretion) to a law-court.
But four or five days before the trial, which
took place late in 364 or early in 363, Aphobus,
with the help of his friends, made a clever attempt
to evade justice. Under the Athenian naval
' Various stories are told of the financial relations of Demos-
thenes to Isaeus, and of a futile application for instruction which
he made to Isocrates; but the stories are inconsistent with each
other, and rest on bad authority. {Vit. X Oral., 837d, 839e,
844b; Suidas, s. v. 'I<rotoj.)
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 9
system, the duty of equipping and commanding
each trireme for service, when need arose, was
laid upon one or more citizens of sufficient means :
but any citizen who felt that another was more
capable than himself of bearing the burden (which
was a heavy one) might challenge him either to
undertake it or to exchange property with himself.
Now a certain Thrasylochus, a friend of Aphobus,
had been called upon to share the duties of trier-
arch with a colleague, and his share of the cost
had been estimated at twenty minae, on payment
of which his colleague (or a third party, a con-
tractor) had agreed to discharge the actual duties.
Thrasylochus was persuaded without difficulty
to challenge Demosthenes to exchange property
or to undertake the co-trierarchy. The result of
the exchange would have been that all claims
connected with Demosthenes' estate, and with
them the right to prosecute the trustees, would
pass from Demosthenes to Thrasylochus (who of
course had an understanding with Aphobus), and
that Demosthenes would be left without any
chance of obtaining redress from his guardians.
At first, as the property which had actually been
handed over to him was quite insufficient to bear
the burden, Demosthenes was inclined to give a
provisional consent to the exchange, intending to
appeal afterwards to a tribunal which should decide
finally whether the burden of the trierarchy should
fall on himself or on Thrasylochus, and expecting
to win his appeal by demonstrating the fraudu-
10 Demosthenes
lency of his opponents' proceedings. Upon his
consenting to the exchange, Thrasylochus had the
right to inspect and value Demosthenes' property;
and in the course of the inspection, he and his
brother Meidias, of whom more will be heard
hereafter, did wilful damage to Demosthenes'
house, used indecent language in the presence of
his young sister, and uttered all kinds of abuse
against himself and his mother. Worst of all,
they gave the former trustees of the estate a dis-
charge from all claims. Their proceedings appear
to have caused some sensation in Athens, and as
time was pressing, and the suit against Aphobus
was due for hearing in a few days, Demosthenes
broke off the negotiations for the exchange, and
paid Thrasylochus the twenty minae, though he
was obliged to mortgage his house and his other
property in order to do so. He subsequently
prosecuted Meidias for his foul language. Meidias
made no appearance, and was condemned; but
Demosthenes never succeeded in recovering the
damages awarded him. ^
In the action against Aphobus, Demosthenes
conducted his own case. His opening speech was a
clear and businesslike exposition of the value of
the original estate, of the manner in which the
guardians had dealt with it, and of the fiagrancy
of their neglect of the testator's instructions. In
a second speech, he replied briefly, but convincingly,
to a plea put in by Aphobus at the last moment,
» In Meid., §§ 76-81; in Aphob. II, § 17.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes ii
when there was no time left for the production of
evidence to rebut it, and concluded with a pathetic
appeal to the jury in the name of himself and of
his sister, who would depend upon him for her
marriage-portion.
There can be little doubt of the guilt of Aphobus.
Had he been innocent, his case must have been
susceptible of proof in a simple and straightforward
manner; and his subsequent proceedings afford
a strong presumption against his honesty. The
jury found him guilty. Onetor, his brother-in-law
and a pupil of Isocrates, entreated them to assess
the damages at one talent only, and promised
himself to guarantee payment of that simi; but
the jury awarded Demosthenes ten talents — the
whole amount claimed.
Instead, however, of paying the sum, Aphobus
departed to Megara, and took up his residence
there as a domiciled alien. Demosthenes was of
course entitled to seize Aphobus' property, though
the State gave no assistance in the first instance in
the recovery of damages awarded by a court : but
before his departure, Aphobus had taken steps to
render it as difficult as possible for Demosthenes to
obtain effectual satisfaction. He dismantled his
house, tore down the doors, broke up the wine-vat,
and removed the slaves. He made a present to
his friend ^sius of a block of buildings which he
owned, and to Onetor of his land, in order that
Demosthenes might be forced to institute pro-
ceedings against them if he wished to seize the
12 Demosthenes
property. Besides this, he made an attempt
which, if successful, would have secured the virtual
reversal of the verdict against him. He prose-
cuted Phanus, one of Demosthenes' witnesses
at the trial, for perjury, and was assisted in the
preparation of the case (and also, as Demosthenes
asserts, in the procuring of false witnesses) by
Onetor. Demosthenes defended Phanus, and had
no difficulty in proving his case. But his troubles
were not yet at an end ; for when he attempted to
take possession (as he was entitled to do) of a
piece of land belonging to Aphobus, he was driven
out of it by Onetor, who professed to have a prior
claim to the land; and he was forced to prosecute
Onetor for this action. The trial took place in
362: its result is nowhere recorded, but Demos-
thenes' proofs of collusion between Aphobus and
Onetor appear to be imanswerable, and he was
doubtless successful.
The five extant speeches delivered by Demos-
thenes in the course of his attempt to recover his
property are strongly reminiscent of Isaeus.
Some phrases, and even (in the First Speech against
Onetor) a whole passage on the value of evidence
given under torture, are taken verbatim from his
teacher. Yet these speeches already show pro-
mise of greater work than Isaeus ever produced.
In his complete mastery of his subject, in the clear
exposition of facts, in the skill Mdth which the
narrative and the argument are dovetailed one into
the other, and in the ability which is shown not
11
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 13
only in formal proofs, but in argument from prob-
abilities and indications (particularly in the
Speeches against Onetor), Demosthenes is the
follower of his teacher. But in the eloquence of
the more pathetic passages he surpasses all his
predecessors ; and though now and then the expres-
sions of strong indignation which he uses have the
appearance of being studied, rather than quite
spontaneous, and stand out rather too conspicu-
ously in the somewhat dull and uniform texture of
the main part of the speeches, there is even in
these some evidence of power, not yet entirely
conscious of itself, nor entirely under control, but
obviously capable of development. It is said^
that the fierceness which Demosthenes displayed
in his attack upon his guardians earned for him
the nickname of Argas — the name of a venomous
serpent; and it is not improbable that these early
experiences engendered in him a certain bitterness
— a quality which was always liable to show itself
in him in later days, when he was strongly moved.
We do not know what terms Demosthenes made
with Therippides and Demophon, or whether he
came to terms with them at all. But it is scarcely
likely that, after the verdict which had been given
against Aphobus, they did not attempt to make
some arrangement with him. We hear, however,
of lawsuits against Demophon's father and brother,
Demon and Demomeles. The elder Demosthenes
had lent money at interest to Demomeles,^ and
' iEsch., de F. L., § 99; Plut., Dem., iv. » In Aphob. I, § n.
14 Demosthenes
Demosthenes may have tried to recover from the
father what was due from one or both of his sons.
Against Demomeles he brought an action before
the Coimcil of Areopagus^ on account of a woimd
in the head which Demomeles had inflicted upon
him — possibly in the course of disputes with
regard to the property — but afterwards abandoned
the case, and accepted a siim of money in com-
pensation for the injury.^ ^schines states that
Demosthenes inflicted the injury upon himself,
and accused Demomeles of causing it, in order to
extract money from him. Such a statement from
such a source carries no weight; but it is plain
that the long series of quarrels with his relations
cannot have contributed to the young orator's
peace of mind or good temper, and also that he
was himself already a dangerous person to quarrel
with.
In spite of the verdicts of the courts, it is un-
certain how much Demosthenes recovered of his
estate. Plutarch says that he failed to get back
even the smallest fraction, but this must be an
exaggeration : there can be little doubt, for instance,
that he took possession of Aphobus' house, ^ and
it is imlikely, as we have seen, that he recovered
nothing at all from the two other guardians. For
some years indeed he followed the profession of a
writer of speeches, but we cannot be sure that it
' This Council dealt with cases of actual or attempted murder.
' De F. L., § 93.
3 This is implied in the Second Speech against Onetor, § i.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 15
was poverty that obliged him to do so. ^schines
asserts^ that Demosthenes made money out of
rich young men, and particularly out of the half-
witted Aristarchus, whom he deluded with the
pretence that he could make him a great orator.
The story of Demosthenes' relations with Aristar-
chus is more than doubtful, and no other pupil
of Demosthenes is known to us by name. But it
is probable that down to the year 345 or there-
abouts he was ready to teach young men the art
of speaking^ and to compose speeches for others,
though he did not appear in court as an advocate
for others in person after he entered political life.^
The profession of speech-writer was not one
which was in good repute in Athens. This was
partly due to the feeling that a good case needed
no professional ingenuity to support it ; and so not
only did Lysias and other'' orators deprecate the
deceitfulness of the "clever speaker" and treat
his skill as a proof of his dishonesty, but Isocrates,
who in his earlier days wrote speeches for clients,
afterwards actually denied having done so, and
spoke of the practice with contempt. Besides
this, the fact that the professional advocate or
speech- writer was paid for his work^ suggested a
certain unscrupulousness to the Athenian mind,
which disapproved of the making of money either
» In Timarch., §§ 170-2; de F. L., § 148; in Ctes., § 173. See
Note 4.
'This is implied by ^sch. in Timarch., §§ 117, 173, 175.
sPseudo-Dem. in Zenoihemim, § 31.
* See below, p. 19. s Note 5.
1 6 Demosthenes
by rhetorical practice or by philosophical teaching.
Demosthenes* opponents, ^Eschines and Deinar-
chus, make the most of the supposed iniquity of the
profession, though Demosthenes returns the charge
upon iEschines' own head with some force. '
But Demosthenes' real motive for undertaking
the composition of speeches for others may have
been the desire, not to make money, but to acquire
practice in the art for himself, with a view to his
intended career. Plutarch* tells us that he also
profited by the speeches and litigation of others,
going over each case again, when he returned from
the court, — reflecting upon the arguments used,
considering how the matter might have been better
treated, and remodelling the expressions which he
remembered, imtil he was perfectly satisfied with
them; applying, in fact, the same process of cas-
tigation and revision to which in later days he
appears to have subjected his own work.
Nor was this all. It was doubtless during the
ten or twelve years after he came of age that
Demosthenes acquired the knowledge of Greek
history which he so often displays. The story of
his having copied out Thucydides eight times ^ is
^yEsch. in TtmorcA., i., §§ 94 (with schol.), 125, 175; de F. L.,
§§ 99. 165 ; Isocr., deAntidosi, §§ 37-44 ; de Sophistis, §§ 19 S.. ; Dein-
arch. in Dem., §111; Dem,, de F. L., § 246.
'Plut., Dem., viii.
3 Lucian, irpis rbv AvaldevTov, § 4. Equally apocryphal is the
tale in Zosimus* Life of Demosthenes that when the library at
Athens was burnt, and the MS. of Thucydides destroyed, Demos-
thenes wrote out the historian's work from memory.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 17
indeed apocryphal. But that he was thoroughly
familiar with the historian, the evidence of his
earlier style leaves no doubt; and he also dis-
plays the same habit of referring events and
past and present conditions to their causes, the
same serious view of the moral aspect of political
affairs, and the same manner of stating and apply-
ing general principles of action and policy, as
does Thucydides, both in the speeches included
in his history, and in his own reflections upon
events. In the history of Thucydides he must
have studied the portraits of statesmen of widely
different types, and familiarised himself with the
better and the worse methods which statesmen
could employ. For him, as for modem readers,
Thucydides was doubtless a school of political
instruction without a rival, as well as a collection
of masterpieces in the older style of Athenian
eloquence. "^
The style, however, of Thucydides could not
be made suitable, without great modification, to
the practical affairs of the middle of the fourth
century. His stiffness and compression were ill-
fitted for carrying away the jury or the Assembly,
and the perpetual use (which was characteristic
of him) of the antithetical figiu-es of speech, valu-
able as these always remained for certain purposes,
would have seemed artificial and monotonous
' The speeches in Thucydides' history were probably less widely
removed than is commonly supposed from the style actually
adopted by Pericles; but this is not the place to argue the point-
1 8 Demosthenes
to the audiences which Demosthenes addressed.
In parts of the first extant speech of Demosthenes
to the Assembly — the Speech on the Naval Boards,
delivered in 354 — these Thucydidean character-
istics are somewhat conspicuous; but he became
more discriminating in his use of them before long.
Since the history of Thucydides had been written,
two new styles had sprung up. The one, of which
Lysias had been the greatest master, was partic-
ularly serviceable for private lawsuits. It consisted
in a studied simplicity, an apparent innocence
of all artifice, which must have been (as it still is)
extremely attractive, especially when so modified
in the case of each litigant as just to suit his
particular character. Almost every speech of
Lysias appears as if it were the absolutely natural
and unstudied utterance of the client for whom it
was composed. Only in prologue and epilogue,
and sometimes in moralising upon the actions or
the characters described, the tone is somewhat
heightened, and some of those artifices which
distinctly separated oratory from conversation
reappear, though even so they are not thrust for-
ward. A more artificial style is also to be seen
in the four speeches of a public character which
Lysias composed. But in general the effect of
Lysias' writing is that of conversation in which,
without any sign of effort on the speaker's part,
every word is just the right one, and is ut-
tered in just the right place. The arrangement
of the speech is almost invariably simple — intro-
A
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 19
duction, narrative, argument, and conclusion
following one another artlessly and straightfor-
wardly. From many indications^ it is clear that
the mistrust of the "clever speaker," to which
allusion has already been made,^ was strong in
the days of Lysias, and there was always a risk
that suspicion would be aroused if a private per-
son spoke in an ingenious, elaborate, or artificial
manner. In the same spirit, -^schines and others
made it a reproach against Demosthenes himself
that he elaborated his phrases and arguments like
a sophist; and the reason which Plato gives ^ for
the fact that the great speakers of the fifth century
had not published their speeches was that they
were afraid of being thought sophists. In the
speeches composed for clients by Demosthenes
himself, it is noteworthy in what apologetic tones
the speaker is made to introduce arguments which
show an acquaintance with law or with precedents
beyond the range of the ordinary man's knowledge ;
and how more than one speaker emphasises his
own want of familiarity with the courts and com-
pares it with his litigious opponents' long practice in
conducting lawsuits. Even in speeches dealing with
matters of public interest, Demosthenes makes his
client warn the jury against the "clever speaker." '»
' e. g., Lysias, xii., § 86, xviii., § i6, xxvii., § 5, xxx., § 24. Lysias
was already writing speeches before 399, when Socrates was
condemned partly for making the worse cause appear the better.
'See above p. 15. ^ Phcsdrus, 2S'jd.
*e. g. in Androt., §§ 4, 37; in Aristocr., § 5.
20 Demosthenes
Demosthenes' speeches have not, it is true, the
absolute and artless simplicity of Lysias. For
although in certain cases of a trivial kind the time
allowed was so short that only a concise statement
of the facts and recital of the laws was possible,
in most of his speeches the arrangement is care-
fully planned so as to emphasise the important
points; and the narrative, the proofs, and the reply
to the actual or anticipated argiunents of the
opponent are interlaced (after the example of
Isaeus) in a manner which is artistic without ceas-
ing to be lucid, and which offers more variety to
the hearer than a merely consecutive treatment of
the several elements in the speech. The argu-
ments, especially those which are drawn from
considerations of general morality or of public
interest, are often more like those of a statesman
than of a plain man, and the contentions of the
speakers on points of law are sometimes subtle and
ingenious. Dionysius of Halicamassus (an ad-
mirable critic of the last century B.C., and a very
discerning student of the great orators in particular)
says that, as compared with Lysias, Demosthenes,
like Isagus, aroused suspicion even when he had a
good case.^ But modern readers, more familiar
with the ingenuity of lawyers, and more conscious
that legal questions can only be settled by the
careful sifting of legal arguments, are less likely
to feel this; and in fact the private speeches, at
least, of Demosthenes display, to a degree only
' Dion. Hal., de Isceo, iv.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 21
surpassed in the work of Lysias himself, the art of
adapting the language and tone of the oration to
the characters of the several speakers, and of
giving an impression of innocence and honesty.
They show also on occasion, as do the speeches of
Lysias, a sense of humour which rarely appears in
the political orations.
The other style which influenced Demosthenes
(coming into prominence soon after that of Lysias)
was the style of Isocrates, itself a development of
that of Thrasymachus, of whom as an orator we
know little except that it was he who first intro-
duced the deliberate use of rhythms into oratory.
While Isocrates employs the antithetical figures, at
times to excess, he does not merely arrange anti-
thetical clauses in pairs, but builds up periods of a
more elaborate kind out of clauses symmetrically
arranged and characterised by dominant and often
corresponding rhythms. Such work is pleasing
for a while, but its rhythmical character and its
studied symmetry are too obtrusive; its obvious
artificiality soon cloys; its regularity becomes
monotonous. It is not surprising that Isocrates'
speeches could not be declaimed in the Assembly
or the Law-Courts, and that his influence was
achieved through the circulation of his writings
in many copies.
But the value of rhythmical effects and of a
periodic structure in oratory, and particularly
in oratory addressed to an aesthetically sensitive
people, such as the Athenians were, did not escape
22 Demosthenes
Demosthenes; and his mastery of all the varieties
of oratorical rhythm must have been largely
acquired in his eariy years. He is never the slave
of rhythm, and is never bound to a single type of
sentence-structure, but uses every type as he
requires it, and never allows any to pall. For
such complete mastery long practice must have
been needed. Some of Isocrates' greatest writings
were issued before Demosthenes' first extant
public oration was deHvered, — the Panegyricus
in 380, the Platceicus in 373, the Archidamus in
366, the Speech on the Peace probably in 356, and
the Areopagiticus in 355.^ There is no need to
take literally the story ^ that Demosthenes obtained
surreptitiously the technical treatises of Isocrates
and other rhetorical teachers of the time and
learned them by heart. The principles of Isoc-
rates' art must have been well known, in the days
of Demosthenes' youth, to all who were interested
in rhetoric, through his pupils, and through his
and their works; and it was doubtless by the close
study of these works that he was enabled to adapt
the principles to the purposes of practical oratory.
With the matter of Isocrates' writings Demos-
thenes can have been little in sympathy, and it is
only in his earliest work that we seem to have any
unmistakable echo of Isocrates' sentiments. It
is true that Isocrates, like Demosthenes, traced
much of the evil of his times, first, to the prevail-
' For the dates see Drerup, Isocratis opera omnia, I, pp. cliii. flf.
»Plut.,Z?ew.,v.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 23
ing love of pleasure and the unwillingness of the
citizens of Athens to undertake personal service
for the good of the community; and secondly, to
the refusal of the Athenian people even to listen
to those wise advisers who would not prophesy
smooth things. He was also, like Demosthenes,
deeply impressed by the perpetual discord of the
Greek States with one another, and by the cruelties
and the mischief perpetrated by the mercenary
armies which the cities employed to do their work ;
he expressed, as Demosthenes did (particularly in
middle and later life), the strongest Panhellenic
feeling, and aspired to bring about a union of all
the Hellenes, with Athens as their centre. The
two writers had, moreover, many ideas in common
in regard to the history and traditions of Athens,
and appealed to the same outstanding examples
of her action in the past. But nothing could be
more alien from Demosthenes than the academic
suggestions by which Isocrates sought to remedy
the mischiefs of the age — the vague sentiment (not
altogether unjustified as a sentiment, but quite
unpractical as a policy) in favour of some kind of
monarchy, whether it was to be exercised by Jason
of Pherae, or by Dionysius of Syracuse, or by
Philip; the fancy that Philip could be converted
into a regenerator of Hellas, or a purely unselfish
leader of a voluntary Panhellenic coalition; the
dream of a return of the city to the form of govern-
ment which existed in the days when the Council
of Areopagus was supreme ; the idea of healing the
24 Demosthenes
disunion of the States by causing them to under-
take a united campaign against Persia under the
leadership of Athens and Sparta, or of Archidamus,
or of Philip himself. When Demosthenes himself
made a proposal on any subject, every point was
worked out in detail, in a practical and business-
like manner: the half -thought-out generalities of
Isocrates must have been almost repulsive to him ;
and as for Isocrates' favourite nostrum — a luiited
war against Persia — it must have been perfectly
obvious that, so far from it being possible to achieve
union by organising a campaign against Persia,
no such campaign was possible imtil some kind of
unity was enforced: and when in fact, after Isoc-
rates' death, Philip and Alexander imposed a
formal imity, and Alexander led an army drawn
from many of the Greek States into Asia, no real
or effective union — certainly no tmion of spirit —
between the States at home was after all achieved.
Isocrates' attitude both towards Philip and towards
Persia was the exact opposite of that which Demos-
thenes adopted when his policy was fully matured.
Isocrates wished to set Philip at the head of the
Greeks in order to crush Persia: Demosthenes (at
least in 341, as will appear later') desired the al-
liance of Persia in order to prevent Philip from
becoming the head of the Greeks. Moreover,
Isocrates' generally anti-imperialistic attitude is
just the reverse of the attitude of Demosthenes
towards empire, even though many passages in
' See below, pp. 316, 340-343. 409. 417-
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 25
Isocrates' writings may express in more fulsome
and artificial language the sentiments which
Demosthenes himself held with regard to the
degeneracy of the People and their behaviour
towards the politicians who advised them.
Yet, poles apart as Isocrates and Demosthenes
were, the younger man learned much from the
elder. Above all, he probably learned from him
the possible influence of speeches published as
political pamphlets. There can be little doubt
that at two very critical times — those of the Social
War, and of the peace-negotiations in 346 — public
opinion was prepared for the measures to which
the policy of Eubulus led, by the writings of
Isocrates; and there can be even less doubt that
the influence of Demosthenes' own speeches was
immensely extended by their publication. The
view, which some recent scholars have maintained, ^
that the speeches which we have were not delivered
at all, but are simply political pamphlets, and that
Demosthenes' real speeches in the Assembly were
far rougher in form and more violent in language,
is based upon very inadequate evidence; and it is
probable that, although the speeches were sub-
jected to some revision before publication, the
divergence between the spoken and the published
form was not great. But it is beyond question
that they owed much of their influence on the
course of events to their appearance as pamphlets ;
and although some few political pamphlets^ seem
' E. g., Hahn and Wendland. See Note 6. ' Note 7.
26 Demosthenes
to have been issued towards the end of the fifth
century, Demosthenes was the first great practical
statesman to make use of methods, the effective-
ness of which in some degree anticipated the power
of the press in modem times; and it was from
Isocrates that he must have learned to use them.
Whether or not Demosthenes came at any time
under the influence of Plato, who died in 347-6, is
doubtful. Cicero, Quintilian, and Tacitus all
allege that he was a reader and even a pupil of
Plato; but the tradition on which they relied
seems to rest on very weak authority,^ and al-
though it is most improbable that he did not know
the philosopher's writings, he can have felt little
sympathy with his opinions. Much as Demos-
thenes lamented the weaknesses of the Athenian
people, he was a whole-hearted believer in demo-
cracy— the constitution which Plato placed lowest
but one in his enumeration of the several types of
State ; and the fact that the philosophic ideal was,
from the point of view of the practical statesman,
unpatriotic and selfish, would also render Demos-
thenes unfriendly to such speculations.
During the years between 365 and 355 — the
years of preparation for his public career —
Demosthenes must not only have familiarised
himself with the work of his predecessors and older
contemporaries, with Greek history and Athenian
law, but must also have written many of those
' See Sandys' note on Cicero's Orator, iv., §16, and the references
there given. See also Note 8 below.
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 27
typical passages which formed part of an orator's
stock-in-trade. For nearly every speaker, and
certainly every rhetorical teacher, formed a col-
lection of prologues and epilogues, and of passages
dealing with each of the more frequently recurring
topics; these he adapted, as might be convenient, to
the purposes of the particular speech upon which
he was engaged. Rhetorical teachers appear not
only to have imparted such collections to their
pupils, but also to have published them, and hence
we find not only verbal or almost verbal repeti-
tions in different orations of the same speaker,
but also passages which are identical in the speeches
of different composers.^ Moreover, the rhetori-
cian or sophist wrote passages both for and against
particular views, and was ready to be of service
to either side ; and the writer of speeches for clients
doubtless found such passages useful. ^ Nor could
the politician, who had already formed his view
and chosen his side, despise the advantage of hav-
ing his opinions upon certain topics, which were
sure to present themselves, reduced to the best
form which he was capable of giving to them : and
many of the general reflections which abound in
Demosthenes' speeches (and particularly those
reflections which occur in more than one context ^)
' Compare the proceinium of Andocides, de Mysteriis, with those
of Lysias, Or. xix., and Isocr., Or. xv.; and Andocides de Paee,
§§3-12, with ^schines, de F. L., §§ 172-6. See also Spengel,
Artium Scriptores, pp. 106, 107. ' Note 9.
J Compare (e. g.) Phil. I, §2, and III, §5; de Chers., §34, and
28 Demosthenes
may owe their origin to his early studies. In his
eariier speeches, when one or another of these
passages is inserted, we can sometimes detect the
joints ; but after a few years, though many of the
generaHsations found in the speeches had probably
been worked up beforehand, they are so perfectly
fitted into their place, and seem to arise so naturally
out of their context, that the artificiality is almost
imperceptible.
An orator must learn not only to compose his
speeches, but to deliver them. It was here that
Demosthenes' greatest difficulties lay. He began
his practice weak-voiced, lisping, and short of
breath; the letter R was especially troublesome
to him; and it has been noticed that, in the statues
of him which are known, the lower lip comes much
less forward than the upper — a defect which is
inimical to clear enunciation. We are told that
he overcame these physical disadvantages by
practising with pebbles in his mouth, repeating
many times the line,
poxOei yap ixlya xD^xa xoTt ^epbv TQxe(poto,*
trying to shout down the breakers on the shore at
Phalerum (where, in Cicero's day, the local guides
were able to show the exact spot where the yotmg
orator's efforts were made^), reciting while running
Phil. Ill, §4; in Aristocr., §§207, 208, and Olynth. iii., §§25, 26.
See also Note 10.
' Odyssey, v., 402. » Cic, de Fin., V, ii., §5.
I
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 29
up hill, learning to deliver many lines in one breath,
and speaking before a mirror to correct his gestures.
More than once he failed, when he rose to address
the People. At his first attempt his periods fell
into confusion, and he was met with shouts of
laughter. As he wandered in depression up and
down the Peiraeus, an old friend, Eunomus of
Thria, met him, and rebuked him because, when
he had a speech to deliver that was worthy of
Pericles, he sacrificed his opportunity from want of
pluck and manliness — from timidity before the
crowd and lack of proper physical exercise. On
another occasion, when he had failed, the actor
Satyrus came to his aid. Demosthenes com-
plained to Satyrus that, although he had sacrificed
his health out of devotion to his studies, the People
would not listen to him, but preferred the speeches
of drunken sailors and fools to his own. Satyrus
bade him recite from memory a speech of Euripides
or Sophocles. Demosthenes did so, and Satyrus
then taught him to speak it in a manner, and with
a spirit, that befitted the character. So effective
were these lessons that Demosthenes came to
regard action, or delivery, as incomparably the
most important of all the elements in the art of
oratory. He built, we are told, an underground
chamber (which was shown for centuries after-
wards), where he daily practised his voice and
delivery, sometimes for two or three months at a
time, shaving one side of his head in order that he
might resist the temptation to go out into the
30 Demosthenes
streets. The amount of truth that there is in
these tales cannot be estimated; but we need not
hesitate to beHeve that Demosthenes showed a
heroic perseverance in his determination to over-
come the physical defects with which he began his
career, and that he made himself perfect in that
"actor's art," which, he told an enquirer, was
first, second, and third among the requirements of
an orator.^
Plutarch tells a story which illustrates the im-
portance attached by Demosthenes to the tone
of the voice. A man came to him and asked him
to plead for him, explaining that he had been
assaulted. "Indeed," said Demosthenes, "you
have not really suffered any injury at all." The
man thereupon raised his voice and cried out,
"What? Do you mean to say that I have suffered
no injury?" "Ah!" said Demosthenes, "now I
hear the voice of an injured man ! " Plutarch adds
that Demosthenes' own delivery captivated the
majority of his hearers, though the more refined
of them thought that he carried his action to a
point at which it became ignoble and effeminate.
The same reproach was brought (so we infer from
Aristotle^) against the dominant school of con-
temporary tragic actors.
^ Cic, Brutus, § 142. Most of these stories are found in
Plutarch. He derived some of them from Demetrius of Phalerum
who professed to have heard them from Demosthenes himself.
Some say that the actor by whom he was assisted was Neoptol-
emus or Andronicus, and that Demosthenes gave him 10,000
drachmae for his help. See Note 11. * Poetics, xxvi.
1
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 31
Nervousness was less easy to overcome than
defective utterance: and on one or two important
occasions of Demosthenes' Hfe this weakness seems
to have recurred.^ Indeed it was always so far
present that he seldom ventured to speak without
preparation. Whether he really increased his
natural lack of robustness by wearing soft raiment
and neglecting bodily exercises, as his enemies
affirmed, we do not know; and the question is of
no importance. He had at least the courage to
pursue his way, undeterred by every obstacle, to
the goal which he had set before himself — that
of becoming a statesman and an orator worthy
of Athens.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I
{On the Private Speeches)
In a study which is particularly devoted to the public career of
Demosthenes there is no need for any detailed account of his
Private Speeches; and the subject is rendered difficult by the
doubts which exist as to the genuineness of many of those which
have descended to us under his name, and the uncertainty of the
criteria by which their genuineness is tested. But they are
sufficiently illustrative of his versatility as an orator to demand
a brief notice.
The Private Speeches which there is good reason to consider
genuine mainly fall between the years 357 and 345. (The dates
of the Speeches against Spudias and against Callicles — both of
which may be quite early, — and of the Speech against Conon,
are unknown.) The short Speech on the Trierarchic Crown was
composed on behalf of ApoUodorus, son of Pasion the banker,*
who seeks to make good his claim to the crown offered by the
* Especially on the First Embassy to Philip (see below, p. 243).
Compare Dem., de F. L., § 206, de Chers., § 68. "Note 12.
32 Demosthenes
State to the captain whose ship was first manned and ready for
sea, and to disprove the claim of his opponents. The expedition
for which the fleet was ordered out was probably that of the year
360, in which Demosthenes himself served, and the trial took
place two years later. The interest of the Speech lies in the light
which it throws on the Athenian naval system — a subject with
which we shall be concerned in a later chapter. The concluding
portion is chiefly devoted to a denunciation of paid advocates,
which falls oddly from Demosthenes, and is of course one of the
tricks of the trade. The trenchant directness of the Speech,
and its outspoken criticism of the attitude of the Athenians to-
wards defaulting captains, are entirely in his own style; and we
can see already the interest in naval affairs which led him a few
years later to propose, and many years later to carry out, a
reform of the Trierarchic system.
The Speech against Spudias, dealing with a quarrel arising
out of a family arrangement, which had been broken by Spudias,
need not detain us. In its tone and style it resembles the Speeches
against Aphobus and Onetor. The case was a comparatively
trivial one, and is briefly, but convincingly, treated.
The Speech against Callicles is more interesting. It is admir-
ably written in the vein of a good-natured man who only wants
a quiet life, but is wantonly attacked by his neighbour, and so
has to appear in court. The speaker and Callicles occupied
adjacent farms, between which ran a road. The speaker's father,
finding that the water which was carried down from the hills
was making a channel for itself in his land, had built a wall,
which diverted the flow. Many years later, a torrent due to a
violent storm broke down an old wall on Callicles' property and
did some mischief. Callicles then brought an action for damages,
and the reply, composed by Demosthenes, not only gives an
interesting picture of Attic country-life, but is also the most
graceful and humorous of his speeches, and shows that, given a
good case, not of too serious a nature, he could adopt a less
solemn tone than was usual with him.
The Speech against Conon is also admirably conceived. A
respectable and even priggish young man claims damages for a
somewhat brutal assault — the culmination of a good deal of
"ragging" on the part of a number of men who had formed
themselves into a club of a lively and dissolute character; and he
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 2>2>
expresses himself in a manner, the unconscious humour of which
must have given a good deal of pleasure to the composer of the
Speech and to the jury.*
The Speeches for Phormio (350 B.C.) and against Stephanus
(350 or 349), delivered in the course of litigation mainly concerned
with banking, raise a problem which so nearly touches the char-
acter of Demosthenes as an advocate and a man, that they must
be more fully treated at a later point in the narrative.
The Speech against Boeotus "On his name " was written in 348
for a certain Mantitheus, who brought an action against his
half-brother Boeotus for illegally taking the same name as him-
self. It is composed in the manner of a blunt and direct speaker,
fond of putting pointed questions one after another, and dis-
playing some humour in the pictures which he draws of the
inconveniences which must arise from the failure of other peo-
ple to distinguish between himself and the much less respectable
person who has taken his name. We do not know, however, what
was to be said on the other side; and, for whatever reason, the
speaker lost his suit.
The two Private Speeches which were probably composed in
or about the year 346 are (like the Speech for Phormio) instances
of a paragraphe or plea in bar of action, based principally
on the fact that the plaintiff had already given the defendant a
release from all claims. In the Speech against Pantasnetus, the
claim made by Nicobulus against Pantsenetus was the result of a
series of complicated transactions in regard to the ownership of
a mine; and the case was tried under the special law regulating
mines. This law required a speedy decision and imposed certain
stringent conditions on the litigants; and it is part of Nicobulus'
plea that the case was not one which properly fell under that
law, and that a number of causes of action which should have
been brought before different courts had been illegally merged
in one suit. The Speech is written for a man possessed of a good
deal of the "humility that humbly commends itself to notice,"
and conscious of the prejudice which must have been aroused by
Pantaenetus' representation of him as a money-lender and a
person whose very manner was suspicious; and it combines some
' The date of the Speech is uncertain; but it may have been
delivered about 355 B.C.
34 Demosthenes
very able character-drawing with great ingenuity in legai
argument.
The other paragraphs was pleaded to bar an action brought
by Nausimachus and Xenopeithes, who claimed a large sum of
money from the sons of their former guardian Aristaechmus.
The speaker pleads that a discharge given to Aristaechmus had
covered all matters connected with the trust, and that the plain-
tiffs' action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The
Speech is short, lucid, and businesslike, except for a piece of
rhetorical ingenuity at the close, where the speaker replies to the
plaintiffs' claim to consideration on account of their large expendi-
ture in the service of the State, by arguing that such a plea brings
discredit upon the city, since it implies that the city makes
excessive demands upon her citizens.
The last of the Private Speeches which can with any prob-
ability be ascribed to Demosthenes himself was directed against
Eubulides, in the year 345. The speaker, Euxitheus, charges
Eubulides with having brought about his exclusion from the list
of citizens (in a revision which took place in 345) by the use of
unfair means, and appeals to the jury, as he was entitled to do,
to restore his name to the list. He speaks as an honest and
straightforward man, not ashamed of his poverty — his mother
sold ribbons and had served as a nurse — and is confident in the
strength of his case, which is clearly and vigorously presented.
These speeches sufficiently illustrate the variety of the aspects
of human nature with which an Athenian advocate had to deal,
and the skill of Demosthenes in dealing with them. While
adapting himself to the character of the speaker, he yet remains,
in most cases, recognisably himself. Even if his more forceful
characteristics are repressed in the main part of the speech — his
irony, his moral indignation, his merciless incisiveness — they are
apt to break out in sudden flashes; and he constantly succeeds
in giving the impression that he stands on a higher moral level
than his adversary, and can afford either to treat him with scorn
or to fall upon him without mercy. But when once he had
attained a position of responsibility in public life, we can under-
stand that he would naturally abandon this lower branch of
oratory, just as, from the time when he first began to take part
in political debates, he ceased to appear personally in court in
the interest of his clients, — doubtless from a desire not to prejudice
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 35
his political prospects by exposing himself to the ill-favour with
which the professional advocate was regarded. It was not until
after 345 that he was in a position really to control the policy
of Athens, and up to that time, while he was in opposition, his
political occupations were probably not so absorbing as to leave
him no time to write speeches for clients. But after this date
we find no more such speeches from his pen; for the suggestion'
that after the accession of Alexander the Great he may have
found himself cut off from political activities and resumed for a
time the profession of advocate (composing among others the
Speeches against Phsenippus and against Phormio) rests on no
solid foundation.
NOTES
1. It is not easy to give the value of the estate according to
modern standards. At the present price of silver, the weight of
silver in a talent (about 57 lbs. avoirdupois) would be worth
little more than £100 (see Goodwin, Demosthenes' Meidtas,
§ 80, note). But its purchasing power would be much greater.
The wages of an unskilled labourer were about ij^ drachmae a
day in the 4th century B.C. (see Beloch, Griech. Gesch., ii., pp.
358,359); they are now perhaps 3s. a day (all told) in England,
and at this rate a talent would buy £600 worth of unskilled
labour. Again, if the price of wheat be taken as a standard,
wheat in Athens in Demosthenes' time (tn Phorm. § 39) cost 5
drachmae a medimnus — about 27 dr. a quarter. It now costs
(March, 1913) 36s. a quarter in London; and at this rate a talent
would be the equivalent of about £400.
2. The date of Demosthenes' birth cannot be exactly deter-
mined, as he himself gives two inconsistent accounts of his age.
In the first Speech against Onetor, § 15, he says that Aphobus was
married in the last month of the archonship of Polyzelus, i. e.,
about June, 366 B.C.; and that immediately afterwards he himself
came of age, t. e., reached his eighteenth birthday. If so, he was
born soon after the middle of 384. Again, in the first Speech
against Aphobus, §§ 4, 17, 19, he says that he was seven years
old at his father's death, and was ten years under guardianship
before coming of age in 366. This also fixes his birth in the archon-
year 384-3. Hypereides (in Dem., Col. 22) refers to him in
* Butcher, Demosthenes, p. 140.
36 Demosthenes
324-3 as over sixty; and this also points to 384. But in the Speech
against Meidias, § 154, he speaks of himself as thirty -two years old.
The date of this speech is disputed, but it was probably composed
(see below, p. 226) late in the summer of 347; and, if so the orator's
birth was assigned to 379. Even if the words Sio koL TpidKovra
are a corruption of Wrropa, (5') Kal rpidKovra (as in Thucyd., ii.,
2, riffffapai /xijvas is a generally accepted emendation of 5iJo
/u^wj), this only brings us back to 381 B.C. — the date given also
by Dion. Hal., ad AmmcBum, I, iv. If the speech was delivered
in 349, as many scholars suppose, the discrepancy is less, but
there are strong reasons against this dating. The date of De-
mosthenes' birth given in Vit. X Oral., p. 845d, is the archonship
of Dexitheus, B.C. 385-4.
3. The real value of Demosthenes' estate has been minutely
discussed by Beloch, Kahrstedt, and others, but the discussion
(which turns upon the interpretation of some difficult passages
in the Speeches against Aphobus and against Polycles) is too
often vitiated by an obvious desire to prove Demosthenes to
have been lying. Demosthenes perhaps exaggerates slightly the
original value of the estate, and slightly tmderrates the amount
which he actually received, but there is no reason to suppose
that he seriously misstates the facts. The scope of this book does
not permit a more detailed examination of the evidence.
4. ^schines states further that when at a later time Aristar-
chus was forced to go into exile on account of a peculiarly shocking
murder of which he was accused, Demosthenes, himself an insti-
gator of the crime, managed to retain three talents which he ought
t3 have given to Aristarchus; and Deinarchus (in Dem., §§ 30,
47) repeats the story with little variation. Demosthenes himself
{in Meid., §§ 104-7, 117-20) stated that the whole story was a
malicious slander, invented and spread by Meidias; and this is
as likely as any other to be the true version of the matter. No
ancient orator is to be trusted when he speaks of the private life
of his opponents, and if there was among the clients or pupils
of Demosthenes a rich young man who afterwards became
notorious, it would be quite in accordance with the character of
Meidias and the practice of Athenian orators to add the details
necessary to involve Demosthenes in the same infamy. The
details themselves are very suspicious. According to .<5)schines
(de F. L., § 148) the murdered man, Nicodemus, had accused
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 37
Demosthenes of desertion. The occasion referred to was probably
the spring of 348, when Demosthenes returned from service in
Euboea to perform his duty as choregus at the Dionysia. But
from the Speech against Meidias, § 103, it appears that the charge
was made, not by Nicodemus, but by Euctemon, at the instiga-
tion of Meidias; and if so, the reason for Demosthenes' alleged
animosity against Nicodemus vanishes. In § 116 Demosthenes
accuses Meidias of charging Aristarchus falsely with the
murder.
5. We do not know whether the profession of speech -writer
was really lucrative. The only indication of the fees charged
is found in a fragment of the defence of Antiphon (edited from a
papyrus by M. Jules Nicole in 1907) in 41 1 B.C., in which Antiphon
says, "My accusers assert that I wrote court-speeches for others,
and got my twenty per cent, for it." But as Antiphon was
suspected of avarice, we cannot be sure that all speech-writers
demanded twenty per cent, of the sum at issue, — still less that the
rate was the same in the time of Demosthenes, half a century
later.
6. There can really be little doubt that the extant speeches
of Demosthenes were delivered substantially in their present
form: and the arguments to the contrary are singularly weak.
It is of course clear that they underwent a certain amount of
revision and alteration, especially through the insertion of passages
here and there to meet the objections of opposing speakers, and
possibly through the modification of some phrases in the light
of the debate. Perhaps also the formal proposals of resolutions
may have been omitted when the speeches were published; such
purely formal sentences would have little interest for readers.
But they may never have stood in the text of the speech at all.
In all probability motions were handed in to the clerk or the
president, and read aloud by him. The objection, which has
been raised against holding the extant speeches to have been
spoken orations, viz., that they contain no definite motions, is to
be answered, partly by these considerations, partly by pointing
out, first, that some of the speeches obviously did accompany
definite motions, and that they do make quite definite proposals,
though not in formal shape; secondly, that some of the speeches
may well be replies to motions; thirdly, that there is no reason
why either Demosthenes or any other speaker should necessarily
38 Demosthenes
have moved a motion in every speech. Other objections that
have been raised are:
(i) That the speeches range over too wide a ground to have
been made upon definite motions in debate. But we do not
know what Hmits were imposed upon irrelevancy in Athens,
and the alleged irrelevancy has been greatly exaggerated; for
the objectors (particularly Hahn) have actually treated as
irrelevant the arguments which Demosthenes bases on broad
grounds of policy and public morality. It is true that the
extant debating speeches of Andocides and Hegesippus do not
make much use of such arguments; but this is part of the differ-
ence between them and Demosthenes, and not a necessary
feature of debating speeches.
(2) That the speeches are not such as Plutarch's description
of Demosthenes' manner would lead us to expect. This
however is a great exaggeration of the truth. It is true that
Plutarch and ^schines quote some phrases from Demosthenes
more violent than any but a few which are found in the extant
orations; but there are close approximations to them, and the
fact that they must have occurred in speeches which Demos-
thenes either spoke ex tempore, or else did not think worth
publication, does not prove that the speeches which he did
think worth publication were never spoken.
The utmost that can be said is that in one or two cases — and
particularly in that of the Third Philippic — there were two
versions of the speech current, possibly owing to a reissue, with
alterations, by Demosthenes himself. But it has now been
shown to be highly probable that versions of some of Demosthenes'
speeches were made up by Anaximenes for his history, partly by
copying passages in genuine published speeches of the orator,
partly by invention or by alteration of genuine passages. To
this or similar causes we almost certainly owe the Speech on the
Constitution (at the time of the Olynthian crisis) and the Reply
to Philip's Letter, — possibly also Philip's Letter itself and the
Fourth Philippic; and it is possible (though not likely) that one
of the versions of the Third Philippic may have arisen in the same
way, or may have been influenced by such spurious rhetorical
work. For the rest, it is hard to understand how an unprejudiced
reader can regard the speeches as they stand as unfit for a debate.
Even a feeble imagination should be able to form some concep-
Youth and Training of Demosthenes 39
tion of their tremendous power, when spoken with the unique
deUvery of Demosthenes. But imagination is not always one
of the gifts of the scholar.
7. Such pamphlets were the pseudo-Xenophontic Consti-
tution oj Athens (425-4 B.C.); Andocides' Speech vphs rods
h-alpovs (shortly after 415); Antiphon's irepl t^s f/xraffraaiui
(in 411); and the irepl woXtreias ascribed to Herodes, but prob-
ably the work of a member of Theramenes' circle in 404. (See
Drerup's edition, p. no ff.)
8. A story is told by a Scholiast on Galen, de Nat. Fac. II,
§ 172, that Demosthenes was expelled by Plato from his class,
because he would only attend to the form and not to the argu-
ment of the remarks made; but that he found his way in by the
garden-gate, and listened for a long time without being detected.
Hence arose the Greek proverb, "to get in by the garden-gate."
(See Probst, in Neue Jahrbiicher xxxi, p. 307.)
9. We find in Antiphon's Speech against the Stepmother
strong assertions of the supreme value of evidence given by
slaves under torture; and in the same orator's Speech on the
Murder of Herodes an equally strong condemnation of this
kind of evidence, as likely to be simply the evidence which will
enable the slave to escape from the torture most quickly.
10. Whether the repetitions in Demosthenes are as numerous
as was supposed by Lord Brougham (in his Dissertation on the
Eloquence of the Ancients) may be doubted. The question really
turns on the view taken of the origin of the Fourth Philippic
(see below, pp. 342 , 356) . He accounts for them by supposing that
the orator "desires to gratify, to please, as well as to persuade;
and that they are come to enjoy a critical repast, as well as to
expatiate and discourse their State-affairs. In this case, the
repetition would heighten the zest at each time; as they who love
music or take pleasure in dramatic representations are never so
much gratified with the first enjoyment of any fine melody or
splendid piece of acting as with its subsequent exhibition."
That Athenian audiences appreciated an oration as a work of art
is undoubted; but it is too much to suppose that they were so
strongly affected by the particular passages which in fact we find
repeated (at considerable intervals of time) as to welcome them
in the manner imagined by Lord Brougham.
11. Dr. Johnson was never tired of denouncing the use of
40 Demosthenes
' ' action ' ' in oratory. ' ' Action can have no effect upon reasonable
minds. It may augment noise, but it never can enforce argu-
ment. If you speak to a dog, you use action; you hold up your
hand thus, because he is a brute ; and in proportion as men are
reinoved from brutes, action will have the less influence upon
them." Mrs. Thrale: "What then, Sir, becomes of Demosthenes'
saying, 'Action, action, action'?" Johnson: "Demosthenes,
madam, spoke to an assembly of brutes — to a barbarous people."
(Boswell.)
12. The theory of Blass that Demosthenes composed the
speech on his own behalf (after he had served as trierarch in
360), and that Libanius is wrong in saying that ApoUodorus was
the speaker, seems to rest on insufficient groimds; but there is
no real reason to doubt that Demosthenes did write the speech.
CHAPTER II
GREECE FROM 404 TO 359
THE condition of the Greek world at the time
when Demosthenes began to take an interest
in pubHc affairs cannot be satisfactorily explained
without a brief review of the course of Greek
history since the downfall of Athens at the end
of the Peloponnesian War. To this the present
chapter will be devoted. ^
So far as Athens herself was concerned, the
calamity, despite the apparent completeness of
her overthrow at the moment, proved to be less
great than might have been expected. The
tyranny of the Thirty, who established themselves
in power shortly after the capitulation of the city
to Sparta, was soon over; and it had at least one
beneficial result, that it brought oligarchy into
lasting disrepute. The democratic constitution
was restored; and although rival orators might
accuse one another of employing oligarchical
methods or of sympathising with oligarchical
' The summary of events here given only attempts to deal with
matters which must be mentioned in order to explain the history
of the succeeding period.
41
42 Demosthenes
ideas, and theorists might hanker after a constitu-
tion more efficient in its practical working than
the Athenian democracy, there was, nevertheless,
— at least for eighty years or so — ^no serious desire
for constitutional change, nor any risk of successful
revolution. The laws of Athens, which had fallen
into some confusion, were revised and brought
into harmony with one another; the city's trade
revived rapidly; her external splendour and her
position as the chief centre both of Hellenic com-
merce and of Hellenic culture brought strangers
to her, as of old, from all countries; and, apart from
some temporary relapses, her history for the next
thirty years was a history of the gradual recovery
of strength and prosperity.
The history of Sparta during the same period
presents a different picture. After the capitula-
tion of Athens in 404 she was for the moment the
strongest State in Greece. But the governors and
"Committees of Ten," which she established
wherever she could, ruled tyrannically, and she
came to be more and more detested. She failed,
moreover, to fulfil the expectations of the principal
States which had assisted her to conquer Athens, —
Corinth, Argos, and Thebes. Corinth wished for
the possession of Corcyra, and for undisputed
supremacy in the seas west of the Isthmus, in
order that her trade in those seas might be secure.
Argos, though not really capable of being more than
a second-rate power, at least expected some im-
provement in her position in the Peloponnese.
S d
is
a: o
S >•
CQ m
I
II
Greece from 404 to J59 43
Thebes desired to be acknowledged as the par-
amount state in Boeotia. Sparta did not gratify-
any of these desires, and all three States, as well
as Athens herself, were ready to turn upon her
when the opportunity offered itself in 395.
In that year the Persian King, Artaxerxes II.,
with whom — nominally in the interest of the Greek
cities in Asia Minor — the Spartans had been at
war since about 400, sent a Rhodian named Tim-
ocrates to the principal Greek States, with large
sums of money, to induce the leading statesmen
to cause their several cities to declare war upon
Sparta. (Whether any statesman at Athens took
the bribe is uncertain: in any case Athens needed
little persuasion.) The Thebans incited their
friends the Locrians of Opus to hostilities against
the Phocians; the latter applied for aid to Sparta;
and the Spartans under Lysander invaded Boeotia.
But Lysander was killed in an attack upon Hali-
artus, and when an Athenian force joined the
Thebans, his successor returned to Sparta. In
the next year (394) we find a mixed army composed
of troops from Athens, Thebes, Corinth, Argos,
and Euboea, opposed to the army of Sparta, in
which were contingents from the smaller Pelopon-
nesian states. At first Sparta was successful on
land : but the re-fortification of the Peiraeus, the port
of Athens, was begun in July; on August loth,
the Athenian admiral Conon, at the head of a
Persian fleet, won a great naval victory over the
Spartans off Cnidos ; and in 393 he rebuilt the walls
44 Demosthenes
of Athens (which had been destroyed in 404), a
large body of Theban workmen assisting in the
task. About the same time (probably in conse-
quence of the revival of imperialistic ambitions
in Athens) the moderate leaders who had guided
Athens for some years gave way to Agyrrhius and
other politicians of a more extreme type. The
increase of the payment for each attendance in
the Assembly to three obols made it better worth
while for the masses once more to throw their
weight into politics, and as their interests were on
the whole best served by war, * a markedly militant
tendency began to show itself. The demagogues
unhappily resorted, not infrequently, to prosecu-
tions of their opponents and of the wealthier
citizens in order to obtain money and to find
supplies for the army. The war continued with
varying results for some years: on the whole the
trend of events was adverse to the domination of
Sparta, and she lost to a great extent her hold over
the islands and more distant colonies. Brilliant
generalship was displayed on both sides: the
Athenian Iphicrates in particular distinguished
himself by his use of the newly devised force
of peltastae — composed largely (though not en-
tirely) of mercenaries, and more lightly armed,
though equipped with longer weapons, than the
heavy hoplite forces which had been customarily
employed — as well as by new tactical methods,
which at first were extremely successful. On one
' See below, p. 74.
II
Greece from 404 to J5p 45
occasion he surprised and destroyed a whole di-
vision of the Spartan army near Corinth.
In 392, the Spartans, hard-pressed for money,
made an abortive appeal to Persia for the dictation
and enforcement of a Peace. A similar appeal
conveyed to Susa by their admiral Antalcidas in
387 was more successful ; and the position of Athens
at the end of the year was seriously threatened
both on the Hellespont and at home: her finances
were exhausted ; and she had really no alternative
but to submit to the Peace, which was finally
concluded in the winter of 387-6. Any desire on
the part of Corinth and Thebes to resist was
quelled by the mobilisation of the Spartan army;
and when the Great King's letter was read to the
assembled representatives of the Greek States,
the terms of the Peace were generally accepted.
They seemed, indeed, to provide a temporary
solution, if not altogether an honourable one,
both of the disputes between the Greek States
themselves, and of the position of the Greek cities
in Asia Minor in relation to the King. These
cities, with the islands of Clazomenae and Cyprus,
were now to become part of the King's Empire.
All other Greek cities were to be independent,
except that the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and
Scyros were still to belong to Athens. The King
declared his intention of making war upon any
State which would not accept the peace; and
although Thebes made an effort to obtain the
recognition of her supremacy in Boeotia, she was
46 Demosthenes
obliged to give way, and to allow the towns of
Orchomenus, Platseae, and Thespiag to be estab-
lished as independent centres — centres, that is,
at first of Spartan, and before long of Athenian,
influence within Boeotia.
The ratification of the Peace of Antalcidas is an
event of the highest importance for the history of
the next half-century. On the one hand, the
Peace provided as it were a charter of liberty to
all the smaller States; and it could always be
appealed to by a larger State desirous of putting
a rival in the wrong by accusing it of menacing
the autonomy of weaker cities.^ But, on the
other hand, the final abandonment of the Asiatic
Greeks to the Persian Empire, and the acknowledg-
ment of the right of the King of Persia to dictate
terms to the Greek States, are very significant of'
the difference between the spirit of the fourth
century and that of the fifth, when any concession
to Persia was thought of as treason to the cause of
liberty. From this time onwards, the possibility
of Persian interference in the internal affairs of
Greece was always in the background of men's
thoughts, whether they thought of such inter-
ference as a means of securing their own ends, or
as a danger to be guarded against; and the influ-
ence of Persia by means of the "Persian gold," of
which we hear so much, became from time to time
a real and a very unfortunate element in Greek
political life, creating suspicion everjrwhere, and
*Comp. Xen., 77e«., VI, Hi, §7, etc.
m
Greece from 404 to j^q 47
affecting for the worse both the course of debate
in the councils of Athens and the administration
of justice in her courts.
The Peace of Antalcidas, however, did not in
fact allay hostilities in Greece itself. It did indeed
put an end for the time to direct hostilities between
the Greek States and the Persian Empire: for
although the rebellious subjects of the Empire —
particularly Euagoras in Cyprus, and Tachos and
Nectanebos in Egypt — were greatly assisted by
Athenian generals and soldiers, these were not
acting in the name of Athens, and the Athenians
were more than once obliged to recall their generals
at the request of the King. But in Greece itself
the Peace was not perfectly satisfactory to any one.
Athens, though the retention of the three islands
was a concession to her dignity and an advantage
of the first importance to her trade, was ashamed
of the affair, got rid of the statesmen who had
influenced her in the matter, and for many years
followed the lead of Callistratus in their stead.
The antagonism between Thebes and Sparta was
not to be lightly healed, and the desire of the
Spartans to recover their supremacy over the
Peloponnese could not remain at rest for long.
They did not indeed formally break the Peace.
Their interferences with other States were, it
seems, justified technically by the receipt of an
invitation from the oligarchic party in the State
interfered with, and by the pretence that that
party represented the government of the State;
48 Demosthenes
so that nominally they merely placed their troops
and governors at the service of the local govern-
ment. But the effect was the same as if they had
openly broken the Peace. In 385 or 384 they
compelled the people of Mantineia (the largest
town in Arcadia, and generally a centre of resist-
ance to Sparta) to destroy their walls and to live
in four or five villages, each under a Spartan gover-
nor, instead of in a town in which they could for-
tify themselves, and could also listen more easily
to the harangues of the advocates of liberty. In
379 they conquered Phleius after a siege of twenty
months, and their influence throughout Greece
appears for a time to have recovered rapidly. In
the North the town of Olynthus, the head of the
Chalcidic League, had taken advantage of the
weakness of Macedonia to extend its power over
the Chalcidic peninsula and (in spite of a nominal
alliance with the Macedonian King, Amyntas III.)
even over part of Macedonia itself. Amyntas
joined two of the threatened Chalcidic cities,
Acanthus and ApoUonia, in an appeal to Sparta.
The Spartans responded by sending an expedition
against Olynthus, which, after a long struggle, was
in 379 forced to become a member of the Spartan
alliance. The position of Amyntas was, of course,
greatly strengthened ; but at the time no one could
foresee that the power of the Macedonian mon-
archy would grow so great as to make it very regret-
table that Olynthus and the Chalcidic League had
not been suffered to remain as a bulwark against it.
Greece from 404 to jjQ 49
In 383 or 382, a Spartan force under Phoebidas,
on its way to Olynthus, contrived to seize the
Cadmeia, the acropolis of Thebes. (The Thebans
were at the time led by democratic statesmen,
hostile to Sparta, and had refused to join in the
campaign against Olynthus; while Phoebidas was
aided by oligarchical conspirators within the
walls.) The Spartans remained in possession
until 379, when their garrison was expelled by the
democrats, who had been living in exile in Athens,
and who now formed a successful plot for the
recovery of their native city. The attitude of
Athens was peculiar. Strongly opposed as she
had been to the policy of Sparta, the Spartan
occupation of Thebes had been an advantage to
her, since she had been enabled thereby to recover
from Thebes the frontier town of Oropus, the
possession of which was of great consequence ; and
the Spartans had re-established Plataese, between
which town and herself there had always been
friendship : she was also intimidated by the proxim-
ity of the Spartan army, and in consequence was not
prepared to go to war; she even sentenced to death
the generals who of their own accord had helped
the Theban exiles; and she would probably have
come to an arrangement with Sparta immediately,
had not the Spartan admiral Sphodrias invaded
Attica, and done some damage before he retreated.
The action of Sphodrias had not been ordered
by the Spartans, but they refused to punish him
on his return. Instead, therefore, of making peace
50 Demosthenes
with Sparta, the Athenians organised a new league,
with the avowed object of mutual protection
against the Spartans and their infringements of
the Peace of Antalcidas ; any States which were not
subject to the Persian King were invited to join,
and the terms of the Peace of Antalcidas gave some
assurance to the smaller cities that they would
not be oppressed, and made them the more ready
to become members of the league.
The chief burden of the organisation of this
Athenian confederacy (sometimes called the Second
Delian League from its resemblance to the great
alliance of the fifth centiuy) was undertaken by
Callistratus and the two brilliant admirals, Cha-
brias and Timotheus — the latter also a pupil of
Isocrates, whose "Panegyric Oration" in 380 had
probably done something to prepare the way for
the formation of the confederacy. The arrange-
ments were completed in 378 or 377. The synod
of the allies was to be independent of the Athenian
Assembly, and the consent of both was to be
required to all active measures, and particularly
to the declaration of war and peace. The contri-
butions of the allies were not (as were those of the
members of the former Delian League) to be re-
garded or designated as tribute paid to Athens,*
and Athenians were not to hold property in any of
the allied States. Some few of the allies appear
to have contributed ships, but all probably con-
tributed money; and the execution of the plan of
* See Note i at the end of the Chapter.
Greece from 404 to j$g 51
campaign was practically left to the Athenians.
The principal cities which now, or soon afterwards,
became members of the confederacy were Rhodes
and Chios; Mytilene and Methymna in Lesbos;
Byzantium, the great commercial city on the Bos-
porus; Chalcis, Eretria, and other towns in Euboea;
the important island of Corcyra in the west, and the
communities of Cephallenia, Zacynthus, and Acar-
nania, with many others of less note. The adhesion
of Thebes was also obtained — perhaps through the
personal influence of the Athenian envoy Thrasy-
bulus — but could not be counted upon for long.
The active policy pursued by Callistratus and
his associates necessitated financial reforms in
Athens itself. In the same year in which the
League was formed, in the archonship of Nausini-
cus, 378-7 B.C., the war-tax (a tax upon property,
which in theory was only levied in an emergency)
was put upon a new basis. The property liable to
taxation was valued, and divided into one hundred
parts, and those who were liable to the tax were
distributed into Boards or "Symmories." Every
citizen except those whose property was very
small — the limit is uncertain, but was possibly
twenty-five minas — was liable to the tax. By an
arrangement which was made shortly after-
wards, if not at once, the three hundred richest
men in Athens had to advance the amount due,*
' They were probably distributed equally over the Symmories,
three in each, of whom one was the leader of the Symmory.
See Note 2.
I
52 Demosthenes
and were left to recover it as they could from their
poorer brethren. There can be no doubt that,
though the system was liable to abuse, the money
was forthcoming under such an arrangement more
promptly than it wotild have been if there had
been a less complete organisation, and if State-
officials had been obliged to apply directly to a
very large number of individual citizens for
payment.
The power of the new confederacy and the
efficiency of the new method of taxation were soon
proved. In 376 Chabrias gained a great victory
over the Spartans off Naxos, and in 375 he won
over a number of towns on the Thracian coast to
the alliance, while Timotheus operated success-
fully against Sparta around Corcyra and in the
seas west of the Isthmus of Corinth. ^ In the same
year, the Olynthian league was refounded — so
little fear of Sparta remained in that region. But
the cost of the war was heavy. Timotheus in
particular was greatly embarrassed by want of
funds, and the Thebans gave little help. In con-
sequence of this, a Peace was made with Sparta
in 374, by which the supremacy of Sparta on land
was acknowledged by Athens, and that of Athens
at sea by Sparta, and the terms of the Peace of
Antalcidas were re-affirmed. But this Peace was
immediately broken by acts of war on the part of
Timotheus; and in order to get funds for the
prosecution of the campaign in the West, he
' It was in these operations that Aphobus took part as trierarch.
Greece from 404 to 35Q 53
attempted to raise fresh allies in Thrace and the
islands. He seems also to have obtained the
support, for a short time, of Jason of Pheras,
the most powerful ruler in Thessaly. But both
Timotheus and Iphicrates, his successor in the
command, found their supplies insufficient; the
Thebans were becoming more or less plainly-
hostile (for the success of the Athenians could not
but be regarded as a danger to Thebes) and in 373
they had destroyed Plataeae. Accordingly peace
was again made in 371. In a congress at Sparta,
the autonomy of all the Greek cities was once more
publicly asserted; but at the same time the right
of Athens both to Amphipolis' and to the towns
in the Thracian Chersonese was conceded. The
Persian King and Amyntas, King of Macedonia,
were both represented at the congress, and their
admission of the title of Athens to the places in
question was of some significance. But the
Thebans felt themselves strong enough to refuse
to join in the Peace, unless they were recognised
as having authority over all the Boeotians; and
since Sparta declined to acknowledge this, the
Thebans were excluded from the treaty, and
Cleombrotus, with a Spartan army which had
gone to assist the Phocians in their hostilities
' AmphipoHs had been founded by the Athenians in 437. The
Spartans had captured it in 424, and in spite of various attempts,
Athens had never recovered it. It was now an important city
and virtually independent both of the great Greek cities and of
Macedonia; but the Athenians claimed to have a right to it.
54 Demosthenes
against Thebes, was instructed to attack them.
He was utterly defeated in the battle of Leuctra,
and the supremacy of Thebes among the Greek
States was placed beyond doubt ; though a second
congress of envoys from Peloponnesian and other
States, which assembled at Athens before the end
of the year, once more confirmed the provisions
of the Peace of Antalcidas.
The failure of the Spartans at Leuctra was fol-
lowed by the loss of much of their influence in the
Peloponnese. In one town after another, demo-
cratic and anti-Spartan revolutions took place.
The Arcadian peoples asserted their independence
without delay. The walls of Mantineia were
rebuilt in 370; in Tegea the supporters of Sparta
were overthrown; and the new town of Megalo-
polis was founded to be the centre of a number of
Arcadian tribes and the meeting-place of their
representative assembly, "The Ten Thousand."
In 369, the Theban forces under Epameinondas —
and among them troops sent by the Euboeans and
Acamanians, who must have deserted the Athen-
ian alliance for the Theban — appeared in the
Peloponnese to support the Arcadians, who, having
been properly refused aid by Athens (now the
ally of Sparta), had appealed to Thebes. The
Theban army invaded the territory of Sparta, and
established Messene as the capital of Messenia,
at last independent after its long subjection to
Spartan domination.
There is little to be gained by following in detail
I
Greece from 404 to J5p 55
the kaleidoscopic movements of the various States
in the Peloponnese during the next few years.
But it is significant that two attempts were made
to estabHsh a general peace by means of Persian
intervention. In 368-7 a congress was summoned
to meet at Delphi by Philiscus, who had been sent
by Ariobarzanes, one of the King's Asiatic satraps.
It proved a failure; for Thebes and Sparta could
not agree with regard to the independence of
Messenia, and the attempt of Philiscus to enforce
his terms by collecting an army came to nothing.
In the following year, however, representatives
of several of the great Greek powers waited upon
King Artaxerxes himself at his court in Susa, —
Pelopidas from Thebes, Archidamus from El is,
Antiochus from Arcadia, Leon and Timagoras
from Athens. Pelopidas took the lead. The
terms he proposed stipulated for the independence
of Messenia and of Amphipolis, and the with-
drawal of the Athenian war-ships from the sea.
To this Leon refused to listen; and on his return
home he prosecuted his more compliant colleague
Timagoras, who was executed as a traitor.^ The
representatives of the Greek States, who assembled
at Thebes, also refused to accept the proposals
made in the name of the King ; and both the pres-
tige of Persia and the position of Thebes in the
Greek world were distinctly weakened.
In the year in which this congress met (366) the
' Comp. Dem., de F. L., §§ 31, 137, 191. Demosthenes states
that Timagoras received a large bribe from the King.
56 Demosthenes
Arcadians made peace with Athens. But in the
course of the struggle with Elis, in which they were
engaged from 365 onwards, dissensions arose
among themselves as to the use to be made of the
treasures of Olympia, captured from the Eleans;
and the hostilities which resulted from these dis-
sensions, and from the interferences of Thebes
and Sparta, led in the end to the battle of Man-
tineia in 362; in which there fought on the one
side the Theban army under Epameinondas
(including Boeotian, Euboean, and Thessalian
troops), the Arcadians of Tegea and of Southern
Arcadia generally, the Messenians and the Ar-
gives; and on the other, the Spartans, the Arcadi-
ans of Mantineia and Northern Arcadia, the
Eleans and Achaeans, and an Athenian contingent.
The Theban side was victorious, but Epameinon-
das was killed, and his loss more than neutralised
the advantage of the victory.
The policy of Athens had been, since the battle
of Leuctra, antagonistic to Thebes and friendly
to Sparta, and an incident of the year 366 had
increased the hostile feeling of the Athenians
towards Thebes. Themison, tyrant of Eretria,
had seized Oropus, ^ and had put it into the hands
of Thebes, nominally until a proper decision should
be given in regard to the claim of Athens to the
town. Besides this, the Thebans had further
alienated the Athenians, by the destruction, in the
course of the last few years, of Orchomenus,
' See above, p. 49.
Greece from 404 to 3S9 57
Thespiae, and Plataeae.^ But the Athenians were
tired of the unprofitable war, and not long after
the battle of Mantineia a general Peace was made,
Sparta alone standing out. Oropus remained in
the possession of Thebes, ^
Before the battle of Mantineia, the Thebans
had been very active in North Greece, as well as
in the Peloponnese. In the year 370, Alexander,
the son of Jason of Pherae, succeeded to the posi-
tion of overlordship over the whole of Thessaly,
which his father had held for about five years.
But Alexander was exposed from the first to hostile
invasions from Thebes, led by Pelopidas and
Epameinondas. The invaders, though they were
not uniformly successful, proved themselves to be
on the whole the stronger power, and in 363
Pelopidas won a great victory at Cynoscephalae,
though he lost his own life. In one of his earlier
expeditions northwards (in 368) Pelopidas had
forced the Macedonians into alliance with Thebes,
and among the hostages whom he brought to
Thebes was Philip, the future conqueror of Greece,
then not much more than a boy. But after the
death of Pelopidas and Epameinondas the Thebans
do not appear to have interfered in Thessaly, or
to have established any effective control over
Alexander.
During the greater part of the period of Cal-
listratus' ascendancy in Athens, the Athenians had
' See above, p. 53.
' Diod., XV, Ixxxix.; Plut., Ages., xxxv.
58 Demosthenes
remained on good terms with the King of Persia;
but in time their attitude had become somewhat
less guarded. The condemnation of Timagoras
and the refusal of the King's proposals in 366
marked a definite change of policy. In the same
year, or soon afterwards, Ariobarzanes, satrap of
the Hellespont, rose in revolt against the King.
At first Ariobarzanes appeared only to be at war
with rival satraps, and the Athenians sent Timo-
theus to his assistance. As soon as his revolt
against the King himself was declared, Timotheus
was precluded by the terms of the Peace of Antal-
cidas from assisting him further. But Timotheus
consoled himself by besieging and taking Samos,
which was being held, in violation of the Peace,
by another satrap, Cyprothemis. ^ Shortly after-
wards there seems to have been a general revolt
of the subordinate princes in Asia Minor and
Egypt against Artaxerxes II., and not only
Chabrias of Athens, but also Agesilaus of Sparta
went to the aid of the rebellious Egyptians.
Chabrias only returned to Athens in 359. By that
time Artaxerxes II. had died, and had been
succeeded by Artaxerxes Ochus, who proceeded
to take all possible measures for the re-establish-
ment of his authority throughout his dominions.
After the conquest (nominally the liberation)
of Samos, Timotheus in 365 transferred his activ-
ities to the Thracian Chersonese, where the main-
tenance of Athenian influence was of the greatest
^ Dem., pro. Rhod. lib. § 9.
Greece from 404 to 3 $9 59
importance, since the greater part of the corn-supply
of Athens, coming as it did from the shores of the
Bosporus and the Euxine, had to pass through the
Hellespont. Athenian settlers were sent both to
Samos and to the Chersonese ; and Timotheus then
engaged in hostilities with Cotys, who had suc-
ceeded to the kingdom of the Odrysian Thracians
in 383. His predecessor Ebryzelmis had been on
good terms with Athens, ^ and before him Medocus
and Seuthes, who had divided the kingdom between
them, had been brought into friendship with
Athens by the diplomacy of Thrasybulus. Cotys,
on the other hand, showed himself more anxious
to maintain and extend his own power, than to
assist Athens to control the Chersonese; and he
gave Timotheus and other Athenian generals
much trouble. Timotheus also attempted (in
succession to Iphicrates, whose efforts had failed)
to take possession of Amphipolis, the right of
Athens to which had been conceded in the Peace
of 371, both by Amyntas and by the Persian King.
But though Poteidaea and Torone (two important
towns on the Chalcidic peninsula) and, shortly
afterwards, Pydna and Methone were brought
within the Athenian alliance, Timotheus failed
to recover Amphipolis. He also made no headway
against Cotys; nor did better success attend any
of the generals who were sent to the Hellespont
' See Foucart, Les Atheniens dans la Chersonese de Thrace,
p. 6, where a decree of the Athenians in his honour, of the year
386-5, is quoted.
6o Demosthenes
in 362 and 361 , only to be cashiered and prosecuted
on their return.' It was even worse that Alexan-
der of Pheras (now acting in the interests of Thebes)
had built a fleet, occupied the island of Peparethus,
defeated the Athenian admiral Leosthenes, and
made a profitable raid upon the Peiraeus itself.
Moreover Epameinondas had (in 364-3) made a
cruise in the northern waters with a Theban fleet,
and as the result we find the Byzantines, with
the peoples of Cyzicus and Chalcedon, interfering
in the following year with the Athenian corn-
ships.
The policy of Callistratus, who had up till
now continued to direct the Athenian Assembly,
seemed to have failed; he was accused in 361 of
not having given the People the best advice, and
went into exile; his ill-advised attempt to return
to Athens shortly afterwards led to his execution.
For the next few years the most influential states-
man in Athens was Aristophon, a man of advanced
years, who had been powerful early in the centiiry,
but whose known friendly inclinations towards
Thebes had kept him out of popularity for a long
period. The Peace of 362, which has already been
mentioned, was probably due to his influence, and
was made none too soon.
At first, though Athens was now free from direct
■ The events of these years, and especially the proceedings
of the Athenian admirals and navy, are strikingly illustrated in
the (pseudo- Demosthenic) Speech against Polycles, written by
an unknown orator for Apollodorus.
Greece from 404 to 35Q 61
hostilities on the part of Thebes, there was little
improvement in the conduct of military affairs
in the North. Timotheus was again defeated by
the AmphipoHtans in 360-59. In the same year,
Cephisodotus was sent to the Hellespont; but he
had more than his match in Charidemus, a captain
of mercenaries, who was in the service of Cotys,
and, after the assassination of Cotys in the next
year, was practically the guardian and first min-
ister, as well as the general, of Cotys' young son,
Cersobleptes.
The previous relations of Charidemus with
Athens had been chequered. He had served for
three years under Iphicrates; and the latter, when
he had taken hostages from Amphipolis, had en-
trusted them to Charidemus, intending to send
them to Athens; but when in 364 Timotheus
succeeded Iphicrates in the command, Charidemus
gave back the hostages to the AmphipoHtans,
thus removing the strongest inducement to them
to surrender the town, and himself went off to
Cotys. Soon afterwards he agreed to hire his
services to Olynthus, which at this moment con-
trolled Amphipolis; but some Athenian ships
captured him on his way thither; he joined the
Athenian forces instead, and was rewarded with
the citizenship of Athens and other compliments.
He then crossed to Asia Minor, and joined in the
disputes of the satraps Artabazus and Autophra-
dates. Professing to help the former, he actually
took from him (or from his relatives Memnon and
62 Demosthenes
Mentor) the towns of Scepsis, Cebren, and Ilitim;
but he was hard-pressed by Artabazus and cut off
from supplies, and in the hope of obtaining help
from Athens he wrote to the newly appointed
Athenian admiral, Cephisodotus, before the latter
had set sail from Athens, offering to put the
Chersonese in his hands. But for some unknown
reason, Memnon and Mentor relented towards
him, and persuaded Artabazus to let him go
unmolested. He joined Cotys at Sestos (in 360),
and instead of fulfilling his promise to Cephiso-
dotus, laid siege to the Athenian towns of Crithote
and Elasus in the Chersonese, openly opposed
Cephisodotus for several months, and forced him
to make a discreditable treaty, for which Cephi-
sodotus was cashiered on his return home and
fined five talents, only escaping condemnation to
death by three votes. Demosthenes served in
this campaign as trierarch^; Cephisodotus sailed
in his ship, and (according to a statement made by
^schines)^ Demosthenes himself spoke against
Cephisodotus — whether as prosecutor or as witness
does not appear — on his return home.
In the next year (359) events took a turn more
favourable to Athens. Miltocythes, a Thracian
^ He was probably co-trierarch for the year with Philippides
of Paeania (C. /. A., ii., 795 f.).
' In Ctes., § 52. Demosthenes {in Aristocr., § 168) speaks of
the severe punishment inflicted on Cephisodotus, but makes
no reference to any action of his own in the matter. (The ex-
pression which he uses does not, as some suppose, imply that he
thought the sentence unduly harsh.)
Greece from 404 to 35Q 63
prince who had risen against Cotys two years
before and had received promises of support from
Athens, fell into the hands of Charidemus. He
handed him over to the people of Cardia, who were
hostile to Athens, and they put Miltocythes and
his son to death. This cruel deed was followed by
a general outburst of indignation in that part of
Thrace against Charidemus and Cersobleptes
(the successor of Cotys) ; and they were forced to
consent to a partition of the Thracian kingdom
between Cersobleptes, Berisadesv and Amadocus;
the two latter being claimants to the kingdom who
had entered into friendship with Athens, doubtless
for their own purposes, but none the less honestly,
since they stipulated in the treaty of partition for
the restoration of the Chersonese to Athens.
Satisfied with this, the Athenians took no proper
steps to fiilfil their own obligations; they des-
patched no funds to Athenodorus, the commander
of Berisades' army, but merely sent Chabrias with
one ship ; so that Cersobleptes. was able to disown
the treaty, and to make an arrangement favourable
to himself with Chabrias. This arrangement the
Athenians repudiated, but it was not until 358 or
357 that Chares, who had taken command of the
Athenian forces, could oblige him to make a treaty
more in accordance with the original settlement.
Even now, Cardia, which commanded the entry
to the Chersonese from the Thracian side, was
explicitly excluded from the list of places handed
over to Athens. With the sequel to these pro-
64 Demosthenes
ceedings in Thrace we shall be concerned in a
later chapter. ^
We have now reviewed the course of events down
to the year 359, and in some cases for a year or
two beyond. It remains to summarise in general
terms the position of the leading States in Greece
at the point which we have now reached.
Sparta, though still one of the three strongest
powers, was now the least important of the three.
The attainment of independence by the Mes-
senians and Arcadians, with their newly-established
centres at Messene and Megalopolis, left her with
reduced territory and resources, though she was
ready to make an effort, if opportunity arose, to
recover lost ground, especially against the Arca-
dians. The Arcadians themselves were still en-
gaged in hostilities with the people of Elis, and
the possession of the district occupied by the
Triphylians was in particular a matter of conten-
tion between the two peoples. The Arcadians
— at least those whose meeting-place was Megal-
opolis— relied on the support of Thebes; and after
the battle of Mantineia, a Theban force under
Pammenes had been sent to help them to maintain
their independence; but it appears probable (in
the light of subsequent events) that before long a
party gained influence which was desirous of
obtaining support from Athens rather than from
^ The chief authority for the narrative of affairs in Thrace is
the speech of Demosthenes against Aristocrates. See below.
Chap. V ad fin.
^EuS^ '^V^^Br ^
■ ^
■
i-V. Li^fl
H
--»-■ .
^^H
1 jt* -*fl^&^^^^^^^^^^^BI
^^1
Uw^Mb
i^^^^K-
s
Ji
C^Dk^HII^^^I
^^d^l
4n| -'^^^^1
^^^^^1
'^^V^^l
<^jarB - ^9u^^^K^
^^B
/ ''^AM
^^^K-
i^H
^^L: — "
^H
iHnH
1^1
wi-iHi
^H
JplM
^^^^K|
fl
^^jn
^H
ff^S^^'il
■^H
-•"l ' 1
-^Hb -x
^^^1
VM- ^t^M
T^^^l
^ii .JH
k"^9r
4^M
niiH
1^
S
O a.
UJ J
Greece from 404 to j^g 65
Thebes, since the aid of Thebes seemed Hkely to
be less effective now that Epameinondas was dead.
Of the other Peloponnesian states, Corinth and
Phleius had concluded peace with Thebes in 366;
and in 361 Athens came to an understanding with
Phleius, Elis, and the Achaeans; but neither these,
nor Argos, which was unfriendly to Sparta, are of
any importance in the period which lies before us.
Indeed the Spartans themselves play but a small
part in the history of the next thirty years, though
they could still show from time to time that their
bravery and their national dignity had not entirely
left them. The relations between Sparta and
Athens continued to be generally friendly.
The Thebans were fine soldiers, but they needed
great men to lead them; otherwise they had not
the energy or the perseverance to make the most
of their opportimities ; and after the deaths of
Epameinondas and Pelopidas they were far less
dangerous than they had previously been. They
are a difficult people to characterise. The Thebans
proper were a race of aristocrats — self-sufficient
and contemptuous of trade and commerce, ruling
or intending to rule over the inferior towns of
Boeotia, but not attempting to assimilate them or
consult their interests; and they were generally
destitute of the humaner feelings. ^ If they shared
with the Boeotians generally the gift for art and
literature, they did not develop it, any more than
they used their political and military opportimities.
' avaiffdr]Toi, as the Athenians calhxl them.
s
66 Demosthenes
except when stimulated by men of genius. So long
as they could maintain their hold over Boeotia, and
could occupy such a position of superiority over
their neighbours, the Phocians and Thessalians,
as would secure themselves against interference,
they were content to live a life of self-indulgence
at home; though it was of importance to them, if
possible, to protect themselves against Athens by
maintaining a firm footing in Euboea, keeping
Oropus in their own hands, and suppressing those
towns in Boeotia which were actually or tra-
ditionally friendly towards Athens. They were
entirely devoid of all concern for the interests of
the Greeks as a whole. In the Persian wars they
had gone over to the enemy; their alliance with
Philip of Macedon was dictated by equally selfish
motives; and had they not been persuaded by the
extraordinary efforts and eloquence of Demosthenes
to take a nobler course, they might perhaps have
remained lords of Boeotia under the Macedonian
domination, with leisure for the enjoyment of the
pleasures to which they were so much devoted.
In Thessaly the influence of Thebes appears
still to have been felt; but though the Thebans
had shown their power even against so powerful
a prince as Alexander of Pherae, they do not seem
to have taken steps to maintain their footiQg in
the country, and after the assassination of Alex-
ander in 359, his wife's brothers, Lycophron and
Peitholaus, succeeded to the overlordship of
Thessaly. At the same time each of the principal
Greece from 404 to 35Q 67
towns appears to have had its own subordinate
government, and the supremacy of the tyrants of
Pherae was not viewed with favour by rivals in
other cities, such as the Aleuadae of Larissa. The
cavalry of Thessaly were a very valuable addition
to the forces of any power which was able to obtain
their assistance.
Farther towards the north lay the Macedonian
kingdom, which was now suffering, owing to the
death of Amyntas, from disputes as to the succes-
sion, and greatly needed a firm hand. Round the
coasts of the Thermaic Gulf were the colonies now
subject to Athens — Pydna and Methone on one
side, Poteidasa on the other — of which more will be
heard in the future; and over the Chalcidic penin-
sula the chief authority was wielded by Olynthus,
once more the head of a considerable league. Be-
yond this peninsula stretched the coasts of Mace-
donia and Thrace, as far as the Chersonese, and
beyond the Chersonese, the Thracian kingdom was
bounded by the Propontis and the Euxine Sea.
Amphipolis, virtually independent, occupied a po-
sition of great commercial and military importance
near the mouth of the Strymon, and not far to the
north-east rose Mount Pangaeus, with its gold-
mines, worked at present by the islanders of Tha-
sos, who were colonists from Athens. On the
Thracian coast the more important Greek towns
were Abdera, Nicaea, and Maroneia, and, between
the Chersonese and the Bosporus, Perinthus and
Byzantium, the latter exercising supremacy over
68 Demosthenes
Selymbria and Chalcedon, and in virtue of its sit-
uation commanding all the traffic in com and other
commodities which passed backwards and forwards
between Greece and the Euxine coasts.
We may now turn to Athens. No longer able
to stand alone against a combination of other
powers, and no longer generally acknowledged as
the leader of the Greek States (as she had been in
the great days after the Persian wars in the fifth
century) , Athens was nevertheless the most power-
ful single State in the Greek world. No city headed
so extensive and important an alliance. Corcyra in-
deed fell away in 361, and Byzantium, with the
neighbouring towns, had for some time been un-
friendly ; but in 359 the greater number of the mem-
bers of the Second Athenian Confederacy were still
loyal ; and in the course of the next two years most
of the Euboean States, which had passed from the
Athenian to the Theban alliance about twelve
years before, were set free from the Theban domi-
nation, at their own request, by an Athenian fleet
commanded by Timotheus, and became adherents
of Athens. (This event made a great impression
on Demosthenes, who served as trierarch in the
expedition. Timotheus had roused the Athenians
so effectively by his address to the Assembly, that
the expedition had started within three days af-
ter it had been resolved upon.^ The influence of
' De Chers., ad fin. The expedition is placed by Diodorus, XVI,
vii., in the year 358-7. Kahrstedt (Forschungen, pp. 70, 71) de-
cides for the late summer of 357, i.e. the year 357-6.
Greece from 405 to j^Q 69
Athens thus extended over most of Euboea, over
the important islands of Lemnos, Imbros, Scyros,
and Samos (as well as others), over most of the
coast-towns on the Thermaic Gulf, and over the
Thracian Chersonese and a number of towns on
the south coast of Thrace. No other power had
so numerous a fleet; her commercial activity and
prosperity were unrivalled; and she was on very
friendly terms with the princes who ruled the corn-
lands about the Cimmerian Bosporus, ^ with which
her trade was especially large. She was free from
serious internal division, and her democratic con-
stitution stood in no danger of disturbance.
Yet there were elements of weakness in her
condition, which were soon to become actively dan-
gerous. The raison d'etre of the Second Confed-
eracy— mutual protection against Sparta — had
long ceased to exist; and her policy was becom-
ing less and less one in which the allies had any
interest. Nevertheless their contributions were
still exacted, and even collected by Athenian
admirals at the head of their fleet, and were used
for any campaign in which they were at the moment
engaged: while the resumption by the Athenians
of the practice of sending out "cleruchs," or colon-
ists who settled and held land in allied States, was
contrary to the spirit, if not (in the case of the
particular States concerned) to the letter, of the
agreement with the allies.
Moreover there were features in the constitution
' See above, pp. 2, 59.
70 Demosthenes
and in the financial and military arrangements of
Athens which were to be a source of great weakness
in the next years; and before we can pass to the
events of the first years of Demosthenes' political
life, we must consider at some length the political
system within which, like other Athenian statesmen,
he had to work.
NOTES TO CHAPTER II
1. Francotte {Les Finances des Cites Grecques) points out that
the difference between 4>6poi ("tribute") and (nitn-a^is ("con-
tribution") was not merely nominal. The (pdpos had been
practically determined by Athens; the ffvvrd^eis were arranged
by the (rwidpiov of the allies, and confirmed by the Athenian
Assembly. The <p6pos was used by the Athenians at their own
discretion; the ffwrd^en were to be employed only for the objects
of the Confederacy. Comp. F. W. Marshall, The Second Athe-
nian Confederacy (Cambridge, 1905) and Phillipson, International
Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome, vol. ii., pp. 19-24.
2. The details of the system introduced in 378-7 are keenly
disputed, and to discuss them here would take too much space.
The method of vpoeur^pd (payment by rich men in advance)
was certainly in vogue at the time of the Speech against Polycles
(§§ 8, 9), i.e. in 360. Whether it can be proved to be earlier
depends on the interpretation of Dem. in Aphob. I, §§ 7, 8, 9;
ii., §4; pro Phano, §59, etc. I beHeve that the payments which
Demosthenes' guardians are there stated to have made were
made by way of vpoeur<(>opd, and if so, this method of collection
was in use in 376, and must have been the original one under the
law.
II
CHAPTER III
THE ATHENIAN STATE IN THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C.
THE supreme power in Athens rested with the
Assembly, of which every adiilt citizen was
a member. It is obvious that in this Assembly
the poor must have outnumbered the rich. We
have not indeed any direct information as to the
distribution of wealth at this period ; but we know
that in the year 358-7 the number of citizens who
possessed an income which made it fair to lay the
burden of trierarchy upon them was estimated
at 1200 only^; and that in 322, out of 21,000 adult
male citizens, only 9000 possessed an estate even
of the low value of twenty minse. ^ It follows that
if the poor chose to make use of their numbers,
they could always outvote the richer members of
the Assembly; and the political interests of rich
and poor respectively were so far distinct as to
constitute them parties, though the word must not
' Dem,, de Symtn., § 16, etc.
' Demosthenes' father, who was counted a rich man, possessed
an estate of about 14 talents ( = 840 minae) at his death; and the
wealthy banker Pasion, 30 talents. Trierarchy cost (roughly
speaking) from 40 minae to a talent.
71
72 Demosthenes
be taken to imply the rigid organisation or the
cleariy-cut lines of demarcation which are charac-
teristic of the party-system as it exists to-day.
The richer class included the landowners and
the traders. Of these the traders were by far the
more important. Indeed there is reason to think
that, concurrently with the decline of agriculture
in Attica, the most profitable land was bought up
by capitalists resident in the town, and worked
by means of slaves, and that apart from such
estates the holdings were small, and the holders
not only personally insignificant, but also unlikely
to be regular attendants in the Assembly, since
they would not be able to leave their work and
come to town for that purpose. But the trading
class clearly exercised great influence in the As-
sembly. In the first place, a very large part of
the wealth of the country was in their hands, and
wealth inevitably carries weight even in the most
democratic nations. In the second place, with
the increase of luxury, the rise in the standard of
living, the growing variety of demand, and the
consequent speciahsation of trades in the city and
the larger towns, the traders and the financiers,
and those whose interests were connected with
theirs, became more numerous and their influence
ramified more widely. Above all, it was upon the
traders that Athens depended for her supply of
food; for the amount of home-grown com was
small; and this alone would have sufficed to give
them a weight in the Assembly (under normal
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 'J2>
conditions) out of proportion to their mere num-
bers. The interests of the richer classes were
generally better served by peace than by war.'
The passage of merchant-vessels was naturally
most secure in time of peace ; and the fear of hostile
invasion, and of the ravaging of the landed estates
of Attica (as they had been ravaged in the Pelo-
ponnesian War) was certainly not extinct. Fur-
ther, it was upon the rich that there inevitably
fell the chief biu-den of the extraordinary taxation
necessitated by war; for both the expenses of the
trierarchy and the greater part of the war-tax had
to be provided by the wealthy minority ; and these
calls upon them, which were an addition to the
very large share which they contributed of the
normal expenses of government, were liable to be
extremely heavy. No doubt the interests of
trade themselves required at times to be protected
by war; and all alike were interested in maintain-
ing at any cost the security of the great trade-route
to the Bosporus and the Euxine, by way of the
^gean Sea and the Hellespont, and in taking
precautionary measures against threatened inva-
sion. (We shall see in a later chapter how these
considerations affected the policy of Eubulus.) But
as a rule the well-to-do classes tended to favour a
pacific policy, and preferred to render trade se-
cure by diplomacy and the formation of alliances,
' See Aristoph., Eccles., 197 (392 B.C.):
vavi del KaOfKKeivroh trivrja-i fi^v SoKei,
Tots ir\ov<riois 5^ Kal yeupyoii oi SoKeT,
74 Demosthenes
and even by making considerable concessions,
rather than by war. Whether they had the faults
which those whose interest is predominantly
connected with money-making are always apt to
show — whether they were indifferent to national
ideals and generous sentiments, or were liable to be
short-sighted, through paying too great a regard
to the nearer as opposed to the more distant but
greater gain — we have not much direct evidence
to show. But Demosthenes at times uses lan-
guage which suggests that he was conscious of such
obstacles in the way of his own policy, even though
he admits the patriotism of many rich men and
their readiness for sacrifices. "^
On the other hand, the masses were, generally
speaking, in favour of war and of an imperialistic
policy. If not the safest way of securing an
abundant food-supply, victorious campaigns were
often the way which seemed most obvious; and
the fact that war was paid for by the rich made
the poor less conscious of its disadvantages. Fur-
ther, it was only through war that the poorer
citizens could avail themselves of one of the chief
means of earning a living that was open to them
and not( apart from some very exceptional occa-
sions) to slaves — that of service as rowers in the
fleet. Besides this, the tendency of the crowd to
be carried away by the kind of national conceit
or swagger which is ready to go to war recklessly
is illustrated by a number of references to the
* De Cor., % 171.
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 75
orators who inflamed the Assembly by passionate
appeals to the traditions of the past — to the great-
est days of the Athenian Empire — and by the fact
that Demosthenes himself, who certainly had no
shrinking from war, even when a tamer prudence
might have counselled peace, was more than once
obHged to deprecate this rash folly. *
We have then to recognise that in Athens the
tendencies of the richer and poorer classes respec-
tively were almost exactly the reverse of those
which are shown by the corresponding classes in
most modem countries to-day. As a rule, imperial-
istic ideals, and an inclination towards militarism,
are now more commonly found among the better
educated and wealthier members of the commun-
ity, and are supported in the name of patriotism
against what are supposed to be the narrower, more
domestic, and even more selfish aspirations of the
less wealthy. In Athens it was the popular lead-
ers who cried out for war; and it was those who
more nearly correspond to the Conservatives of
modem countries that strove to make and to
maintain peace.
Unfortunately neither party, as a whole, seems
to have been animated by any noble ideal. Rich
and poor alike would have said that the security
of the Empire, or at least the maintenance of the
naval supremacy of Athens, was primarily of
importance as a means to the satisfaction of the
' E.g., de Symm., §§ 4 ff., 41 ; de Pace, § 13 flE.; comp. Isocrates,
de Pace, §§ 5, 36, 112, etc.
76 Demosthenes
hunger of the proletariat. The masses might add
to this sentiment an enthusiasm, often somewhat
shallow and only artificially stirred up by popular
orators, for the traditions of Athens. The richer
classes wished to steer such a middle course as
would neither involve loss of trade and the inter-
ruption of the food-supply through the insecurity
of the trade-routes, nor yet necessitate heavy
expenditure on the army and navy. But for the
masses and the popular orators, the golden age was
in the past; and it is doubtful whether the richer
classes had any clear ideal at all, except that of
playing for safety. Isocrates' attempt to frame
a worthy policy for Athens met with httle general
acceptance. Whether or not the policy was in fact
a good and a worthy one, it was not a time when
men's practical plans were generally conceived on
a large or generous scale; and a close student of
this period can hardly fail to be conscious of a kind
of spiritual deadness, contrasting strongly with
the feeling which the Athenians had displayed
through the first two thirds of the fifth century —
we may perhaps say, until after the Plague — and
defying any attempt which a more inspired indi-
vidual might make to kindle it into warmth.'
' It would take too long to discuss here the causes of this
deadness. But apart from the dispiriting effects of the Plague
and of the Peloponnesian War, the principal cause was the rise
and the all-pervading influence of Rhetoric, which saps the
sincerity both of those who practise it, and of those to whom it is
addressed. Plato's criticisms of Rhetoric appear to be entirely
justified by history, and the fact that most of them are equally
1
II
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. J J
Demosthenes himself, who was not lacking either
in ideals or in inspiration, could not restore its
old life to the Athenian People, though at one
great moment he fanned the flame into a final
blaze of splendour.
The masses had, as has been said, a large major-
ity in the Assembly, and could at any time outvote
those who represented the agricultural, commercial,
and financial interests. But we have unhappily
no means of discovering with any certainty what
was the normal composition of an ordinary meeting
of the Assembly, nor (since the function of the
Assembly was, as Aristotle phrases it, that of
judgment, or decision upon proposals submitted
to them) how far the Assembly, as normally con-
stituted, was capable of forming judgments based
upon rational grounds. There can be little doubt
that there was a tendency on the part of many of
the best-educated men to withdraw entirely from
public life and to take no interest in State-affairs,
preferring, as they did, the self-satisfied life of the
cultured individual to the pursuit of the common
good — regarding political power and the possession
of Empire as unimportant in comparison with
individual virtue, and treating the comparative
sordidness of politics in a democracy as beneath
the notice of the philosophic mind. Philosophy
became markedly individualistic in the fourth
century, and alien from the spirit of the city-state.
applicable to modern journalism renders them not uninteresting
at the present day.
78 Demosthenes
What the fellow-citizens of Socrates had felt, as
to the incompatibility of his principles with those
of a city-state, the more philosophic Athenians
now began to feel about themselves. The with-
drawal of the finer intellects from all attempt to
influence the actions of the community, however
few such intellects may have been, must necessarily
have been a loss.
Moreover there cannot be much doubt that the
payment for attendance in the Assembly, which
remained at about the same figure as the wage of
an unskilled labourer,^ was likely to be more
attractive to the proletariat than to the better
educated or to those who had business to mind.
There is indeed something to be said on the
other side. In the first place, a considerable
proportion of the members of the Assembly must
have acquired some training in public business,
and in the art of coming to a decision upon issues
submitted to them, in the sphere of local govern-
ment.* The organisation of the demes was very
thorough, and the political activity of the demes
very vigorous, during this period; and a system
under which every adult citizen was a member of
the Assembly of his deme, and might well hold
office in it, must have had a greater educational
value than (for example) the English system of
local government, which works by means of re-
presentative bodies, and in consequence only edu-
cates or interests a comparatively small number
' Note I at the end of the Chapter. " Note 2.
Atheman State in Fourth Century B.C. 79
of persons. In the second place, it is remarkable
that of the leaders in politics, the generals, the
ambassadors, and the financial and administrative
officials, a very large proportion were men of
wealth.'' This not only implies the absence of
strong class-feeling, but it also shows that the
masses were not unready to entrust their affairs
to those who felt themselves called upon to lead,
and able to do so, whoever they might be."* It is
true that they also showed some jealousy of their
leaders, and even more of those officials who, when
once elected, were in some degree independent of
the People — generals, for instance, and ambassa-
dors. We shall see before long how evil the effects
of this jealousy were. But at least there was
nothing to prevent ability from attaining the
position which was its due, however perilous the
position might be; and on the whole we hear
extraordinarily little of the noisy and ignorant
type of demagogue.
The incompetence of the Athenian Assembly
may be and often has been exaggerated. At
times of crisis it was certainly not incapable of
' This is established with a very high degree of probability by
Sundwall {Epigraphische Beitrdge zur sozialpolitischen Geschichte
Athens).
'See esp., Dem., de Fals. Leg., §99. The statement in the
text is not really inconsistent with Aristotle's characterisation
of democracy as the government of the poor for the benefit of the
poor, nor with Isocr., de Antid., §159 ff., who lays stress on the
suspicion attaching to riches (which is abundantly illustrated in
the life and speeches of Demosthenes).
8o Demosthenes
responding to an appeal to the reason and good
sense of its members ; and under normal conditions
political ability had every chance of coming to
the front. Nevertheless the Athenian Assembly
could not escape from the dangers which appear to
beset all large bodies of men gathered together.
Unless they were roused or awed by immediate
and urgent danger, there was always the probabil-
ity that they would respond most readily to an
appeal to their sentiment or their desires. Men
who are assembled in a crowd do not thinks unless
they are forced to do so by something extraordi-
nary; it is generally the shallowest minds which are
most quickly made up, and which infect the rest
of the crowd by a kind of contagion; and so the
art of rhetoric is different from that of reasoning.
The orator has often to use arguments which no
logic can defend, and to employ methods of per-
suasion upon a crowd which he would be ashamed
to use if he were dealing with a personal friend.
It must be added that in the period which we are
considering the issues were often complex, and
that it would not have been possible to do justice
to them in the short speeches which it was custom-
ary to deliver in the Assembly; and further, that
any attempt to state a complex argument was
likely to expose the speaker to suspicion; for (as
we have already noticed in reference to the speeches
which were delivered in the law-courts) ability in
argument and in exposition was not very distinct
in the popular mind from the sophistry of the
I
Athenian State in Fourth Century B. C. 8i
professional rhetorician, who was clever enough to
argue for any cause — and if necessary, for either
side of any case — and to make the worse appear
the better. Athenian orators often warn their
audience in the Assembly as in the law-courts
against being deceived by the cleverness of their
opponents; and even if there had not been this
suspicion of cleverness, it would not have been
easy to put complex proposals (for instance, on
finance) before a crowd and give the true reasons
for or against them.
Again, it is obvious that so large a body could
only form its judgment upon the materials pre-
sented to them by the orators; it could have little
or no independent knowledge of facts; and when
more than one version of the facts was presented,
the version most likely to be accepted was that of
the speaker whose oration was best as a perform-
ance ; and it was the same with rival arguments.
The Athenian Assembly was probably more
susceptible than most modem audiences to the
theatrical effect of the oration, and more liable
to be carried away by oratorical brilliance. The
.contests of the orators they regarded in the same
light as the contests of rival actors.^ Indeed, so
great was their interest in the performance, that
it was often the only interest; and the practical
moral was allowed to pass without effect, when
the performance was over. Demosthenes often
shows himself acutely conscious of this tendency.
' Comp. Dem, de Pace, § 7.
82 Demosthenes
"If," he cries, ^ "you sit idle, with an interest that
stops short at applause and acclamation, and retires
into the background when any action is required,
I can imagine no oratory, which, without action
on your part, will be able to save your country."
And again, ^ "You have reached such a pitch of
folly or distraction or — I know not what to call it,
for often has the fear actually entered my mind
that some more than mortal power may be driving
our fortunes to ruin — that to enjoy their abuse,
or their malice, or their jests, or whatever your
motive may chance to be, you call upon men to
speak who are hirelings, and some of whom would
not deny it; and you laugh to hear their abuse of
others." Both Demosthenes and Isocrates re-
peatedly upbraid the Athenians for their refusal
even to listen to speakers who told them impleas-
ant truths and did not prophesy smooth things.
"It has always been your way," says Isocrates,
"to drive from your presence all who did not
advocate your own pleasures. "^ "Under a demo-
cracy there is no freedom of speech,"'* — so he
contradicted in a sentence one of the Athenians'
proudest boasts. The excessive love of pleasur-
able excitement, with the accompanying paralysis
of the will and the inability to face unpleasant
facts, were the worst moral diseases from which
the Athenian People was at this time suffering.
There were also defects in the constitution itself,
' De Chers., § 77. « Isocr., de Pace, § 3.
» PhU. Ill, § 54. •♦ Ibid., § 14.
i
I
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 83
and in its practical working, which had serious
consequences; and to these we must next turn.
There are two conditions apart from which
government by a great assembly cannot be ima-
gined to have any chance of success. One is the
existence of a responsible ministry, changeable,
of course, from time to time, but entrusted with a
real leadership so long as it is in office. The other
is the confinement of the functions of the Assembly
to the decision of main issues, the detailed applica-
tion of its resolutions being left to responsible
and experienced officials or departments, with
reasonable freedom of action. These two condi-
tions were very imperfectly fulfilled in Athens.
Almost all officers of State, except the generals,
were elected by lot ; so that there was no guarantee
of their fitness for office. ^ There was no ministry
charged with the duty of giving advice to the
People. Everyone of the thousands of members
of the Assembly stood theoretically on precisely
the same level of opportunity and responsibility.
No one could be called upon to make a proposal;
and though in strict law no measure could be
brought forward without a preliminary resolution
of the Council of Five Himdred, and business no
doubt began with the propounding of such a reso-
lution for discussion, it seems clear that the
Assembly had unrestricted power of amendment
upon the proposition of any member — the dis-
cussions on the Peace of Philocrates illustrate this'
* See Isocr., de Pace, § 23. 'See below, pp. 249 ff.
84 Demosthenes
— and no obligation was apparently felt by the
Assembly to give the resolutions of the Council
any more respectful attention (as embodying the
opinion of those who had presumably considered
the matter with care) than it gave to the wildest
suggestion made by a popular speaker on the spur
of the moment. The administrative work of the
Coimcil, which had to see that the resolutions of
the Assembly were carried out, to collect the neces-
sary information and materials for discussion, and
to perform many of the duties which in modem
countries fall to the various departments of the
Civil Service, does indeed appear to have been
surprisingly well done, considering the nature of
the body. For, annually elected by lot as it was,^
there was no guarantee that it would be specially
qualified to advise ; and since it transacted most of
its duties by means of committees which changed
ten times a year, it could not be expected to main-
tain any continuous or definite policy. Fur-
ther, although on the whole it did its work well, it
could only take action within the terms of the
resolutions of the Assembly ; and had it made any
attempt to frame or carry through a policy, the
attempt would probably have been regarded as an
oligarchical encroachment upon the absolute
rights of the People, which the Assembly jealously
maintained.
The want of a ministry left the Assembly the
victim of its own inconsistency, and of the varying
' Note 3.
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 85
moods of successive meetings; and not only could
no continuity of policy be relied upon from such a
body, but it was quite possible that there might be
no policy forthcoming at all, simply because no
one was under any obligation to make a motion'';
or that the measures resolved upon might be left
imperfect, because, though a resolution to take
some important step had been passed, the neces-
sary subsidiary resolutions as to ways and m.eans
had been omitted, or inadequate provision made^;
and in fact resolutions as to ways and means,
which involved personal service as well as taxation,
might easily be so unpopular that only a courageous
man would move them; while the administrative
officials did not dare to act without the sanction
of the Assembly, even to provide means to carry
out the Assembly's own decrees. In the fifth
century a certain continuity had been secured by
the frequent re-election of the same man to the
office of general — nearly all other officials being
appointed by lot; but in the fourth century the
generals, though many of them were frequently
re-elected, came to be more and more professional
soldiers, and less and less politicians; and when
not engaged in war on behalf of Athens, they were
as likely as not to be fighting on behalf of some
other power until Athens had need of their services
again, or enjoying life in some quarter where they
' Compare the silence of all parties and persons after the
news of Philip's occupation of Elateia arrived. Dem., de Cor.,
§§ 169 £f. • See below, pp. 195, 215, 427.
86 Demosthenes
were not exposed to critical eyes. We hear very
little, during this period, of the advice of generals
to the Assembly, though Phocion when necessary
played the part of a statesman as well as of a
soldier. The only chance of a continuous and
consistent policy lay in the possibility of some
orator or statesman winning the ear of the Assem-
bly through a sufficiently long period, either by
force of character or by playing successfully upon
the desires of the majority; and it is because
CalHstratus, Aristophon, Eubulus, and Demos-
thenes were able each to secure a certain degree
of influence for several years, that the acts of the
Athenian People during the fourth century are
not merely a chaotic and incoherent succession.
Even so, the moods of the Assembly made the
statesman's task an unenviable one; we find no
little levity and inconstancy, and much jealousy
of powerful men; and the means to which states-
men were forced to resort, in order to maintain
their influence long enough to give any policy a
fair trial, were often of a regrettable kind.
The defects of the system of discussion by a
popular Assembly were necessarily increased by
the circumstances of a time when the relations
between the several States of Greece were hostile,
or at least needed skilful handling. The most
democratic of modem States do not allow the
details of international politics or projected
military and naval movements to be settled by
public discussion: such subjects are wholly un-
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 87
fitted for such treatment. Any delicacy of hand-
ling, and the tact which often saves a situation,
are under such circumstances out of the question ;
and though the value of such tact was well known
in Athens (for instance, from the occasions when
Callistratus went as envoy to Sparta, and Thrasy-
bulus to Thebes) the knowledge did not ordinarily
lead the Athenians to entrust their foreign affairs
to responsible ministers and give them a free hand. ^
This would have been impossibly oligarchical, and
might even have been thought to point towards
tyranny. So the Athenians paid for the logical
carrying out of their democratic principles by the
incompetent management of their foreign and
military affairs. Philip had tact enough; but tact
is a virtue of individuals, not of crowds.
The infrequency of the meetings of the Assembly,
which took place rather less often than once a
week, was also a great disadvantage. Internal
affairs may perhaps be managed by such meetings ;
but not military or international affairs, in which
not only secrecy, but rapidity and the power of
adapting measures to swiftly changing situations
are often everything. Demosthenes more than
once^ insists on the advantage which Philip pos-
' The great exception is the mission of Demosthenes to Thebes
i" 339 (see below, p. 373) . Sundwall {op. cit.) shows that the ambas-
sadors, like the generals, were usually drawn from the propertied
classes — such persons alone could afford the incidental expenses
of these offices — and this may have increased the jealousy of the
Assembly towards them.
' E.g., de Fals. Leg., §§ 184 ff.; comp. §§ 136, 2^7 f., etc.
88 Demosthenes
sessed in being absolute master of his own plans,
under no necessity to make them public until the
right time came, and able to modify them at any
time without consulting any one. Extraordinary
assemblies might be and sometimes were sum-
moned, but apparently only to deal with specially
important and sudden crises.-
Aristotle^ speaks of the system of election by
lot and the popular control of the law-courts as
the two chief marks of the sovereignty of the
People. The former merely reduced the chances
of obtaining the services of qualified persons; but
the part which was played in political life by the
law-courts was positively mischievous. A states-
man might of course be quite rightly brought
before the law-courts; and some specific charge
had always to be made.* But when, whatever
the specific charge, the issue at stake was in reality
whether he should be punished as a criminal
because his policy was impopular or had led to
failure in one respect or another, it is plain that
criminal procedure was being applied to cases for
which it was quite unfitted. If a statesman had
committed a crime, it was right to punish him like
any other man ; but because the policy for which,
* Ar., Pol., IV (VI), 1300a, 1301a, etc.
' The commonest form of proceeding was probably that of
prosecution at the end of the tenure of some office, when the
Board of Auditors who received the retiring oflScial's report
asked if any one had any charge to make, and if so, referred the
matter to a jury.
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 89
on his proposal, the Assembly had made itself
responsible had resulted otherwise than had been
expected, the statesman did not on that accoiint
deserve a heavy fine or banishment or execution —
least of all when the mood in which the jury was
led to condemn him might be merely a transient
one, due to circumstances which would be sure
to change and cause them to regret their action.
The list of statesmen and generals who were tried
and condemned during the fourth century includes
nearly all of those who displayed any ability, and
the knowledge that the consequences of failure
would not be (as in modern States), at the worst,
dismissal from office and the obligation to cross
from one side of the House to the other, but death
or banishment or financial ruin, must have been
paralysing to any but the bravest, and must often
have prevented the statesman and the general
from taking the risks which any honest man in
such positions must from time to time face.
Nor were the courts representative of the best
side of public opinion, or even of public opinion
as a whole. The enormous size of the juries might
at first lead us to suppose that this would be other-
wise. But sitting on juries took time, and was
only attractive to those who could not turn their
time to more profitable account. For the jurors'
daily pay was still only three obols — a sum which
was probably less than half the wage of an unskilled
labourer ; and such an inducement would not appeal
to any but the aged and infirm, the poor and the
90 Demosthenes
idle. The character of the juries is sufficiently
indicated by the arguments which even leading
men thought fit to address to them. (They were_
told, on more than one occasion, that unless they
fined the accused heavily there would not be
sufficient money to pay their fees.) Indeed the
whole tone of the poUtical oratory addressed to
the courts is (with certain notable exceptions)
lower than that of the speeches delivered in the
Assembly. It is evident that the orators had to
deal with those who enjoyed vulgarities and sensa-
tional pictures in black-and-white, in which truth
coimted for less than dramatic effect. Facts
could be misrepresented with impunity, and appeals
made to passion, to a degree unparalleled in the
Assembly; the state of popular feeling at the
moment counted more than anything else; and
the jury were continually encouraged to consider
not whether the accused was guilty of the charge
made against him, but whether he was not as
black in character as a man could be, or at least
black enough to be got rid of for good, when in
fact he might be merely of a respectable colour
which at the moment was out of fashion. Add
to this that the juries were likely to have little
knowledge of law beyond what the advocates on
either side chose to supply to them, that they had
nevertheless to decide questions of law as well as
of fact, and that the verdict was subject to no
revision — and the evils of the system are sufficiently
apparent.
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 91
Moreover, apart from the bad influence of such
a system upon statesmen in full career, the evil
effects of the actual verdicts are only too evident.
The condemned man was often driven into exile
either by the fear of a death sentence, or by the
imposition of a fine which he could not possibly
pay. Such political exile was the curse of Athen-
ian public life. One after another, the ablest
men were removed from the service of the State,
which might have the utmost need of them before
many months or years had elapsed. Without a
proper ministry, the value of "His Majesty's
Opposition" could not, of course, be appreciated;
and in Athens the effect of the hot-headed oratory
of the prosecutor and the inflammable passions
of the jury was often to make permanent what
ought to have been at most a temporary retirement
from the leadership of affairs.
The defects of the Athenian jury-system were
not restricted in their results to the law-courts.
For it was from the jurors for each year that the
Nomothetce were chosen, with whom there rested
the power to repeal or to retain laws. The As-
sembly merely decided whether each group of laws
should remain unchanged, or whether changes
should be permitted during the current year. The
proposers and opponents of new laws, or of altera-
tions in the old, then appeared before the Nomo-
thetffi; the proceedings took the form of a trial,
after which the Nomothetae gave a final decision.
It cannot therefore be said that the intelligence
92 Demosthenes
of the People as a whole was adequately repre-
sented in the work of legislation any more than
in the administration of justice.
We pass to the financial arrangements of the
Athenian State. The general principle underly-
ing them was that the ordinary expenses of a time
of peace should be provided for from the produce
of such public property as the mines of Laurium,
and the rent of public lands; or by indirect taxes,
such as harbour- and market-dues, percentages
charged on sales by auction, and the like; except
that part of the cost of the great public festivals,
and the duty of managing them, was imposed in
the form of "liturgies," or compulsory burdens,
upon wealthy citizens, who had to serve as choregi
at the Dionysiac festivals, or as stewards of the
games, or in sundry other capacities, and to bear
the expenses which their duties entailed. But
indirect taxes could not be increased without
becoming too serious a burden upon trade; and
therefore any extraordinary expenses, such as
those of a time of war, were met by a special direct
tax upon capital, while the upkeep of the fleet was
a liturgy laid upon the rich in turn.
We have already seen how the collection of the
war-tax was organised in the year 378-7, by the
creation of the Symmories ; and that the system of
collection worked well on the whole is shown by
the fact that on the occasion when Androtion,
Timocrates, and others were appointed to get in
arrears of payment, extending over a good many
Athenian State in Fourth Century B. C. 93
years, the total arrears amounted to fourteen
talents only, out of three hundred that had been
demanded in the time. ' The war-tax, moreover,
was not necessarily burdensome, though it might
become so; in the case of Demosthenes it seems
not to have exceeded one per cent, per annum on
the assessed value of his property, in the ten years
during which he was under guardianship. But it
was in theory an extraordinary tax; there was no
permanent revenue applicable to military pur-
poses, and no regular accumulation of a surplus
for use in emergencies. Eubulus (for reasons
which will appear later) avoided resorting to the
war- tax as far as he could ; but the result was that
the generals were very inadequately supplied with
funds, and had to take to irregular methods of
obtaining them. How far the contributions of the
allies who joined in the second Athenian Confeder-
acy were at the disposal of Athens there is no direct
evidence to show. It is probable that the consent
of the Synod of the allies, as well as that of the
Athenian Assembly, was strictly required before
any application of these funds could be made;
though in the year 341 Demosthenes evidently
contemplated the possibility of using them to
maintain the Athenian supremacy in the Cher-
sonese. ^ But these funds were very much dimin-
ished by the Social War. Before this war they
' Dem., in Androt., §44. The exact date of the Commission
and the precise circumstances of its appointment are much
disputed, but the figures are plain enough. ' De Chers., § 21.
I
94 Demosthenes
had amounted to 350 talents yearly; afterwards
they fell at once to ninety, and in 346 the sum was
no more than sixty talents. ^
The trierarchic system, under which the fleet
was equipped and manned, had also serious defects.
In former times, a single citizen had been told off
to equip and command each trireme. But towards
the end of the Peloponnesian War, the wealth of
the richer citizens had greatly diminished, and it
was found necessary to authorise the sharing of
the responsibility for each ship by two citizens,
each of whom commanded in turn. Any one who
thought himself unjustly called upon could chal-
lenge another, whom he considered to be better
qualified for the task, either to undertake the
trierarchy or to exchange property with him.
(How this right was abused to the disadvantage
of Demosthenes by Aphobus and his friends we
have already seen.)
The first great defect in this system lay in the
delay which it involved.^ Not only had the
Assembly to decide upon the number of ships
required, and the proportions of citizens, resident
aliens, and mercenaries to be called upon to serve
in them — a matter upon which they were liable
to change their minds more than once before doing
anything, — but time had to be given in which
'iEsch., de Fals. Leg., §71; comp. Busolt, Das zweit. Aih.
Seebund, pp. 723, 724.
» Comp. Dem., de Fals. Leg., §§ 185-6; Phil. I., § 36.
Athenian State in Fourth Century B. C. 95
exchanges of property could be made, and persons
whose means were not immediately forthcoming
could get them in readiness to discharge the liturgy.
There was also great difficulty in procuring rowers
and crew. Those whose names were on the lists
drawn up by public officials were often inefficient,
and a public-spirited trierarch often preferred to
hire others. In either case the arrangement
between the captain and the rowers was a personal
one, and the rowers were liable to desert if they
had the chance, especially if they were not punctu-
ally paid or had other causes for dissatisfaction.
Again, the dilatoriness of unwilling trierarchs,
though after a certain point it became punish-
able by law, was a further source of delays. It
also happened not infrequently that trierarchs en-
trusted their duties to a contractor, who equipped
the vessel and commanded it for a comparatively
small sum, and recouped himself by committing
acts of piracy at the expense of friend and foe
alike. ^ The financial and other difficulties were
sometimes so great that the State was obliged to
ask patriotic persons to volunteer to be trierarchs,
as happened in the year 358-7, when Demosthenes
was one of those who volunteered, and served (as
co-trierarch with Philinus) in the expedition to
Euboea. '
' These points are amply illustrated by the Speech on the
Trierarchic Crown, and the Speeches (wrongly ascribed to
Demosthenes) against Polycles, and against Euergus and Mnesi-
belus. ' Dem., in Meidiam, § i6i.
96 Demosthenes
In the same year, in view of the grave financial
situation produced by the Social War, a law pro-
posed by Periander assimilated the trierarchic
system to that by which the war-tax was collected.
Twenty Boards or Symmories were established to
provide the sums necessary for the equipment of
the triremes; there were sixty persons in each
Board, and the total number of persons liable for
trierarchy was therefore 1200. The management
within each Board rested with the richer men
(though there is no evidence that they had to
advance the money, as in the case of the war-tax) :
but they used their power to escape their own share
of payment — ^all members paid the same share,
whatever their property — ^and so to overburden
their poorer colleagues. The plan (which still
continued to be commonly adopted) by which
the work of equipment was provided for by con-
tract, and was rather a matter of business than of
personal interest or patriotism, was doubtless an
unfortunate one, and in general the company-sys-
tem must have diminished the efficiency and zeal of
the service. But for the moment it provided what
was most of all needed — ^a businesslike method
of getting the funds required for the navy.
The worst element, perhaps, in the Athenian
financial system was the distribution of "Theoric
money" to the citizens to enable them to enjoy the
pubUc festivals. The exact place of the Theoric
Fund in relation to the general revenues of the
State has been much disputed. But it would
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 97
appear that at the beginning of each year, the
Assembly passed a Budget, allocating to special
purposes and to particular funds as much as was
required by each; and that the surplus or unal-
located revenues passed in time of war into the
military chest, in time of peace into the Theoric
Fund, and that from the latter they were distrib-
uted to the citizens. This distribution appears
to have been introduced by the strongly demo-
cratic politician Agyrrhius, early in the fourth
century, and to have been a revival in principle,
if not in detail, of distributions which had been
made in the previous century , ^ and we shall see
that about the time at which Demosthenes came
forward, a special law was passed increasing the
sums distributed, including (probably) a limited
allocation to military purposes in the Budget, and
providing that the whole of the surplus should
always pass into the Theoric, not into the miHtary
fund.* No doubt the distribution had a certain
religious colour. The festivals were all in honour
of the gods, and there was at least a feeling that
their hearty celebration was likely to bring good
luck. 3 But however strongly piety might be
' Comp. Motzki {Euhulus von Probalinthos u. seine Finanz-
politik, pp. 49 ff.) who shows that the distribution of Theoric
money was probably begun by Pericles, and was distinct from the
distributions in relief of poverty instituted by Cleophon.
» See below, Ch. IV., p. 127.
»The feeling was not very deep; and the shallowness of the
religious sentiment in regard to the festivals is shown by the
treatment of the subject in Anaximenes' Art of Rhetoric, ch. ii.
98 Demosthenes
pleaded in favour of the distribution, it can hardly
be doubted that pleasure rather than piety was
the basis of its popularity, and the rigidity of the
law which enjoined it was a great disadvantage
to the State. We have here one indication among
many of the reluctance of the Athenian democracy
to put the pleasure of the moment in any but the
first place. In 358 there appears for the first time
a special Board of Superintendents of the Theoric
Fund, ten in number, appointed to hold office for
four years, after which they were not re-eligible.
It may be assumed that a capable financier,
elected a member of this Board, was able to
control its policy, and that even when his own
term of office was over, he might maintain his
control through the election of one of his sympa-
thisers. Thus Eubulus was a member of the
Theoric Commission from 354 to 350, and his
supporter Aphobetus (the brother of ^schines)
from 350 to 346.'' ^schines^ tells us that the
members of this Board, "owing to the confidence
which the people placed in Eubulus," held all the
important financial offices ^ of State between them,
* Others who were members of the Commission were Diophan-
tus of Sphettus, 358 to 354; Cephisodotus, 346 to 342; and
Demosthenes, 338 to 334.
' In Ctes., §25.
3 Such as the offices of the Apodectae, who received the incom-
ing funds; and of the Financial Secretary {&vri'ypa<l>e{i%) whose
business was to report the state of public funds to the People.
(Eschines says that this state of things continued "until the law
of Hegemon was passed," i.e. until after 336.
Athenian State in Fourth Century B.C. 99
and controlled practically the whole administra-
tion. It was not until a year or so before the
battle of Chaeroneia that Demosthenes succeeded
in applying the Theoric money to military pur-
poses; and the continuance of the Theoric Board
shows that the distributions were afterwards re-
vived. Shortly after the battle there appears a
separate Treasurer of the Military Fund, appointed
for four years at a time. ^
It should be added that special needs might be
met by the assignment of special commissions to
individuals or to small groups of persons. Thus
we hear of Commissioners of Walls, of Dockyards,
and of the Fleet ; of Superintendents of the Corn-
Supply (an office held in 357-6 by Callisthenes,
and in 338-7 by Demosthenes); and of other
specially commissioned officials.
We have lastly to consider the conduct of mili-
tary matters. The two points which are of most
importance are the comparative independence
of the generals, and the employment of mercena-
ries, who formed the larger proportion of almost
every force. The great generals of this period,
though there is no reason to doubt their loyalty,
were not so closely attached to the city as those
of the fifth century had been : or, rather, a distinc-
tion appears to have grown up between the rela-
tively independent general who was responsible for
the conduct of war, and his nominal colleagues who
'Note 4.
100 Demosthenes
had to organise the preparations for war at home
and to perform various duties of a civil rather
than of a miHtary character. '^ The militant
general, as a rule, came less frequently to Athens.
He might of coiirse be recalled and put on his
trial like any other officer of the State, and the
Athenians got rid of some of their most capable
commanders by this means. But for the most
part he was closely attached to his men; and, if
not employed in the service of Athens, he had no
difficulty in finding for them under other masters
the work and the pay which they expected.*
The day of professional armies, and of an almost
regimental organisation of mercenaries, each body
having its general or captain, had now begun. The
soldier came less and less into touch with civil life;
and we hear of Iphicrates, Chabrias, Chares, and
others, when unemployed, living away from
Athens. ^ There is no doubt that generals who
were both indispensable and independent were
often regarded by the democracy with a certain
mistrust, while at the same time, on account of
their indispensableness, they were flattered and
complimented and were awarded distinctions in a
way which Demosthenes regarded as unworthy of
a vigorous and self-reliant people. "^
' Comp., Dem., Phil, I, §26. Philip is said to have expressed
his surprise that the Athenians could find ten generals every
year, when he had found but one in all his life, viz., Parmenio
(Plut., Apophth. Phil., §2).
» Comp. Dem., Olynth. II, § 28.
3 See Theopompus, fr. 103 (Oxford Text). * Note 5.
Athenian State in Fourth Century B. C. lOi
A number of causes had contributed to the change
by which the greater part of the Athenian army
came to be commonly composed of mercenaries.
In the first place, the Athenian citizen had become
much less ready to serve in person. That the best
educated and most philosophic minds tended to
think lightly of military power and imperial aims
counted for something; for it could not be without
effect that the great teachers did not intimately
connect the good life of the individual with such
ideals. But it counted for much more, that the
Athenians were coming to be more and more
absorbed in business, and found that their busi-
ness must go to pieces if they were continuously
absent for any length of time on • military ser-
vice; and their reluctance naturally increased, as
campaigning-seasons became longer, and military
operations ceased to be confined to a few months
of the summer. '
In the second place, the art of fighting had
become much more specialised, and the trained
skill of the professional soldier had become almost
necessary. New weapons, new and better organ-
ised kinds of troops, were employed, and every
arm of the force needed practice and training.^
The old conventional methods of warfare had given
way to tactics of a more ingenious kind; and had
the citizens of Athens been willing to serve in
larger numbers, they could not have supplied all
that was needed in an army of the fourth century.
• See Dem., Phil. III., §§ 48, 49. « Ibid., §§ 47, 49.
102 Demosthenes
In the third place, there was an abundance of
men ready to be employed as mercenaries. In
former days the surplus population had been
drafted off by emigration to newly founded colo-
nies. But the available sites for colonisation had
all been taken, and at the same time population
continued to grow, while the supply of home-grown
com in most parts of Greece diminished rather
than increased. The pressure was particularly
felt among the agrictiltural peoples, with whom
the food-supply was not adequate for the numbers
and was not so easily supplemented by imported
corn, since the imported corn was mostly used up
in the towns. In a modem State there would
probably have been an inflow into the towns to
find work. To some extent this may have hap-
pened in Greece, and the numbers of the idle
proletariat were possibly swollen by such immi-
grations. But in the towns workmen were little
needed, owing to the regular employment of
slave-labour; and even if work could be found,
the existence of slavery was bound to keep the
wages of the free workmen very low both in town
and country.^ It was more profitable, and at
the same time more exciting, to take service under
a captain of mercenaries, and to fight for the State
' This view has been contradicted by Mr. A. E. Zimmem in
the Sociological Review, vol. ii, Nos. i and 2 (1909). In spite of
his extremely interesting discussion, I do not think that the facts
which he adduces really prove his case. On the whole matter,
however, a more complete sifting of the evidence is required.
I
Athenian State in Fourth Century B. C. 103
which would bid highest, or in the war in which
there was Hkely to be most plunder. Above all,
the result of long wars, and of political exile, and
of the revolutions which were always happening in
one State or another had been to fill the country
with homeless men, who were ready enough to
risk their lives for the wage offered, and for the
chance of adventure and booty. But though the
existence of men eager to be mercenary soldiers
and the readiness of States to employ them are
easily explained, the consequences of the mercen-
ary system were none the less deplorable. Though
as a rule the Athenian general was loyal to his
employers, he was partly at the mercy of his men,
whose allegiance sat more loosely upon them;
and sometimes (as was the case with Charidemus)
it mattered as little to him as to them for whom
they fought. Even though we do not find at this
period any conspicuous instances of treachery or
cowardice on the part of mercenary armies, it is
clear from many statements of Demosthenes and
others that such armies could not be expected to
share the intense patriotism of a citizen-force
whose own interests were at stake. Ruskin,^
in a remarkable passage, insists that the soldier's
business is not killing, but being killed. The
mercenary soldier probably tended to take the
opposite view. In addition to this, the mercenary
must be always fighting, or at least plundering.
To be unemployed meant starvation. The mer-
' Unto this Last, ch. i.
104 Demosthenes
cenary bands which roamed over Greece were a
terror to all ; and if, when employed by Athens or
any other State, they were not punctually paid,
they helped themselves at the expense of friends
and foes alike. The allies of Athens, Demosthenes ^
says, lived in deadly fear of the forces that Athens
sent out ; and Athenian statesmen could not always
resist the temptation to avoid the imposition of
taxes, by letting the commanders and armies find
supplies for themselves, even by plundering the
towns and ships of the allies. ^
We have now surveyed some of the principal
aspects of the public life of Athens in the middle
of the fourth centiuy ; and the conclusion must be
that the Athenian State was quite unfitted to faoe
the impending struggle with Philip of Macedon.
The better as well as the worse elements in aristo-
cracy had been thrown away. It is conceivable
that a democracy in which the share taken by the
People in government was confined to the wise
choice of responsible leaders and the determina-
tion of main issues, and in which the whole of the
detailed and practical administration was placed
in skilled hands (of course with the proper safe-
guards), might have been successful; not only
because the part played by Athens herself could
have been better regulated, but also because
skilled statesmen and diplomatists might have
brought about such a combination of all the Powers
' Dem., in Aristocr., § 139, Phil. I., § 45; cf. Isocr., Philippus,
120 f., de Pace, 44-8. ' Dem., de Chers., §§ 22-26.
i
Athenian State in Fourth Century B. C. 105
as no Assembly could ever have achieved. But
the Athenian democracy could never have trusted
its leaders enough to give them a sufficiently free
hand in the conduct of military and international
affairs; and its failure was largely due to its deep-
seated jealousy of able men. Had it not been for
this, there would have been a possibility of carry-
ing out reforms in many departments of the State,
which would have made for efficiency and success.
What reforms were needed, Demosthenes, among
others, shows himself well aware ; but Demosthenes
had not a free hand until it was too late.
It must be acknowledged that the jealousy of
the Athenians was not unfounded. The possession
of great or uncontrolled power seems, among the
Greeks, to have been extraordinarily fatal to
character. The lesson taught by tyrannies and
oligarchies was that power and selfishness of the
most brutal kind were never far apart; and the
few instances that Greek history provided of
the wise and public-spirited lawgiver were not suffi-
cient to diminish the effect of this lesson. But in
consequence of this, the Athenian democracy did
not realise the one condition without which, it
would seem, any democracy must go down in
■presence of able and determined foes — the frank
acknowledgment of an aristocracy of those who
have the power to think, to foresee, to plan, and
to command.
Another consideration points to the sam.e con-
clusion. In time of peace, government by general
io6 Demosthenes
discussion is conceivably a possible method. But
in time of war, when men throw off their civilisa-
tion and revert to primitive types of action, the
more primitive types of government also seem to
be necessary to success ; and something like despot-
ism— though it may be the voluntarily accepted
despotism of the best or ablest men — can alone give
a State the coherence, and its action the prompt-
ness and effectiveness, without which failure is
almost inevitable. So far a true instinct is shown
by most of the more reflective writers of the fourth
century, in the strong sentiment which they
display in favour of some kind of monarchy.
Isocrates, for purposes of peace, favours a kind
of popularly elected aristocracy of those whom he
regards as the wisest men in Athens; but when he
thinks of war, turns to the idea of the absolute
rule of some one great man — ^Jason or Dionysius or
Philip himself. But in the fourth century these
were only the impracticable fancies of spectators.
Most of those who were engaged on the Athenian
side in the game of politics and war had no such
sentiments; and they lost the game.
NOTES TO CHAPTER III
I. Agyrrhius (see above, p. 44) had made the pay for attend-
ance three obols. It is generally believed that by the middle of
the fourth century it had been raised to one drachma (six obols),
in order that the remuneration might correspond to the rise in
•wages and the fall in the value of money which had taken place.
But this is denied by Brandis (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddte,
s, V. Ekklesia) and Sundwall (Epigraphische Beilrdge zur sozial-
Athenian State in Fourth Century B. C. 107
politischen Geschichte Athens, p. 68). Sundwall seems to me to
underrate the preponderance of the masses in the Assembly.
2. On this subject see especially Haussouiller, La vie munici-
pale en Attique. Sundwall {op. ctt., p. 56) thinks that it was only
those who belonged to the strata of society above the poorest that
took much part either in local or in State aflfairs. Even so, local
politics would educate a large number of members of the Assem-
bly ; and the Speech against Eubulides shows that men who were
quite poor might play an important part in the life of their deme.
3. Sundwall shows that the proportion of men of some
property was in all probability larger in the Council than in the
Assembly. No doubt the number of such persons who would be
interested in politics and would feel themselves able to take part
in the administration would be larger in proportion than that of
the politically-minded members of the poorer class; and so the
operation of the lot would not be quite so haphazard as would
seem probable at first sight. But even so, there was no guarantee
that the majority would be fit for their work; and though such a
method of selection might seem to be the logical consequence of
democracy, it is hard to imagine a sillier. (It was no doubt
deliberately devised for the express purpose of preventing men
of ability from obtaining continuous influence.)
4. There is not sufficient ground for dating as far back as the
middle of the century the office of Superintendent of the Ad-
ministration (6 iwl T5 dioiKT^ffei) which first appears in 322-1 —
possibly in substitution for the Theoric Board, of which we hear
no more after that time. On the whole subject of the Theoric
Board and other financial offices, see Sundwall, op. cit., pp. 41-43,
and Francotte, Les Finances des Cites Crecques (esp. pp. 213 flF.)»
in whose pages nearly all the evidence will be found. Ferguson
(Hellenistic Athens, pp. 473-5) attempts, but inconclusively, to
disprove the four years' tenure of the Theoric Commissioners.
Motzki {Euhulos von Probahnthos und seine Finanzpohttk) also
discusses the various questions raised, but on a number of points
I am unable to agree with him. In view of the want of evidence
and the complexity of the subject, the account given in the text
must not be taken as more than probable in regard to details,
though there is no doubt of the main point — the drain on the
State funds caused by the Theorica, which should have been either
used for war or held in reserve.
io8 Demosthenes
The system of providing funds for the State by raising loans at
interest was very rarely resorted to in ancient Greece. See Zim-
mem, Athenian Commonwealth, p. 205.
5. A passage of the Xlllth Oration (irepl ffvvra^im) in the
Demosthenic Collection — an oration which is certainly not the
work of Demosthenes as it stands, but contains much Demos-
thenic material and doubtless represents the orator's sentiments
— calls attention in a striking way to the change of tone which
had taken place since old days in regard to the generals: "Your
forefathers did not erect statues of Themistocles, who com-
manded in the sea-fight at Salamis, nor of Miltiades, the leader
of the army at Marathon, nor of many others whose services were
beyond all comparison with those of the generals of the present
day; but they honoured them as their own equals. For the People
would not then forego the credit of any of its achievements; nor
would any one have spoken of the victories at Salamis and Mara-
thon as victories of Themistocles and Miltiades, but as victories
of Athens. But to-day we hear people saying that Timotheus
captured Corcyra, and Iphicrates cut up a Spartan troop, and
Chabrias won the sea-fight at Naxos. You give up your own
claim to credit for these successes, when you pay these extrava-
gant honours to each of your generals." The passage is found
in a slightly expanded form in the Speech against Aristocrates,
§§ 196 flE.
CHAPTER IV
THE BEGINNING OF DEMOSTHENES* CAREER
IT has already been narrated that Aristophon
succeeded, about the year 361, to the position
of influence from which CalHstratus had been
driven in consequence of the failure of the Athenian
armies in the neighbourhood of the Chersonese,
and that in the early years of Aristophon's leader-
ship, the Chersonese had been secured for Athens,
chiefly as the result of operations conducted by
Chares, who was himself a favourite of the People, ^
and aided Aristophon in the execution of his policy
both then and afterwards. But the apparent
change for the better in the affairs of Athens was
very soon cut short by the outbreak of the Social
War in the year 358-7. The causes of the war were
twofold. In the first place, the Athenians had
violated the spirit, if not the letter, of their agree-
ment with the members of the Second Confederacy,
both by sending Athenian settlers to the allied
cities, and by other high-handed proceedings. The
aggressive action of Chares towards Chios and
Rhodes and other cities was perhaps the immediate
' See Theopompus, fr. 205 (Oxford Text).
109
no Demosthenes
occasion of the outbreak, though this is uncertain. *
In the second place, the allegiance of some of the
allies had been weakened by the activity of Thebes,
and particularly by the naval campaign of Epamei-
nondas in 364-3. Aristophon indeed desired to
be on friendly terms with Thebes, and his chief
opponent Eubulus shared the desire. ^ But nothing
came of it. In 358 the most powerful of the
allies declared war on Athens.
There is no need to follow the disastrous course
of the war in detail. It was marked by two
features characteristic of the time; — ^first the
prosecution of Timotheus and Iphicrates, who
had been the two most successful commanders
under the regime of Callistratus, and were still
probably the best admirals that Athens possessed,
by Aristophon and Chares,^ owing to their ill-
success against the allies; and secondly, the
intervention of the King of Persia in the quarrel.
In the course of the war, Chares, while acting as
Athenian admiral, went of his own accord to the
assistance of the revolted satrap Artabazus. The
Persian King retaliated by giving his countenance
to the allies; and his vassal, Mausolus of Caria,
gave them active assistance. The Athenians
recalled Chares, on receiving a protest from the
King; and in order to avoid a war with the King,
who had to a great extent succeeded in reviving
the strength and improving the organisation of his
» See Dem., pro Rhod., § 3. ' Dem., de Cor., § 162.
3 Chabrias, the third great general, was killed in the war in 358.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career iii
kingdom, they were forced also to acknowledge
the independence of Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and
Byzantium. Very soon afterwards Selymbria,
Perinthus, Methymna, and Mytilene withdrew
from the Athenian confederacy; and though the
confederacy continued to exist, and the Synod of
the allies still met, there remained but the shadow
of the great alliance organised by Callistratus.
As the disasters of the Social War gradually broke
down the influence of Aristophon, his opponent
Eubulus came more and more into prominence,
fighting his way largely by means of judicial
prosecutions,^ and gradually gathering around
him a group of able men — ^^schines, for instance,
who had once supported Aristophon,^ and his
brother Aphobetus — until, about the year 355,
he had attained the leading position in the State.
It was probably though his influence that peace
was made with the allies in 355.^
It was during the years of the Social War that
Demosthenes' first two speeches on political sub-
jects were composed. The war had involved an
intolerable strain upon the financial resources of
the city : more than one thousand talents had been
spent in three years upon mercenaries alone'':
' Dem., in Meid., §§ 207, 218, and schol.; de Fals. Leg., §§ 191,
293. ^ Dem., de Fals. Leg., §291.
i Schol. ad Dem., Olynth. Ill, § 28.
< Isocr., Areop., §9. The Speech of Isocrates On the Peace
illustrates the extreme exhaustion of the city. The law of
Periander (see p. 96) was one of the measures designed to obtain
funds promptly-
1 12 Demosthenes
and the nervousness which evidently prevailed
in regard to the finances of the city is illustrated
by these speeches, both of which had their origin
in proposals of a financial character.
In or about the year 356, Androtion, a pupil of
Isocrates, but (if Demosthenes gives us a true
portrait of him) a person of brutal temperament
and immoral life, proposed the appointment of a
commission to get in the arrears of the war-tax,
which amounted to fourteen talents.^ Either,
Androtion declared, the sacred vessels used in
religious processions must be melted down and
made into coin, or there must be a fresh war- tax,
or the arrears must be called in. The latter course
naturally commended itself as the least objec-
tionable; a commission was appointed, and was
given the assistance of the Apodectae (the receivers
of public moneys) and of the Eleven (the chief
police-officers); and among the commissioners
were Androtion and his friend Timocrates. Andro-
tion appears to have behaved with great incon-
siderateness — even with some cruelty — ^in exacting
the money due; and the feeling aroused by this
encouraged two of his personal enemies, Euctemon
and Diodorus, to prosecute him shortly afterwards,
not on a matter arising out of the commission itself,
but on a charge of proposing an illegal decree."
' How there came to be arrears under a system by which the
rich advanced the sums levied is not clear. Perhaps they had
failed to advance the whole of the amounts required of them.
The sums still owing were very small ; hardly any one owed more
than a mina. » Note i at the end of the Chapter.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 113
The decree thus attacked was one awarding crowns
to the Council which went out of office in the
summer of 355, and of which Androtion himself
had been a member. It was said to contravene
two laws — ^first, that which required a preliminary
resolution of the Council itself, before any proposal
could be made to the Assembly; and secondly,
that which forbade the award of crowns — the
regular form of compliment to an outgoing Council
— to any Council which had not bmlt a certain
number of triremes. The proposal was further
stated to be unlawful, because Androtion had
been guilty of immoral practices which disquali-
fied him from taking part in public business; and
Androtion's argimient, that the enmity against
him was really due to his public-spirited services
in recovering the arrears of the war-tax, was, it
was urged, quite iinjustified; as was also his claim
to gratitude for his treatment of certain sacred
treasures, which he had melted down and recast,
thereby enhancing their value: his official conduct
had really been such as to deserve the utmost
reprobation. Such was the case put in the mouth
of Diodorus, whose speech (which followed that
of Euctemon) was composed for him by Demos-
thenes. But Androtion could reply that a Council
could not be expected to propose a vote of thanks
to itself; and that the Council had actually col-
lected the funds for building the necessary number
of triremes, but that one of the officials had ab-
sconded with them. This fact certainly freed the
114 Demosthenes
Council from blame; nor could the enormity of
Androtion's personal conduct be held to justify
the infliction of a stigma upon the whole Council.
Androtion therefore was properly acquitted.
Demosthenes, though he makes Diodorus warn
the jury to beware of the unscrupulous ingenuity
of his rhetorically trained adversary, himself
writes to his brief, and that brief a bad one^; so
that his arguments appear suspiciously subtle
and sophistical.
We do not know why Demosthenes undertook
the case. It may be that Androtion was a sup-
porter of Aristophon, and that Demosthenes was
trying his hand first on the side of the Opposition.
(Aristophon had certainly himself proposed a
similar commission to enquire into cases of debt
to the sacred and secular funds of the State';
and it is therefore probable that Androtion's
decree had his approval.) Or he may have been
particularly interested in the case on account of
the alleged failure of the Council to build the
proper number of ships. That his interest in all
that affected the navy was already active had
been shown by the Speech on the Trierarchic
Crown, and by his own repeated service in person
as trierarch; and it was to be still more plainly
proved in the following year. The passage in the
Speech against Androtion ^ in which he emphasises
' It is very probable that he had some technical justification,
in point of law; but he had none in equity.
» Dem., in Timocr., § ii. 3§§ 12-16.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 115
and illustrates from history the dependence of the
prosperity of Athens upon the efficiency of the
navy is thoroughly characteristic of him. Be-
sides this, he may well have been moved to indigna-
tion, as he often was later, by what seemed to him
to be rascality masquerading in the guise of service
to the State; and it is at least of interest that he
claimed now, as later, to try the conduct of politi-
cians even in small things by the standard of the
highest traditions of the city. Androtion pro-
fessed to have increased the value of certain golden
crowns, which had been awarded as marks of
honour and dedicated in the temples, by recasting
them into the form of golden cups, — mere signs of
wealth.
And [says Demosthenes] he did not even observe
that never to this day has this People been eager for
the acquisition of money; but for honour it has been
eager, as for nothing else in the world. It is a sign
of this, that when Athens had money in greater abun-
dance than any other Hellenic people, she spent it all
in the cause of honour ; her citizens contributed from
their private resources; and she never shrank from
danger when glory was to be won. Therefore she has
those eternal and abiding possessions — ^the memory of
her actions, and the beauty of the offerings dedicated
in honour of them — ^the porticoes which you see, the
Parthenon, the Colonnades, the Dockyards — no mere
pair of vases these, no paltry cups of gold, three or
four in number, weighing a mina apiece, to be melted
down again whenever you choose to propose it.
1 16 Demosthenes
For the rest, the Speech is vigorous and the tone
of virtuous indignation well-sustained, expressing
itself in irony, in rhetorical questions, in short
pungent sentences and strongly worded phrases.
The second speech which Demosthenes must
have composed at about the time when the Social
War was drawing to an end (or perhaps shortly
after peace had been made) was that against the
law of Leptines. Leptines had proposed, with
the approval of Aristophon, to abolish — retro-
spectively as well as for the future — those grants
of immunity from certain burdens* imposed by
the State, which had frequently been made as
the reward of distinguished public services. The
proposal doubtless arose out of the prevailing
agitation of mind in regard to the resources of the
State ; and was probably suggested by recent real
or supposed abuses of the practice of granting
such immunity. Demosthenes himself a few
years later' protested against the recklessness
with which these grants were made; and the
opponents of the law desired not to retain the
existing practice, but to amend it in a better
manner than Leptines' proposals would have.^
The law was carried in the Assembly, probably
' The chief of the burdens in question were the choregia —
the duty of providing choruses for the Dionysiac and some other
festivals; and the gymnasiarchy, or stewardship of the games
celebrated at the Panathenaea, etc. The giving of tribal banquets
and some other duties were also included. But no such perman-
ent immunity was given from the trierarchy or the war-tax.
* In Artstocr., §201. » Note 2.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 117
in 356; but the mover was at once indicted for
the illegality of his proposal by one Bathippus.
Bathippus however died, and more than a year
elapsed before his son Apsephion took up the case.
It was now only possible to attack the law, not
the mover*; and in accordance with custom, the
People, who by passing the law had made it their
own, appointed speakers to defend it — Leptines
himself, Aristophon, Leodamas, and Cephisodotus
(all distinguished orators), and a highly respected
citizen named Deinias. Apsephion was repre-
sented by Phormio, and Demosthenes supported
his case, acting nominally in the interest of Ctesip-
pus, the son of Chabrias, who had been slain in
battle at Chios and had left his immunity to his
son.^ The main grounds of the charge of illegal-
ity were doubtless set forth by Phormio, who
addressed the court first. Demosthenes, though
he pays some attention to the legal aspect of the
case, lays special stress on the bad moral effect
of such a law — on the unwisdom of abolishing one
of the incentives to public-spirited action, and so
causing the city to appear ungrateful for good
service done to it; and, above all, on the breach
' See Note i.
» It is not certain whether Ctesippus was actually a party to
the prosecution; or whether Demosthenes was merely persuaded
or engaged to speak by Ctesippus or his mother (towards whom,
Plutarch tells us, he was said to have felt an attraction, though
he did not go so far as to marry her). I can see no sufficient
reason for supposing (as Blass does) that Demosthenes did not
deliver this speech himself.
1 18 Demosthenes
of faith, so contrary to the traditions of Athens,
involved in taking away privileges which had been
granted, merely because some few of the recipients
had proved im worthy of them. He further points
out that neither the State nor any of its citizens
would gain much by the law. So far there can
be little doubt that Demosthenes was right;
and the tone which he adopts is dignified and
statesmanlike. On the other hand, many ;of the
arguments which he uses are almost transparently
sophistical^ and give the impression not only that
he must have calculated out all the possible argu-
ments for and against the measure, and the ways
of meeting the former and urging the latter, but
also that he could equally well have argued on the
other side ; and this cool and calculating unfairness
alienates the reader's sympathy (in spite of the
generally pleasing style and high moral tone of
the Speech) more than the injustice which ap-
pears in later speeches as the result of passionate
indignation in a good cause. The result of
the trial is not certainly known.* But we hear
very little of grants of immunity after this; and
it is at least probable that the law was allowed
to stand.
The Speeches against Androtion and against
' In partictilar he takes cases which Leptines' law was evidently
not intended to cover — if it seemed to cover them, it was at
most a matter of bad drafting — and treats them as typical.
' The point is a disputed one, and no piece of evidence has
been produced which cannot be interpreted consistently with
either theory of the issue.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 119
Leptines are mainly of interest because they show
us Demosthenes at a time when he was little mpre
than a poHtical lawyer, and not yet a statesman
fired by strong conviction. His convictions
gathered strength slowly ; and though the quaUties
which appear in his later work are already seen
in certain parts of these speeches, the contrast
between them and the Third Philippic or the
Speech on the Crown indicates how much he had
yet to develop both as a statesman and as an
orator. But even as a statesman he makes a very
favourable appearance in 354, in the Speech on
the Symmories or Naval Boards — the first of his
extant speeches before the Assembly.
The debate in which the Speech was delivered
was occasioned by reports circulated in Athens
of the vast preparations for war which Artaxerxes
was making, and which the Athenians, alarmed
by the attitude which the King had adopted
towards their allies, and uneasy owing to the help
which Chares had given to Artabazus, ' viewed
with apprehension, fancying that the King might
be intending to make an attack upon themselves.
(His preparations were really directed against his
own rebellious subjects in Egypt and Asia Minor.)
A number of speakers urged the Assembly to
forestall the supposed intentions of Artaxerxes by
declaring war upon the Persian Empire ; and they
appealed to the traditions of the past, the glories
of Marathon and Salamis, in favour of their
' See above, p. no.
^>
'}
120 Demosthenes
proposal. ^ It is plain that the proposal itself was
little short of madness. Even if the danger to
the possessions of Athens from Philip of "Macedorr""
had not been growing more and more pressing
(as will be shown in the next chapter), it would
have been a hopeless task for her to attack Persia
single-handed; and to attempt to persuade the
other Greek States to join her would have been
equally hopeless, even if the King's preparations
had been aimed at her. The Greeks were alto-
gether disunited, and Athens~HaJ no fimds with
which to enter upon such a campaign. Demos-
thenes therefore opposed the project, urging the
reasons just given, and making them palatable
to his audience by dovetailing into them the
conventional contrasts between Persian and
Athenian honour, by referring to the championship
of Athens against Persia — still to be maintained,
but not by action at inopportune moments, — and
by expressing his confidence that if any real
danger from Persia did arise, men and money
would be forthcoming readily enough; though at
the same time he argues that it would not be to
the interest of the King himself to attack Greece.
The latter argument is less convincing; but the
main purport of the Speech is sound and states-
manlike.
But while deprecating the rash proposal to
' The idea of war with Persia had also perhaps been rendered
attractive to many by the writings of Isocratcs, and particularly
by the Panegyricus.
THE STATUE OF DEMOSTHENES IN KNOLE PARK
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF LORD SACKVILLE
FRONT VIEW
Beginning oj Demosthenes' Career 121
declare war, Demosthenes took advantage of the
interest aroused by the debate to propose a practi-
cal reform, with a view to increasing the efficiency^
of the_nayy. The political situation obviously
required Athens to be ready for action, if not
against Persia, at least against other enemies;
and the system introduced in 357 by the law of
Periander had not proved satisfactory in every
respect. It has already been mentioned' that
the richer members of the Naval Boards instituted
by that law found ways of evading their proper
share of the burden — they would, for instance,
arrange that certain work should be done by a
contractor for a talent, and would then exact the
whole of the talent from their poorer colleagues. ^
They spent little or nothing themselves, and yet
obtained the immunity which was granted to a
trierarch from all other burdens^ for the current
year, and also from the liability to the trierarchy
itself until after the lapse of another year.'' It
would also appear that the duties of the several
Boards and of their members were distributed in
an unbusinesslike manner, so that in case of default
it was not certain who was responsible; and be-
sides this, the Twelve Hundred, who were liable
to the burden under the law, were twelve hundred
only in name, owing to the number of special
exemptions which were allowed. Demosthenes
proposed to increase the Twelve Hundred to a
' p. 96. » Dem., in Meid., § 155.
» Not, however, from the war-tax. * Dem., de Cor., §§ 102 flf.
122 Demosthenes
nominal two thousand, in order that when all
exemptions had been allowed for, there might
actually be twelve hundred persons available ; and
to make so minute a subdivision of the members
of the Boards, the taxable property, and the
vessels to be equipped, and so detailed an assign-
ment of definite duties to definite groups of per-
sons, in regard to collection and equipment, that
evasion should be impossible, and that the duties
should be properly carried out. The thoroughness
of the proposed reform is very characteristic of
Demosthenes. As in his earlier speeches he had
considered every possible argument that could be
adduced on either side, so in proposing a practical
measure, he leaves no detail unprovided for, and
tacitly anticipates every objection, while at the
same time he appeals to the People to display that
unselfish readiness to perform any duty that might
be laid upon them, without which the best-planned
scheme must fail.
The proposed reform was not accepted; but it
was aTsignlficant declaration of policy; and tEe
main object of the Speech was achieved, for war
was not declared against Persia. That this result
was mainly due to Demosthenes is almost certain,
for scarcely any other speaker, he tells us, ^ sup-
ported him ; and if it seems strange that he should
have carried such weight, when he had only been
a regular speaker in the Assembly for about a year,
it must be remembered not only that his case was
'ProRhod., §6.
Mm
THE STATUE OF DEMOSTHENES IN KNOLE PARK
SIDE VIEW
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 123
really unanswerable, though it might require some
courage to state it in face of the misplaced patriotic
appeals of the other side, but also that he himself
had probably attracted attention by now, both
by his obvious oratorical gifts, and by his public-
spirited performance of the duties of the trierarchy
and the other liturgies which he had discharged.
The position which Demosthenes intended to
take up towards the leading statesmen or parties
of the day is not expressly defined in the Speech,
because it was not the custom to mention living
statesmen by name in the Assembly. But it is
probable that Aristophon, discredited by the
failure of hi's policy in the Social War, had retired
in the interval between the attack upon the law
of Leptines and the debate on the Persian ques-
tion; or, if not, that the proposal of war with
Persia was the last effort of his supporters. Eubu-
lus, whose policy was mainly one of peace ah3~
retrenchment, was taking his place as leader, and
receiving support particularly from the richer
classes — the leaders of commerce and the principal
tax-payers — to whom the avoidance of war (except
so far as it was necessary for purely defensive
purposes or for the protection of trade) was of
great importance. In the Speech against Leptines
Demosthenes had spoken in opposition to Aristo-
phon; and in the Speech on the Naval Boards he
was on the side, of Eubulus, in so far as he depre-
cated a rash military venture and laid stress upon
the exhaustion of the financial resources of Athens.
124 Demosthenes
But Demosthenes was certainly not an advocate
of the interests of the well-to-do classes,' for the
reform of the Naval Boards which he proposed
was designed to make it impossible for the rich
to evade their duties; and he wished to carry on
in a more satisfactory manner the preparations
for a crisis which might arise at any moment.
Before long his antagonism to the policy of
Eubulus is more clearly defined; and our next
task will be to attempt to realise more completely
what that policy was.
The aims and methods of Eubulus are still a
subject of controversy among historians of Greece.
It is admitted, on all hands, that he was an upright
and incorruptible statesman — no small distinc-
tion for a politician of those times — ^and that he
was a master of finance. It is disputed whether
his policy was wise and patriotic or merely narrowly
prudent.
We have seen how greatly the city had suffered
in consequence of the Social War. There were
indeed some who minimised her losses and her
exhaustion^ — she had still in fact a considerable
fleet, though little money for its upkeep; there
were even (as we have seen) those who were not
afraid of provoking the hostility of Persia; and
there must already have been some who cried for
* Even in attacking the law of Leptines, he was not supporting
the granting of immunities to rich men in any indiscriminate
fashion. ^ See Isocr., Areopag., §§ i, 2.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 125
vengeance upon Philip. ' Yet there can be no real
doubt that the first need for the moment was a
breathing space, in which the city could replenish
her treasury, repair her navy and her defences,
and enable her trading-vessels once more to ply
along the great trade-routes without fear. It was
under such circumstances that Eubulus began to
take control of affairs. In 354 he became a
member of the Theoric Board, ^ and owing to the
confidence reposed in him, the chief elective offices
in the administration came to be held by members
of that Board. ^ Under his direction the number
of triremes was greatly increased, the dockyards
were repaired and enlarged, and a very consider-
able sum of money collected, without recourse
being had to extraordinary taxation. It appears
that the success of Eubulus' finance was partly
due to the provident construction of the annual
Budget — for the fact that the Theoric Board
was appointed for four years, and the tenure of
the chief financial offices by its members, must
have made it more possible than before to construct
plans on a large scale — and partly to his encourage-
ment of trade, which, among other advantages,
increased the sums received by means of indi-
rect taxation. Thus Eubulus not only instituted
large operations, which must have been "good for
' Comp. Dem., Phil. I, § 43 (spoken in 351-0).
' It is disputed whether he held any other specific office, and
as there is no evidence either way, the question is insoluble.
3 See above, p. 98.
126 Demosthenes
I trade," in connection with the docks and fortifica-
tions, but he greatly improved the roads and the
water-supply of the city itself — useful measures,
at which Demosthenes scoffs unjustly, \ but which
conferred benefits upon the masses as well as upon
the trading classes. By the institution of a new
and more expeditious procedure for the settlement
of mercantile disputes, he rendered an imdoubted
service to Athenian commerce. * At the same time
he kept a strict eye upon officials, and prosecuted
y them remorselessly if any sign of corruption or
irregularity appeared. ^ R^cognising_J;Jie_jactual
weakness of the city, and her inability at the
moment to pursue an imperialistic policy with
any success, he would not be drawn into war,
though he took steps, as we shall see, to secure the
interests of Athens in the Thracian region, and so to
protect the corn-supply, and, while refusing to en-
ter upon a campaign against PhUip, took proper
measures of defence when Philip seemed likely to
threaten Attica. The apparently incurable dis-
imion of the Greek States was an obstacle to any
attempt to form a lasting coalition against the ris-
ing Macedonian power, and he recognised the fact.
On the other hand there can be no doubt that
he confirmed and gave new security to the system
'Olynth. Ill, §29.
»Heges., de Hal., § 12; Pollux, viii., 63, loi; Harpocr., s. v.
infirtvoi diKal: comp. Xenophon's treatise On the Reventies, ch. iii.
(from which Eubulus may possibly have derived the idea).
3 See Dem., de Pais. Leg., §§ 290-294.
/
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 127
by which theoric money was distributed; and he
may even have extended the distributions. In
what way he did this cannot be determined with
absolute certainty ; but that there was a law which
in some way forbade the application of the theoric
money to military purposes, and that in 349 it was y
a recent law, and therefore in all probability was '"
proposed by Eubulus and his party, is proved by
the demand made by Demosthenes in that year^
that its repeal should be facilitated by those who
had proposed it. The statement of a scholiast
that Eubulus enacted that any proposal to repeal
this law should be punished with death is due to
a misunderstanding of some words of Demos-
thenes. ^ It is most likely that the law put an end
to the assignment of unallocated funds (whether
for military or other purposes) by means of decrees
of the People, and that it did so simply by enacting
that all funds not allocated in the annual Budget-'
should become theoric money ; for no decree might
contravene a law, on pain of penalties which
might be very heavy, and in order to pass any
special vote of money out of the surplus it would
be necessary to repeal the law of Eubulus. That
is why, when in 349 Demosthenes desired to con-
vert the theoric money to military purposes, he
demanded the appointment of Nomothetse; for
only through Nomothetae could laws be repealed
or passed. '♦
' Olynth. Ill, § 12. » Ihid.
J See above, p. 125. * See above, p. 91, and Note 3.
/
128 Demosthenes
The meaning of Eubulus' policy now becomes
clearer. So long as large sums could be voted by
decrees of the People, suddenly inflamed by fiery
oratory and encouraged to declare war, there was
no security for his plan of rehabilitating the fleet
and the defences, and so making effective provi-
sion against attack. Little harm could be done
by the prohibition of such votes, so long as he and
his friends occupied all the financial offices, and
took care in the annual Budget to provide suffi-
ciently for these measures of defence and for the
public improvements which he wished to carry
out, thus including all the military expenditure
which they contemplated within the Budget,
instead of leaving it to fall on the surplus. By
such careful budgeting Eubulus was able to pro-
vide for all the needs of the State (assuming that
actual war could be avoided), and to satisfy the
People by the distribution of the surplus which
remained when all other requirements had been
covered. For obviously he was forced to do some-
thing to reconcile the masses to the abandonment
of an imperialistic policy. To abandon such a
policy was contrary to their natural sentiment;
and orators who flattered their pride by reference
to the glories of the past, and kept their ambition
in a state of activity, increased the force of this
sentiment . B ut the distributions of theoric money
could be utilised as a kind of premium of insurance '
' The metaphor is borrowed from Beloch, Attische Politik,
p. 178.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 129
against interference with his plans of retrench-
ment and repair of the defences. It was not
without reason that Demades spoke of these
distributions as the "cement of the democracy." ,
The poHcy of Eubulus is thus quite intelHgible ; .j,^^\„^
its aim was in itself a good one, and the ability^^;^^ Qc^
which he displayed in carrying it out was remark- .pc,-.,^?^-
able. Yet its weakness is also clear. In the first -^-o
place, he assumed too readily that it would be
possible to avoid war for a considerable time ; and y
hejwas so reluctant to abandon the delusion that, '
as we shall see, he postponed taking action, when .
war was forced upon him, until it was too late. ^
In the second place, no argumentation can get
over the fact that sums which might have gone
to constitute a strong reserve were thrown away ^^
upon amusements which had acquired a dispro- '^
portionate importance in the life of the people.
Lastly, a policy which might be justifiable and
advantageous when controlled by strong and able
hands, might become disastrous under a weaker
leader, or through popular pressure. The temp-
tation for the People to demand, and for the
demagogue to grant, increased sums for such dis-
tributions, and so to starve the administration,
might become irresistible; and we cannot entirely
refuse to listen to the contemporary writers who re-
' With the same end in view, Eubulus increased the attractions
of some of the festivals, and there with his own popularity; comp.
Dem.,01ynth. Ill, § 31, where the grant of special processions at
the Boedromia is mentioned. ' See below, Ch. VI.
\
130 Demosthenes
garded Eubulus as encouraging the People in idle-
ness and pleasure, to an extent which rendered
them unready for courageous and patriotic service
when it was most needed. "Eubulus," says Theo-
pompus,* "was a demagogue conspicuous for his
A care and industry ; he provided a great amount of
money, and distributed it to the Athenians, with
the result that under his leadership the city became
^ thoroughly cowardly and idle"; and Aristotle's
strictures" upon the practice of distributing sur-
plus funds to the People have obvious reference
to Eubulus. " The multitude receives the money
to-day, and is as badly off as ever to-morrow;
and to support the poor in this way is like pouring
water into a broken pitcher."
It may be argued in reply that the People were
already so far enervated and demoralised that the
action of Eubulus was the effect rather than the
cause of their moral weakness ; and that in recognis-
ing the fact as it was, he was doing the best thing
that the circumstances permitted. Yet (apart
from the question whether the People were by
this time so hopelessly demoralised as this implies)
it is difficult not to feel that his policy was some-
what cynical ; it was certainly destitute of any such
high ideal as Demosthenes constructed for him-
self on a foundation of Athenian traditions, hoping
fiP^4\"''^^ he did that he would be able to persuade his
IL' ^\ countrymen not merely to applaud patriotic
ry sentiments when they fell from the lips of their
» Fr. 91 (Oxford Text). » Ar., Pol, VI (VII), p. 1320a.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 131
orators, but also to face the hard work and self-
sacrifice which were necessary if sentiment was
to be translated into action. The success, how-
ever short-lived, of Demosthenes in this aim shows
that the idea was not a chimerical one.
But at the moment when he first came into
power, Eubulus was almost certainly right. Re-
trenchment and repair of the defences and the
fleet were absolutely necessary, whether they were
accompanied by distributions of money or not. It
was very desirable to avoid war, if possible; and
the proposals which Demosthenes made in his
next two public speeches, high-spirited and pa-
triotic though his intentions were, were almost
certainly mistaken. It will be convenient to
consider these at once, though they fall rather
later in time than some of the events which must
be narrated in the next chapter.
The first arose out of affairs in the Peloponnese.
Here for the last ten years, Sparta had been waiting
quietly for an opportunity to recover her power;
and in 353 such an opportunity seemed to have
occurred. Since 355 the Thebans, who had pre-
viously supported the enemies of Sparta in the
Peloponnese, had been engaged ia the Sacred War
(of which more is to be said hereafter) against the
Phocians. They were thus less able to help their
friends in South Greece. The latter therefore
turned towards Athens for support and (probably
in the last year of Aristophon's leadership) were
132 Demosthenes
received favourably. The Messenians in particu-
lar received a solemn promise of Athenian aid,
in event of any attempt on the part of Sparta to
violate their independence. ^ In 353 the Spartans,
with no little ingenuity, made a proposal to the
other Greek States that there should be a restora-
tion of territory to its original owners. The pro-
posal was bound to meet with some support in
Athens, since its acceptance would secure the re-
covery of Oropus, which had been held by Thebes
since 366, and the restoration of the towns friendly
to Athens in Boeotia — Thespias, Plataeas, and
Orchomenus. Of the Peloponnesian States, Elis
would be attracted by the prospect of recovering
Triphylia from the Arcadians, Phleius by that of
the restoration to them of Tricaranum, which was
now occupied by the Argives. Sparta herself would
then obviously claim to recover her dominion over
Arcadia and Messenia, and would expect the sup-
port of the other States who had benefited by the
restoration to them of their own former possessions.
When the discussion in the Assembly took place,
and embassies both from Sparta and from Mega-
lopolis had been heard, the question was very
warmly debated . In favour of the Spartan proposal
were the bitter feeling of most of the Athenians
towards Thebes, the desire to recover Oropus, and
the reluctance to break with the Spartans, who
had fought side by side with the Athenians at
Mantineia and elsewhere. Demosthenes, though he
'Paus. IV, xxviii., §§1,2.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 133
professed to be impartial in comparison with pre-
vious speakers, supported the Arcadian appeal,
on the ground that the interest of Athens required
that a balance of power should be maintained
between Sparta and Thebes, and that the Spartans
would gain too great a preponderance, if they
were permitted once more to be overlords of
Messenia and Arcadia. Besides this, Athens was
already pledged to support the Messenians; and
to accede to the Arcadian appeal would be in effect
to prevent the Spartans from committing aggres-
sions in either quarter. At the same time, the
alliance with the Arcadians must be frank on both
sides, and the Arcadians on their part must for-
mally renounce their alliance with Thebes. It
was not likely, Demosthenes argued, that Sparta
would actually go to war; and even without yield-
ing to the requests of Sparta it would be possible —
and that, even with the help of Sparta herself —
to recover Oropus and to demand from Thebes the
restoration of the suppressed towns. On these latter
points, Demosthenes' argument is very unconvinc-
ing, resting as it does on the assumption that Sparta
was interested, not in the recovery of her Empire, but
in giving effect to general principles of justice — the
very thing which he himself denied, in denouncing
the unscrupulous part which Sparta was playing. '
' Both in this Speech and in the next, Demosthenes shows that
he has not yet fully grasped the importance of distinguishing an
abstractly possible argument from a good one. Increased
knowledge of affairs remedied this defect.
134 Demosthenes
As regards the main question, there can be
little doubt that to make alliance with the Arca-
dians would really have involved serious risk of
war with Sparta, and probably also with Thebes.
Even if Sparta had recovered her dominion in the
Peloponnese, it would not have harmed Athens,
since in case of war the Peloponnesian subject-
States would have been certain to turn against
Sparta once more. From the point of view of
Athenian interests, in the existing circumstances,
Eubulus' policy of non-intervention was imdoubt-
edly the safer. On the other hand, it is impossible
not to appreciate the higher grounds upon which
Demosthenes rested his case — ^fidelity to the
promise given to the Messenians, and the tradi-
>N^ tional attitude of Athens towards the victims of
others' aggressions; and in a sense, future events
afforded a certain justification of his policy. For
when the Athenians had rejected the Arcadian
alliance, a temporary relief from the pressure of
the Sacred War enabled Thebes to send help to
the Arcadians, who became more closely connected
with Thebes than ever, and, a few years later,
like the Thebans, became allies of Philip, all the
efforts which the Athenians then made to obtain
their support proving unsuccessful. Hostilities
were carried on inconclusively between Sparta and
the Arcadians for two or three years, until in 350 a
Peace was made, by which the Arcadians retained
their independence. The conception which Demos-^
thenes had put forward of the duty of Athens
1
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 135
towards the injured appears again in his Speech
in defence of the Liberty of the Rhodians. At
the end of the Social War in 355, Rhodes, which
had been one of the leading cities in the revolt,
fdl into the hands of Mausolus, King of Caria — a
vassal of Persia, who had assisted the allies against
Athens. He fostered an oligarchical conspiracy
in the city. The democratic party were driven
into exile, and the oligarchs, who acted with
cynical brutality,^ maintained their position by
means of the Carian garrison. Similar events
took place in Cos ; and Athens thought it necessary,
as a precaution, to strengthen the band of Athe-
nians resident in Samos.^ In 351 (or possibly a
year or two earlier)^ the Rhodian exiles sent a
deputation to Athens, asking for help and restora-
tion— in other words for the liberation of the island
at once from the oligarchy in possession and
from the power of Artemisia, who had succeeded
(probably in 353) to the throne of her brother
and husband Mausolus. The Athenians were
little inclined to accede to the request. This
same democratic party had led the revolt against
Athens in 358, and popular feeling rejoiced over
their misfortune. Demosthenes, however, urged
the Athenians to forget their grudge, to take up
their traditional r61e as protectors of democracies
everywhere, and to remember the risk to which
Athens herself would be exposed, if oligarchies
'Theopomp., fr. ii8 (Oxford Text).
» Dionysius, de Dein., ch. xiii. J Note 4.
r
136 Demosthenes
were established in all the States of Greece, and
the Athenian democracy were left alone. The
recent disasters suffered by Artaxerxes in Egypt,
he argued, made it unlikely that either he or
Artemisia would seriously oppose the re-establish-
ment of Athenian influence in the island.
There can, however, be little doubt that Demos-
thenes underrated the danger of war with Caria or
Persia, if Athens interfered in Rhodes. In any
case, such interference was directly contrary to the
policy of Eubulus, with whom on this occasion
the People as a whole was in sympathy. The
generous, though probably impolitic, appeal of
Demosthenes failed; and several years later he
speaks^ of Cos and Rhodes as still subject to Caria.
Artemisia herself died shortly afterwards, of grief
(so it is said) for the death of Mausolus. '
The air of impartiality which Demosthenes
studiously affects in the three speeches to the
Assembly which have now been considered makes
them appear comparatively tame and in places
academic in tone. But now and then, as we have
seen, the idealist in him breaks out, and he demands
that Athens shall play a part worthy of her past.
He parts company, however, with the vulgar
jingoism of the popular orators of the day, in his
insistence that such a policy involves personaF
work for each individual citizen, and that patriotic
sentiment without personal self-sacrifice is useless.
• De Pace, § 25.
'Theopomp., fr. 275 (Oxford Text), etc.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 137
In the last of the three speeches^ he emphasises
strongly both the breach with Athenian tradition
made by his opponents, and the difficulty of
rousing his audience to act upon the principles
which they professed. It is true that in dealing
both with the Arcadian and with the Rhodian
appeal, he advocated the policy which was pro-
bably unwise at the moment ; it would have been
very ill-advised to divert into other channels the
forces and the funds which were certain to be
needed before long against Philip. Demosthenes
had still much to learn as a politician. But the
significance of these early speeches in relation to
his career as a whole lies (in spite of one or two
touches of almost cynical opportunism, ' which /
may have been designed to commend him to the )
Assembly as a man of the world) in the growing
sense of national duty which they reveal; in the
plain enunciation of certain important principles,
such as the doctrine of the Balance of Power,
and the assertion of the necessary hostility of
monarchies and oligarchies to a democracy like
the Athenian; and in the appeals which he makes
to the lessons of the past. In these points these
speeches form the first of a long series in which the
same ideas can be traced.
The trial of Timocrates, the colleague of Andro-
tion in the Commission for recovery of arrears of
' Pro Rhod., §§ 25-33; comp. Isocr., de Pace, § 30.
*E. g., pro Megal., § 10; pro Rhod., § 28.
138 Demosthenes
taxation, whose proceedings have already been
described, requires a brief notice, if only because
it illustrates certain remarkable features of Athe-
nian public life. As in the trial of Androtion — of
which the case may be considered a sequel — the
speech of the prosecutor Diodorus was written
by Demosthenes.
In 355 the Athenians sent an embassy to Mau-
solus, King of Caria, perhaps to protest against
his action in assisting the rebellious allies of
Athens or in interfering in the affairs of Rhodes.
The ambassadors were Androtion, Melanopus,
and Glaucetes; the ship on which they sailed was
commanded by Archebius and Lysitheides. On
the way they captured an Egyptian merchant-
vessel, which they brought to Athens. The
Assembly decided that as Athens was on friendly
terms with the King of Persia, ^ and Egypt was in
revolt against him, the Egyptians were enemies of
Athens (though in fact they had but recently been
assisted by Athenian generals and soldiers), and
the vessel was therefore a lawful prize. Accord-
ingly the prize-money ought to have gone to the
State, and the two trierarchs were legally respons-
ible for paying it over. After some time Euctemon
denounced them to the Commission recently
appointed on the motion of Aristophon to enquire
into debts to the State, for their failure to account
for the sum, which amoimted to nine and a half
' The recall of Chares in the previous year was nominally
based on the same assumption.
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 139
talents; and subsequently proposed a decree that
payment should be required from them, but that
as the money was admittedly in the hands of
Androtion, Melanopus, and Glaucetes, the tri-
erarchs should be allowed to argue before a court
the question, whether they or the three ambas-
sadors were liable. Androtion failed to convict
Euctemon's decree of illegality; and the three tried
various devices for evading payment, but in vain.
At last, in 353, they found themselves in the posi-
tion of having to pay the debt at once, or to be
condemned by a court to pay a sum which would
amount to about treble the original debt; in the
latter alternative they would be imprisoned till
the sum was paid. They therefore got Timocrates
to propose a law that any debtor to the State who
had been sentenced to imprisonment (as well as
to repayment) should be permitted to give bail by
himself or his friends for the amount of the debt,
and allowed until a month before the end of the
current year to discharge it; after that period
his bail should be escheated, and himself impris-
oned. In order to smuggle the law through, a
certain Epicrates was induced to propose in an
Assembly in the middle of July, 353, a decree that
the Nomothetas should be summoned next day, on
the pretext that insufficient funds had been voted
for the Panathenasa. The Nomothetae met; no-
thing was done in regard to the Panathenaea ; but
Timocrates' law was somehow passed. Diodorus
and Euctemon prosecuted Timocrates for the
140 Demosthenes
alleged illegality of the law; and the trial probably
took place early in 352. There can be no doubt
that the law was illegal, and was merely a device
to enable Androtion and his colleagues to post-
pone the evil day. The relevant arguments of
Demosthenes on this point are conclusive. It is
therefore all the more pity that he should in this
Speech (as in that against Leptines) have used
other arguments directed against consequences
which no one would have dreamed of expecting
from the law, and which could only be inferred
from it (if at all) because it had been hastily
and overwidely drafted. ' He strains every point
against Timocrates and Androtion in a way which
is at least disingenuous, and which certainly makes
a bad impression. ^ At the same time, the know-
ledge of law and the sureness of touch which he
shows are remarkable, and here and there a strik-
ing and vivid piece of writing foreshadows some
of the best of his later work. ^
We do not know what the result of the trial was.
If Timocrates was condemned to a fine, it is pro-
bable that it was not so heavy as to force him to go
into exile; as he is generally supposed to be the
Timocrates who supported Meidias against Demos-
»Esp. §§ 79-101.
» The text of the Speech as it stands appears to be a conflation
of two speeches, or of two recensions of the same Speech ; but its
exact history cannot be certainly reconstructed. Part of the
Speech consists of a repetition of a considerable section of the
Speech against Androtion, with very slight alterations.
3 E. g., § 208, much admired by Longinus.
\\
Beginning of Demosthenes' Career 141
thenes some years later. Androtion and his
colleagues had actually paid the sum due from
them before the trial of Timocrates began'; and
though this would not purge Timocrates' guilt
in proposing the law, it might mollify the jury
when the penalty had to be fixed. Androtion
himself was still active in Athens in 346. ^
NOTES ON CHAPTER IV
1. No proposal might be made in the Assembly which was
inconsistent with the existing laws. The proposer of any such
motion was personally liable to prosecution (though only within
the year) , and the law might be repealed at any time after a trial
before a jury. The rule was a safeguard against inconsistencies
in the law, and against the risk which the People ran of being
misled by an able orator into passing measures contrary to their
own will, which was assumed to be embodied in the existing law.
2. The ultimate object of the law of Leptines is not very
clear. It can hardly have been an important measure of finance.
It is true that the preamble stated that it was enacted in order
that the richest men might have to undertake the burdens; and
that some of those who enjoyed immunity must have been more
or less wealthy men. But they were comparatively few in all;
the relief given to the rest by the distribution of the burden
among a slightly increased number would be slight; and the
general revenues of the State would gain nothing. Nor can the
law be accounted for by a dislike on the part of the democracy
for hereditary privileges. Most of the grants of immunity were
indeed made to a man's descendants as well as to himself; but
there is no evidence to show that the Athenians thought of the
extension of a compliment to the descendants of a distinguished
servant of the State as inconsistent with democracy. It is much
more likely that there were notorious cases of the privilege being
enjoyed by the undeserving; or that it had been much granted
' §§ 187 ff.
»C. 7. A., iv., 109b (Dittenb. Syll. Ed., ii., No. 129).
142 Demosthenes
of late to persons (such as powerful generals) of whom the demo-
cracy was suspicious.
3. See Francotte, Les Finances des CitSs Grecques. Francotte's
account of the law and policy of Eubulus is the most satisfactory
that I have seen. He notes that the law was occasionally evaded
by passing, not decrees, but special laws, dealing with small
necessary expenses, grants of crowns, etc., and that it might be
evaded in small matters in various other ways. But the pro-
posal of a large vote for purposes of war would have certainly
been followed by prosecution.
4. Dionysius places the Speech for the Rhodians in 351.
Butcher and others would date it a year or two earlier, on account
of the comparatively slight mention of Philip, which they suppose
to be too casual for the year of the First Philippic. But the
allusion to Philip shows that in the speaker's opinion, though
not in that of his opponents, Philip is a very formidable foe.
The other arguments for an earlier date are even less convincing.
CHAPTER V
THE RISE OF PHILIP
BEFORE some of the events narrated in the last
chapter had taken place, the great struggle
between Athens and the royal house of Macedonia
had begun.
The Macedonians of antiquity were a mixed
race, and the degree of kinship between them and
the Hellenic peoples is a matter upon which no
agreement between scholars has been attained.
The Macedonians proper lived on the low lands
watered by the Axius and the Haliacmon, between
the mountains and the sea, with Pella for their
capital, though the more ancient centre, and the
burial place of their kings, was ^gas or Edessa.^
They were a more or less settled agricultural
people, whose lands provided for them the neces-
sities of life, and who engaged comparatively
little in foreign trade. They were the subjects
of an absolute monarchy of an almost Homeric
pattern, holding their lands at the pleasure of the
King, giving him military service at his command,
and in every way bound to do his bidding, except
' Now Vodhena.
143
144 Demosthenes
that in matters of life and death the assembly of
fighting men appears to have had a right to give
the final decision, and the will of the same body-
was at least as influential as the right of birth in
determining the succession. But in the upper
valleys, and among the moimtains, there dwelt a
number of tribes — Lyncestas, Orestae, Elimiotae,
and others — governed by princes of their own,
nominally indeed subordinate to the King of
Macedonia, but restless and always liable to rebel.
These were probably nearly akin to the lUyrians
who lived to the westward of them (between them
and the Adriatic), and to the Paeonians on the
north of Macedonia. There is also some evidence
of the existence of Thracian stocks within Mace-
donia itself.
That the royal house of Macedonia was at least
partly Hellenic by descent had been admitted in
the fifth century B.C., by the officials of Olympia,^
who allowed the Macedonian prince, Alexander,
to compete in the Olympian games — a privilege
strictly confined to Hellenes. But with regard
to their subjects there was always a doubt. On
the one hand, there was a tradition that they, or
some of them, had migrated from Greek lands into
Macedonia. On the other, they were often spoken
of as barbarians, because they were backward in
culture, and their dialect was difficult to under-
stand. (There was the same doubt about the
peoples of Epirus and inner ^tolia, and for similar
' Herod., v., 22.
I
The Rise of Philip 145
reasons.) The remains of the Macedonian dialect
are too meagre, and the extent of its borrowings
from the vocabulary of the Greeks proper too
uncertain, to justify any conclusion as to the na-
tionality of those who spoke it ; and we have to be
contented at present with the probability that they
were in some degree akin to the Hellenes on the one
side and the lUyrians on the other, and that the two
stocks (and perhaps others with them) were blended
in varying proportions in different localities. ^
In one respect the Macedonians afforded a strong
contrast to all but the least advanced Greek
peoples, namely, in the fact that their organisa-
tion was a tribal and quasi-feudal one, and did not,
as with the Greeks, centre in city-states.^ The
Macedonians proper, as distinct from the hill-
tribes, appear to have been organised primarily
for military purposes. The greater number of
the able-bodied land-holders made up the infantry
or ' ' foot-guards " -^ ; and a smaller body of wealthier
and more honourable men composed the cavalry,
or "Companions" of the King.'' At the time of
Philip's accession the Companions may have num-
bered some six hundred. Of these a specially
selected group — probably under a hundred — were
"Companions of the King's person "s; and the
highest ambition of the Macedonian was to attain
a position in this group. But in this organisation
the hill- tribes had no part.
' Note I at the end of the Chapter. » The unit was the tOvo^,
not the ir6Xtj. 3 ve^h-aipoi. * iraTpoi. s ol dfjup' airrbv iraTpoi.
146 Demosthenes
On the sea-coast the freedom of action of the
Macedonians was held in check by the Greek
colonies planted there. In the time of the Pelo-
ponnesian War the King, Perdiccas 11. , had failed,
in spite of his political ingenuity, to shake off
these fetters. His successor, Archelaus, had made
efforts to modernise his kingdom, building roads
and chains of forts, and probably attempting to
unite the unordered elements in his kingdom by
combining all in one national army. He was an
admirer of Greek culture, and encouraged the
literary men of Greece to frequent his Court.
Euripides and Agathon ended their days there;
Timotheus the lyric poet and Zeuxis the painter
also visited Pella; Socrates was invited thither,
but declined to go. But the efforts of Archelaus
had little permanent success, and in the confusion
which followed his death in 399, the advance which
had been made towards a higher civilisation was
neutralised. The coastward towns, Olynthus,
Acanthus, and Amphipolis, increased in power,
and in spite of a temporary set-back, owing to the
intervention of Sparta in 379,* the Olynthian
League grew powerful and continued to act as a
barrier in the way of Macedonian ambition.
Amyntas III., whose reign lasted (though not
without interruptions) from 393 to 369, was gener-
ally on terms of friendship with Athens, and, as we
have seen, ^ acknowledged her title to Amphipolis.
He married the Lyncestian princess Eurydice,
' See above, p. 48. » p. 53.
The Rise of Philip 147
who bore him three sons — Alexander, Perdiccas,
and PhiHp, who was bom in 382. Alexander,
who succeeded Amyntas in 369, was murdered
after a reign of a year; and the yotmg Perdiccas
only secured the throne from the pretender
Pausanias by the intervention of Iphicrates, who
was invoked by Eurydice. At the beginning of
the reign of Perdiccas III., Ptolemy of Alorus,
the son-in-law and paramour of Eurydice, acted
as regent; and when (in 367) the Theban general
Pelopidas advanced from Thessaly to Pella,
Ptolemy made an agreement with him, and was
obliged to give Philip, then fifteen years old, with
other hostages as a security for its fulfilment.
Philip was taken to Thebes, and lived there in the
house of Pammenes until 364, when he was re-
leased and returned to Macedonia. Perdiccas,
like Archelaus, was incUned towards Hterature
and philosophy, and Euphraeus, a pupil of Plato,
was for a time his principal adviser. ' But in spite
of the help given to him by Iphicrates, and of a
short-lived alliance with Athens which Timotheus
persuaded him to make, he gave his support to Am-
phipolis in her struggle to hold out against Athens.
In 359 he was killed in a rising of the hill-tribes,
perhaps instigated by Eurydice herself, in revenge
for the murder of Ptolemy by the King's orders. ^
' Comp. Athen., xi., p. 5o8e. o^ru) fvxpui^ ffwira^e rr/v iraipiav
ToO /SacrtX^w &ffT€ oiK i^ijv rov ffvaffirlov /irra(rx«i', «' /«) rts iirurTaiTo
t6 yeufieTpeTv fj rb (piKoao^tv. For Euphraeus. see Phil., Ill, § 59,
and below, p. 325.
» So Justin, VII, V.
148 Demosthenes
The Macedonians first proclaimed his infant son
King, with PhiHp as regent ; but very soon, in view
of the need of a strong hand, they transferred the
kingship to Philip himself, who accepted it, we
are told, under compulsion. '
Philip was still only twenty-three years of age;
but his early life had taught him lessons by which
he had profited to the full. He had learned that
success could only be achieved by a strong hand,
and that if he was to reign over Macedonia in
security he must not be over-scrupulous as to
means. His sojourn in Thebes had given him
an opportunity for observing the successes and
methods of Epameinondas and Pelopidas — the
/ one a unique embodiment of commanding military
genius and high culture, the other the most reckless
and daring soldier of his age. He had learned to
appreciate the almost unbounded opportunities
which lay open to a strong man in the Hellenic
world, as it then was; and he had become familiar
with the recent improvements upon the traditional
organisation of Greek armies. He had learned
that the leader of a strong army, who could attach
his men to himself by sentiment as well as by
interest, and could not only hold his force together
by discipline, but could develop methods of fight-
ing which would give it an immediate advantage
over those who followed more conventional Hnes,
was practically certain of success.
Moreover he was the man for his task. Fear-
' Compulsus a populo (Justin, VII, v.).
Jl
The Rise of Philip 149
less and resolute ; not to be turned aside by a defeat
here and there, or by any misfortune to his own
person; discerning and clever in dealing with
different kinds of men and States; never eager to
secure in haste what might be better secured by
patience, or to use force where fraud would serve,
he was entirely fitted for the execution of an
ambitious and far-reaching policy in that age.
Besides this, he was personally attractive, not
only to the rough Macedonian soldiers, with whom
he mingled freely on familiar terms, but also to
the cultxired representatives of the Greek States,
who were sent to treat with him. He had learned
at Thebes, among other lessons, to appreciate
Hellenic literature and refinement ; he encouraged
dramatic artists to visit his Court at Pella; and,
when the time came, he engaged Aristotle himself
as the tutor of his young son Alexander. He was
an able and persuasive speaker, and the orators
of Athens themselves felt the power of his adroit
eloquence.' Though he indulged freely in the
coarser vices, he confined his indulgence for the
most part to seasons when it could not interfere
with his plans ; and it in no way affected either his
own hardiness — his constitution was of iron — or
his requirement of similar hardiness from his
soldiers. He used money no less skilfully than
other means of persuasion to effect his purposes;
his generosity was lavish, and it was believed by
later generations that his victories were won with
' iEsch., de F. L., §§ 42, 43, etc.
15© Demosthenes
gold as often as arms. That he employed decep-
tion to achieve his ends cannot be doubted, though
his faithlessness on certain occasions was certainly-
exaggerated by Demosthenes. The rectitude of
ancient and modem critics may deplore some of
the methods which Philip used, and the licenses
which he permitted himself in his private life.^
But deceit and corruption are not so entirely
unknown in modem political warfare that we can
afford, on account of his use of them, to refuse all
admiration to a strong man, who, with every
instrument thoroughly at his command, played
his great game with skill, precision, and courage,
and seldom mistook either the men with whom he
had to deal, or the surest method of dealing with
them.
How soon Philip conceived the policy which it
was his life's work to carry out, we do not know.
Doubtless the necessity of reorganising the army
and improving its methods of fighting presented
itself first. Before long he may have determined
upon the conquest of the Hellenic world; and in
any case he must have been aware from the first
that Macedonia could not be perfectly independent,
so long as she was hemmed in by Hellenic colonies
out of his control, and by warlike and restless
tribes, not yet subdued. The idea of the conquest
of the Nearer East probably grew in his mind
later, when his army had reached its full efficiency,
and his lordship over Greece was as good as
' Note 2.
11
The Rise of Philip 15 1
achieved. It may even have been suggested by
Isocrates.
However this may be, the organisation of the
army was his first task. By the formation of
regiments on a territorial basis, bound together
by a local patriotism which was to lead to a more
comprehensive national spirit; by offering new
prospects of promotion from one rank in the army
to another, and so appealing to the ambition of
the individual soldier; by attaching the higher
ranks above all, but all ranks in ascending degrees,
to his own person; he created a united national
force, which he drilled into efficiency by relentless
practice as well as by experience in actual warfare.
The introduction of a longer spear for the use of
the infantry gave his phalanx a great advantage
when meeting the enemy: his cavalry, brought to
the highest pitch of mobility, were frequently so
employed, under his skilful generalship, as to
determine the issue of battle by their action at
critical moments, and were given an importance
which cavalry had seldom possessed in Greek
warfare; he further availed himself of the great
improvements in siege-instruments which the
engineers of the day devised; and his cavalry and
infantry were supplemented by archers and light
troops of other descriptions, so as to be prepared
for every contingency. '
Above all, Philip's army was kept together as
' On Philip's army, see Hogarth, Philip and Alexander oj
Macedonia, pp. 50-64, etc.
152 Demosthenes
a standing force. At first this may_well- -have
caused some discontent, and there may be some
truth in the account which Demosthenes gives in
the Second Olynthiac of the state of feeling Jn
Macedonia.
You must not imagine [he says], men of Athens,
that Philip and his subjects delight in the same
things. Philip has a passion for glory — that is his
ambition; and he has deliberately chosen to risk the
consequences of a life of action and danger, preferring
the glory of achieving more than any King of Mace-
donia before him to a life of security. But his
subjects have no share in the honour and glory. Con-
stantly battered about by all these expeditions, up
and down, they are vexed with incessant hardships;
they are not suffered to pursue their occupations or
attend to their own affairs; and for the little that
they produce, as best they can, they can find no
market, because the trading stations are closed on
account of the war.
r In the same Speech, Demosthenes speaks of
I Philip's jealousy of any credit ascribed to his sub-
ordinates; and Polyaenus^ relates that Philip
y professed to prefer victories won by diplomatic
conversations to those secured by arms, because
the glory of the latter had to be shared with
. others, while that of the former was all his own.
But we know that Philip in fact recognised to the
full the qualities of Antipater and Parmenio, his
principal generals; there is no other evidence,
» Polyaen. IV, ii, § 9.
The Rise of Philip 153
apart from Demosthenes' statements, to sug-
gest any disunion of spirit between Philip and
his men; and it would seem to be one of Philip's
greatest distinctions, that before long he did
make his subjects feel that they had a share
in the honour and glory, and that their interest
was not at strife with their loyalty to himself.
In any case, the possible inconveniences of a
standing army, equipped with every kind of
force, were more than counterbalanced by the
immense advantage which it gave him over his
enemies. "It is not," says Demosthenes, "as
commander of a column of heavy infantry that
Philip can march wherever he chooses, but because
he has attached to himself a force of light infantry, \ ^0^
cavalry, archers, mercenaries, and a miscellaneous
camp. . . . Summer and winter are alike to him,
and there is no close season during which he sus-
pends operations."' And again, "with a standing '
force always about him, and knowing beforehand
what he intends to do, he suddenly falls upon whom-
soever he pleases ; while we wait until we learn that
something is happening, and only then, in a turmoil,
make our preparations."* His own position of
absolute command was an even greater element
in his success; and upon this also Demosthenes
lays some stress.^ In short, it must soon have
been plain, both to his admirers and to those wh(
'Phil. Ill, §49-
^De Chers., § ii; comp. de Cor., §235.
3£. g., Olynth. I, § 4; de Cor., § 235.
,>«.?<.<<
154 Demosthenes
dreaded him, that any who would resist him had
to deal with a man of extraordinary genius, who
had won for himself a position of extraordinary
advantage.
At the beginning of his reign it was necessary
for him to move with caution. His claim to
the throne was disputed by more than one pre-
tender. But he had the support of the Mace-
donian army, which he had won over by eloquent
language, and he rid himself of his rivals without
serious difficulty. One of them, Argaeus, had been
assisted by Athenian troops. It was not, however,
a convenient moment for Philip to enter upon a
quarrel with Athens. His own forces were not
yet in order — the Athenians had shown signs of
reviving strength in this very year, in the recovery
of their supremacy over the Chersonese, and he
himself had to face an immediate struggle with
the hill-tribes of Paeonia and Illyria. He there-
fore assumed an attitude of generositj^ and sent
back to Athens, without demanding any ransom,
the Athenian citizens whom he had taken among
the defeated supporters of Argaeus. At the same
time he sent an embassy to Athens,^ asking for
peace; and since the Athenians had given their
aid to Argaeus on the understanding that Argaeus
'Dem., in Aristocr., § 121; Diod. XVI, iii., § 4; Justin, VII,
vi. [Diodorus and Justin are the principal continuous authori-
ties for the remainder of this chapter; but many Jstatements
rest on passages of Demosthenes (esp. in the Olynthiacs and
Philippic I) and other orators, and on allusions in various
writers. The more important references to these are given.]
1
The Rise of Philip 155
would restore Amphipolis to them, he found it
convenient to recognise the Athenian claim to the
town, in order to obtain for the moment a Peace
which he had no intention of keeping. It was
fortunate for him that the Athenians failed to
take the obvious step of garrisoning Amphipolis
without delay, and that within a few months they
became involved in war with their allies, and so
had little opportunity for attending to their
interests elsewhere.
Accordingly, after a campaign against the
Paeonians and Illyrians, in which the new tactics
were employed with complete success, and a large
district was added to his kingdom, Philip returned
to the coast (late in 358), appeared before Am-
phipolis, which had given him some provocation,*
and demanded its surrender. The Amphipolitans
at once despatched Hierax and Stratocles to
Athens to ask for help. To counteract their
appeal, Philip wrote a letter to Athens, explaining
that he was attacking the town with the intention
of placing it in the hands of Athens. In reply to
this the Athenians sent Antiphon and Charidemus
to negotiate with him ; and it was arranged that if
he gave up Amphipolis to Athens, he should re-
ceive Pydna from Athens in its stead. This
arrangement was very discreditable to the Athe-
nian representatives. Pydna, though it had been
a Macedonian possession until Timotheus won it
over for Athens about the year 364, was an ally
' Diod. XVI, viii., § 2.
u
156 Demosthenes
of Athens, and might well claim to be consulted
before being surrendered to Philip; and so the
nature of the bargain was kept secret, lest it should
become known at Pydna; the Athenian People
were only informed in vague terms that an under-
standing had been arrived at. Philip had now
secured the support of a party in Amphipolis ; and
it was by their treachery, as well as by means of
his engines, that he took the town, probably in
the autumn of 357.^ A scholiast says that after
its capture he at once put the traitors to death,
on the ground that they were not likely to be more
faithful to him than they had been to their own
^ ,v-j fellow-citizens. He then banished all who were
If' ' liiostile to him in the town.
^Jof So confidently did the Athenians expect to
^v|receive Amphipolis, that when the Olynthians,
^ alarmed at Philip's success, appealed to them for
aid against him, they would not listen. In con-
sequence of this, the Olynthians tried to secure
JFl I themselves by making an agreement with Philip
^ I himself; and it was quite in accordance with his
' ^ ' plans to accede to their overtures, and to make a
Peace which was destined to last until it should
be convenient to him to crush them in their turn.
It was provided in the agreement jthat_jthe_Qlyiir
thians should not make terms with Athens apart
rom himself. ^
^ ' Dem., Olynth. I, § 5,
»Dem., in Aristocr., §108; Olynth. II, §14; Phil. II, §20,
f
"J I
-r' a.
i
The Rise of Philip 157
How the Athenians expected to be able to give
Pydna to Philip was never disclosed; for Philip, in-
stead of waiting for the fulfilment of their promise,
himself took possession of Pydna by force (assisted
by treachery from within) and refused to give up
Amphipolis. He next joined the Olynthians in an
attack upon Poteidaea. This was one of the most
important towns of the Chalcidic peninsula ; it had
long been a rival of Olynthus; and a large body of
Athenian colonists was established there. Its cap-
ture was rendered easy by treachery from within;
and the Olynthians received from Philip both it
and also Anthemus, and profited greatly by the
cultivation of the territory which he added to their
own, and by the increase in their trade.
The Athenians had, in spite of the Social War,
resolved to send an expedition to relieve Poteidasa,
but it did not start in time. ' Philip, nevertheless,
allowed the Athenians whom he captured in the
town to depart without ransom. He was not yet
ready to take measures which might exasperate
Athens ; even in besieging Poteidaea he was nomin-
ally acting as the ally of the Olynthians ; and, as we
have seen, he gave up the town to them. It was
just at this time that he received three messen-
gers with good tidings. The first told him of a
victory of his general Parmenio over the Illyrians ;
the second of the success of his force in the Olym-
pian games; the third of the birth of his son
Alexander. ^
' Phil.. I, § 35, etc. » Plut. Alex., iii.
1 58 Demosthenes
At about the same time Philip was enabled to
satisfy the want of money which was pressing
heavily upon him. His occupation of Amphipolis
opened the way to the gold-mines of Mount
Pangaeus, east of the Strymon, which were being
worked at the time by settlers from Thasos: and
he took advantage of an appeal made to him by
these settlers, when hard pressed by Thracian
assailants, to occupy their town, Crenides, and
to enlarge it into a city which he named, after
himself, Philippi, He at once began to work the
mines, and from this time onward they provided
him with a large and steady income, which before
long amounted to as much as one thousand talents
a year. The Athenians, hampered by the Social
War, were unable to take any active stepis to check
his advance. They made an alliance, indeed, in
356,^ with the Pasonian Lyppeius, the Illyrian
Grabus, and the Odrysian prince Cetriporis, the
eldest son of Berisades, to whom (in the division
of his father's share of the Odrysian kingdom
which took place on his father's death) there fell
the western portion, including the district in
which Amphipolis and Crenides lay. But Cetri-
poris could not retain the district against Philip,
and in 355 Philip made a victorious campaign
against the Paeonians and lUyrians. Moreover,
his conquest of the district east of the Strymon
enabled him to take advantage of its luxuriant
forests to provide himself with timber, with which
» C. I. A., II., 66.
II
The Rise of Philip 159
to build a fleet — an absolute necessity if he was
to maintain his hold on the coast, and to resist
the Athenians on their own element. His occu-
pation of the coast-town Datum, which Callistratus
had re-founded (in conjunction with settlers from
Thasos) when he was expelled from Athens, gave
him a convenient naval station. He was now
able to interfere with Athenian trade, and also
to occupy convenient islands, which had hitherto
been infested by pirates. Before the end of 355
he had rid himself for the time of all danger from
the newly-made allies of Athens, and was in a
position to renew direct operations against Athe-
nian interests on the coast of the Thermaic gulf;
and he could now dispense with the pretence of
acting as the ally of Olynthus.
He accordingly laid siege to Methone, which
was the last important Athenian town on the gulf,;
and was used by the Athenians as a naval base. /
(It had been brought within the Athenian alliance!
by Timotheus about ten years before.) The siege
probably began in the last months of 355.* The
town made a brave resistance, but was at last
forced to siirrender. In the course of the siege
an arrow deprived Philip of the sight of his right
eye. The citizens were allowed to depart free,
but with only one garment apiece, and their ter-
ritory was divided among Philip's followers.
Philip was now master of the whole coastline of
the Thermaic gulf, as well as of the seaboard from
' Note 3.
1 60 Demosthenes
the east side of the Chalcidic peninsula to a point
perhaps fifty miles or so beyond Amphipolis. He
had ample supplies of money and ships; and his
army had so far proved irresistible. Athens, on
the other hand, had lost all the stations which
she had possessed on the coasts of Macedonia
and Chalcidice, and had been imable to give any
effective help to her allies in those regions. Even
Methone had been suffered to fall imaided; and
the policy of Eubulus was to avoid so far as pos-
', sible all active measures of hostility. In the
J period which we have now to consider, we shall
see Philip pushing his conquests far along the
Thracian coast, and also securing a foothold in
Thessaly; until finally, there being no longer any
reason for allowing the Olynthian confederacy to
interrupt the continuity of his empire, he turns
upon Olynthus itself. The chronology of the
years 354-351 has been the subject of prolonged
controversy, and the precise order of some of the
events remains uncertain; but there is no doubt
about the coiu-se of events as a whole.
It was probably in 353 that Philip made his
next move along the Thracian coast. We have
seen how in 359 the Thracian kingdom had been
divided between Cersobleptes, Berisades, and
Amadocus, and how, not long afterwards the
Chersonese, with the exception of Cardia, had
been definitely handed over to Athens by Cerso-
bleptes, in consequence of the activity of Chares.
Soon after this Berisades had died, and his share
The Rise of Philip i6i
of the kingdom had been divided between his sons,
of whom Cetriporis, as has been narrated, had
made alliance with Athens, but had not succeeded
in keeping Philip out of the western part of his
dominions. Amadocus and the sons of Berisades
seem to have remained on friendly terms with
Athens, but Cersobleptes was naturally anxious
to get rid of them, and to reign once more over
the whole Odrysian kingdom. Hostilities had,
it seems, already begun, the sons of Berisades
entrusting their cause to the generals Simon,
Bianor, and Athenodorus.
At the same time Cersobleptes desired to effect
his end without opposition from the Athenians,
who just about this time (in 353), to confirm their
occupation of the Chersonese, had sent a body of
colonists to Sestos.^ It is possible that at this
time Cersobleptes thought of an aUiance with
Athens as his best resource against the probable
advance of Philip. Accordingly (probably in 353)
he sent Aristomachus as his representative to
Athens, to emphasise the friendly sentiments of
himself and his general Charidemus towards the
city. Aristomachus further asserted that Chari-
demus and no one else would be able to recover
Amphipolis from Philip, and urged the Athenians
to elect him general. The suggestion was taken
' Chares established them in the town by force, killing and
enslaving the inhabitants who resisted. Diod., XVI, xxxiv.
For the chronology, see Foucart, Les Atheniens dans la Chersonese,
p. 28 flf., where a satisfactory solution of the difficulties is given.
1 62 Demosthenes
up by one Aristocrates, who further proposed that
the person of Charidemus should be declared
inviolable, and that any one who killed him should
be liable to summary arrest in any territory be-
longing to Athens or her allies. The proposal
was cleverly contrived in the interests of Cerso-
bleptes; for had it been passed, its effect would
have been that Simon, Bianor, and Athenodorus
would be afraid to act against Cersobleptes'
forces, commanded by Charidemus, for fear of in-
curring the ill-will of Athens. The decree, how-
ever, was at once indicted as illegal by Euthycles,
who engaged Demosthenes to compose his speech
for him. But the trial did not take place until
the summer of 352; and before that time Philip
had once more made his appearance on the
Thracian coast, and had seized the towns of
Abdera and Maroneia.
^ Upon this, Cersobleptes, instead of looking any
more (if he had done so previously) to Athens to
help him against Philip, appears to have thought
it better to come to terms with Philip himself, and
so to resume his former attitude of hostility to-
wards Athens. Accordingly he sent ApoUonides
of Cardia, a town which had remained hostile to
Athens, to negotiate for him with Philip at Maro-
neia, and gave Philip seciuities for his fidelity.
At the same time he probably hoped that Philip
woiild espouse his cause against Amadocus; but
in this he was disappointed; for Philip, finding
that Amadocus intended to offer resistance, ap-
The Rise of Philip 163
pears to have thought it better not to lose time
in conquering an enemy who could be conquered
at any time, but to return to Greece, where a great
opportunity for extending his influence was now
opened to him, in the form of an invitation to
interfere in the Sacred War. (Demosthenes says^
that, had it not been for the resistance of
Amadocus, there would have been nothing to
save the Athenians from having to fight with-
out delay against the Cardians and Cersobleptes.
But it is difficult to think that Philip regarded
the resistance of Amadocus as important, except
in so far as time would have been required to
crush it.)
In the negotiations between Philip and Cerso-
bleptes at Maroneia the Theban general Pammenes
also appears to have taken some part; for Cerso-
bleptes (so Demosthenes tells us) gave pledges
"to Philip and Pammenes." Pammenes had been
sent by the Thebans to support Artabazus in his
revolt against the Persian King, at some time
after the Athenians had compelled Chares to
withdraw his assistance from him.^ On his way
either to or from Asia Minor, Pammenes met
Philip at Maroneia. They were old friends, for
Philip had lived in Pammenes' house while a
hostage in Thebes; and perhaps Pammenes with
his army gave Philip his support during the nego-
' In Aristocr., § 183. (This Speech is, as before, our principal
authority for Thracian aflfairs.)
'See above, p. no.
164 Demosthenes
tiations, at least so far as to increase the formidable
appearance of Philip's host.'
Philip now began to return homewards*; but
on his way back he had to pass Neapolis, where
Chares was waiting with twenty ships. (Neapolis
was a member of the Athenian confederacy, situ-
ated on the coast not far from Datum, in the district
already conquered by Philip; but the town seems
so far to have remained independent of him. In
355 it had appealed to Athens for help, ^ and Chares
may have been sent in answer to this appeal.)
Philip contrived to get past by a clever ruse. He
sent four of his swiftest vessels in advance ; Chares
went in pursuit of them into the open sea, and
while he was thus employed, Philip got past Nea-
polis in safety with the rest of his force. The
four ships also escaped. (It was possibly about
this time that Chares defeated the mercenaries of
Philip under the command of Adaeus, a general
who was sumamed "the Cock." Theopompus^
tells us that in celebration of this victory Chares
feasted the Athenians with funds given him out
of the temple treasures of Delphi by Onomarchus,
the Phocian general in the Sacred War, of whom
more is to be said hereafter. The event must
therefore be placed between Onomarchus' seizure
of the treasures in 354 and his death in 352.)
The trial of Aristocrates took place in 352, and
the speech which Demosthenes composed against
' Note 4. » Note 5. » C. I. A., ii., 66.
* Fr. 241 (Oxford text).
The Rise of Philip 165
him is by far the most remarkable which we have
yet considered. Apart from the exhaustive treat-
ment of the Athenian law of homicide, which
displays the thoroughness generally characteristic
of Demosthenes' legal arguments, and proves
conclusively the illegality of Aristocrates' decree,
the manner in which he handles the question of
Athenian policy in regard to Thracian affairs as
most masterly. Demosthenes argues strongly
that the right policy for Athens is to prevent the
absorption of power over the whole of Thrace by
one man — in other words, to keep Cersobleptes in
check by strengthening the rival princes and con-
firming them in their reliance upon Athens';
while the effect of such a decree as Aristocrates
had proposed would be to make these princes
believe that Athens was veering round to the side
of Cersobleptes, if she could accord such unparal-
leled honours to his chief minister and general.
He shows also by a spirited narrative of Chari-
demus' career that the man himself was quite un-
worthy of such an honour, and that his allegiance
could not be counted upon, whatever Athens
might do for him. Towards the end of the Speech,
he makes an onslaught upon the statesmen who
were influential at the time, the party of Eubulus,
denouncing them for enriching themselves while
' It is the same doctrine of the Balance of Power as he had
appHed to Peloponnesian affairs and to the case of Sparta and
Thebes in the previous year, in the Speech for the Megalopolitans.
(See above, pp. 132-33.)
1 66 Demosthenes
(Impoverishing the State, and for degrading the
democracy by accustoming it to obey their own
dictates in a servile and unworthy manner. ^ The
Speech has a trenchant vigour and a breadth of
outlook which are far in advance of the qualities
displayed in Demosthenes' earlier work; and its
nobility of tone and the absence from it of all
personal rancour have been generally recognised.
It has, however, been doubted whether the policy
recommended by Demosthenes was the best under
the circumstances. There seem to have been two
alternatives open to the Athenian people at this
time. The one, upheld by Eubulus and his party,
was to preserve peace for the present at all costs,or
at least to take no more active steps against Philip
than were absolutely necessitated either by immi-
nent danger or by the imperialistic tendency of the
multitude, who were likely to insist upon some
kind of retaliation against Philip's aggressions.
(It was probably in view of some such pressure
that Chares had been sent to NeapoHs.) The
possibility of avoiding war, and at the same time
of holding Philip in check, might seem to be offered
by an alliance with Cersobleptes. If that prince
were permitted to unite all Thrace under his own
sway, he would be a powerful buffer between
Philip and the Chersonese, the retention of which
' Considerable portions of §§ 207-210 are repeated in Olynth.
Ill, §§ 25-31. Probably Eubulus' supporters were influenced
by the desire to save their wealth in supporting a peace-policy.
But if some grew rich, we have no proof that they did so by
illegitimate means.
The Rise of Philip 167
was essential to Athens, since without it her corn-
supply was menaced; and there was the chance
that Cersobleptes would do the main part of the
fighting, with the able general Charidemus to
lead his forces, while Athens could continue to
recruit her strength, sending only a small squad-
ron to his support. From this point of view,
the policy advocated by Demosthenes — that of re-
jecting the overtures of Cersobleptes — must have
seemed a mistaken one.
But the alternative policy which evidently
was in Demosthenes' mind had at least as much
to recommend it, — the policy of keeping Cerso-
bleptes weak by maintaining rival princes by his
side in Thrace, and of preventing Philip from ex-
tending his influence in that direction, by taking
such active measures against him as would keep
him fully occupied nearer home. The difficulty
of Eubulus' policy lay in the fact, which Demos-^^
thenes emphasises strongly,^ that past experience
had shown that Cersobleptes and Charidemus were
not to be relied upon, and that no alliance with
them would be certain to fulfil its object. More-
over, Athens already had engagements with the
other princes. The weakness of Demosthenes*
policy was that (in all probability) Athens was
not yet in a condition to prosecute war against
Philip with sufficient vigour to ensure success.
In fact, Athens was in a position of danger, which-
ever plan she followed ; and the difference between
' §§ 123-137.
1 68 Demosthenes
Demosthenes and his opponents was a phase
of the more fundamental difference in regard
■ to the policy to be pursued towards Philip,
/ the one side appealing to national traditions
'', and ideals, the other to motives of prudence
and to the unwillingness of the People to go
out and fight in person, however excited the
crowd might be at each new aggression of their
enemy.
Neither policy was free from danger; neither
could be certain of success; and whether we sym-
pathise more with Demosthenes or with Eubulus,
each of whom viewed the situation from one point
of view, and neither of whom, perhaps, saw it
whole, is a question of temperament rather than
a matter to be settled by argument. The same
problem recurs repeatedly in the history of the
next few years. ^
We do not know whether Aristocrates was con-
demned for the illegality of his proposal. The
decree itself, having been brought before the Coun-
cil only, and not before the Assembly, would have
ceased to have any force (even apart from the
suspensory effect of Euthycles' indictment) at
the end of the archonship in which it was passed,
— in other words, even before the trial took place.
But in 351 we find Charidemus among the gen-
erals of Athens, and (either late in 353, or in
352) alliance was made between Athens and
Cersobleptes.
' Note 6.
COIN OF CETRIPORIS
COIN OF PHILIP (silver)
COIN OF PHILIP (GOLD)
COIN OF ALEXANDER (SILVER)
COIN OF ALEXANDER (GOLD)
COIN OFLYSIMACHUS (SILVER)
COINS OF MACEDONIAN AND THRACIAN KINGS
The Rise of Philip 169
NOTES ON CHAPTER V
1. The best recent discussion of the subject is that by G.
Kazarow, "Observations sur la nationality des anciens Mac6-
doniens" {Bull. con. Hell., xxiii., p. 243 ff.); iii which the writer
combats successfully the arguments used by Hoffmann {Die Make-
donen und ihre Sprache) and Beloch to prove the close relationship
of the Macedonians to the Greeks, and agrees with those who con-
nect them more closely with the Illyrians. See also Cavaignac,
Histoire de V Antiquite, vol. ii., bk. iii., ch. iv., for an account
of Macedonia. A more thorough examination of Macedonian
personal and local names may some day throw light upon the
ethnological problem; and it is possible that the course of political
events may render Macedonia more accessible to the exploring
scholar.
2. Theopompus insists (in many of the extant fragments)
upon the drunkenness and immoralities of Philip and his com-
panions. We cannot say how far he is telling the truth ; but we
may suspect that he was not free from the desire to draw sensa-
tional pictures with a view to edification. Polyaenus, IV., ii.,
gives a number of anecdotes in illustration of Philip's resource-
fulness and unconventionality in military matters.
3. An inscription (C I. A., ii., 70), dated about Dec. 26,
355 B.C., commends Lachares of ApoUonia for bringing something
into Methone; and it is not easy to explain the special merit of
such an action unless the town was already beleaguered. Dio-
dorus narrates the siege and fall of Methone twice (XVI., xxxi
and xxxiv.), under the years 354-3 and 353-2 respectively. See
also Kahrstedt, Forschungen, p. 42.
4. The circumstances of the mission of Pammenes are very
obscure. The Thebans had previously been on good terms with
the Persian King, and they were on good terms with him again
in 351, when he sent them a present of money. Demosthenes
perhaps had some inkling of the temporary alteration of their
policy in 354 (Speech on the Naval Boards, §§ 33, 34). Pammenes
seems soon to have been suspected by Artabazus of negotiating
with the King's supporters (Polysnus, VII., xxxiii., § 2).
5. The chronology of Philip's Thracian campaign is very
uncertain. Demosthenes, in Aristocr., § 183, records Philip's
presence at Maroneia, and the mission to him of ApoUonides,
170 Demosthenes
bringing securities from Cersobleptes to Philip and Pammenes;
and as far as Demosthenes is concerned the date may be any time
between 355 and 352, when the trial of Aristocrates took place.
(Demosthenes also records Amadocus' opposition to Philip.)
Diodorus apparently places Pammenes' expedition in 353-2,
but does not mention his meeting with Philip. Diodorus' dates,
however, are very unreliable, and the attempts to extract cer-
tainty from his history by tracing out the different authorities
whose works he is supposed to have clumsily combined are very
inconclusive. It is nowhere stated whether Philip's meeting
with Pammenes took place on the latter 's outward or homeward
journey. If on the former, Philip must have made an expedition
to Thrace in 354 or (more probably) 353, and the events here
discussed must have occurred then, as is assumed in this chapter;
if on the latter, one expedition to Thrace, in 352, after the check
at Thermopylae (see, below p. 178) will suffice; and the events in
question will then be part of the same campaign as the siege of
Hergeon Teichos in November, 352. But the fact that Polyaenus,
IV., ii., § 22, speaks of Philip returning {ivavTJei) after taking
Abdera and Maroneia suggests that the latter alternative is the
less likely of the two. The schol. on ^Esch., F. L., § 81, states
that Philip helped the Byzantines and Perinthians and Amadocus
against Cersobleptes in a dispute for the possession of territory,
and made him surrender the disputed ground to them, and give
his son as a hostage to himself. As Demosthenes does not men-
tion these events, they probably fell late in 352 (after the trial
of Aristocrates). Indeed the -n-ia-Teis mentioned in § 183 as
given by Philip to Cersobleptes at Maroneia could hardly have
included his son without Demosthenes noticing the fact: and
these events therefore were probably part of the campaign which
included the siege of Herason Teichos (see below). On the former
expedition in 353 Amadocus had resisted Philip; in 352 he fought
on the same side. Possibly the Amadocus who appears in 352
was in fact the son of the opponent of Philip in 353 : cf. Harpocr.,
S.V. AfidSoKOi . . . 5i5o y€y6pa<nv otroi, irirrip Kol vl6s, Ss Kal HXlirirtfi
ffVfjLfjMX'^ffi^v ^Xdep els rbv irpbs Kepao^Xiirrriv irbXefjav.
6. Kahrstedt (Forschungen) has attempted to prove that
Demosthenes was animated throughout the years 355-351 by a
desire to forward the interests of Persia; but the arguments used
to prove this are very far-fetched and inconclusive.
CHAPTER VI
THE OLYNTHIAN WAR
WE have seen that after taking Abdera and
Maroneia and granting terms to Cer-
sobleptes, Philip returned homewards. He did
so in response to an invitation which he had
received from the princes of the ruling dynasty of
Larissa to assist them against the princes of Pherae
and their allies the Phocians, and so to take part
in the Sacred War. In order to imderstand the
situation it is necessary to go back a few years.
The battle of Leuctra in 371 had given Thebes
the supremacy over her neighbours the Phocians;
but the latter were not content to be subjects of
Thebes, and in 362 they had refused to join in the
last campaign of Epameinondas in the Peloponnese ;
for they were still, as they had been before the
battle of Leuctra, on friendly terms with Sparta.
Before long the Thebans found a pretext for
attempting to punish them, which would give to
the attempt the colour of religious sanction.
The temple and oracle at Delphi were under the
control of the Amphictyonic Council, representing
a very ancient confederacy of twelve Greek tribes,
171
1/2 Demosthenes
which no doubt were originally more or less equal
in power, but in the course of history had come to
differ widely in importance. The twelve tribes
included not only the Thessalians, Boeotians,
Dorians, and lonians, and such tribes of secondary
importance as the Achaeans, Phocians, and Locrians,
but also the comparatively insignificant Malians,
Perrhagbi, Magnetes, Dolopes, and (Enianes (or
(Etaeans). Each of these tribes had two votes in
the Council. Athens appears to have exercised
one of the Ionian votes, Thebes one of the Boeotian,
Sparta one of the Dorian. The geographical
position of the smaller tribes was such as to make it
likely that the Thebans and Thessalians (at any
rate if united) could command a majority of votes
in the Coimcil; and since the battle of Leuctra
the Thebans had begim to use the Council to
further their political ends. Thus they caused it
to impose a heavy fine upon Sparta for the seizure
of the Cadmeia in 383, perhaps treating this act
as a violation of the oath which bound the mem-
bers of the League together; and in 356 the Council
was led to mulct the Phocians in a very large sum
for some offende, the nature of which is variously
reported,' but which was probably the encroach-
ment upon land dedicated to Apollo, the god of
Delphi. They further proposed to dedicate the
Phocians' own territory to the god. At the same
•Diod., XVI, xxiii.; Justin, VIII, i.; Paus., X, ii., i; and
Athen., XIII, p. 560 (quoting Duris). The principal authority
for the history of the Sacred War is Diodorus* XVIth book.
I
The Olynthian War 173
time they increased the penalty previously imposed
upon the Spartans; for of course it had not been
paid. Whether Sparta and Athens, which were
both traditionally friendly to the Phocians, were
represented at the meeting of the Council is
unknown; if they were, they must have been
outvoted.
The Phocians, led by Philomelus, refused to pay
the fine; and after obtaining some financial aid
from Archidamus, King of Sparta, proceeded in
355 to seize the temple of Delphi, and erase the
record of the sentence against them. (The temple
was in the hands of the Delphians, who were
originally a branch of the Phocian race. There
was a standing dispute between the Delphians and
the Phocians as to the control of the temple, and
Philomelus' action was not without some show of
justification.) The Phocians also defeated the
forces of the Locrians, their neighbours, who
attacked them at the instigation of Thebes; and
Philomelus secured (though not without threats of
violence) the approval of the Pythia, the priestess
of the oracle, for his designs. The Thebans and
Thessalians (most of whom were traditionally
hostile to their restless Phocian neighbours) now
induced the Amphictyonic Council to declare a
"Sacred War" against the Phocians, and sum-
moned the Greek peoples to join in punishing
them for their sacrilege. The response seems to
have been fairly general on the part of the tribes
situated to the north of Boeotia; Byzantium also.
174 Demosthenes
which had for several years been friendly to Thebes,
sent supplies of money. ^ The Spartans sent one
thousand men to the assistance of the Phocians';
and to procure mercenaries, Philomelus made use
of part of the treasures of the Delphian temple,
probably intending at the time to repay them.
What was the attitude adopted by Athens ? It is
impossible to give a certain answer. Aristophon and
Eubulus were alike disposed towards friendship
with Thebes as a general policy,^ though on the
other hand, there was a long history of friendship
between Athens and the Phocians, and the People
as a whole detested the Thebans. (Demosthenes
himself was generally friendly to Thebes.) '' It is
possible that at first the political leaders in Athens
took the Theban side, and the record of a treaty
between Athens and the Locrians, ^ which seems to
fall in the early years of the war, lends some colour
to this view. In any case, though they appear to
have returned a friendly answer to the Phocian
appeal, they at first gave the Phocians no active
help; and the popular mind seems to have been
divided between a strong disapproval of the
' Dittenb., Syll. (ed. 2), 1., 120.
» Cf. ^sch., de F. L., § 133 flf.
» Dem.,de Cor., §162.
* Cf. .(Esch., de F. L., § 106. Kal yip irpbs toTs iWois KaKoit
^oiwTtdfet. Demosthenes' Speech for the Megalopolitans was
much more favourable to Thebes than to Sparta, though he used
the conventional phrases of dislike for the Thebans to disarm
suspicion.
sC. I. A. ii., 90. See Schwartz, Demosthenes' Erste Philip-
pika (Festschr. fur Th. Mommsen), p. 17.
II
The Olynthian War 175
sacrilegious acts of the Phocians, and a sentimental
anxiety lest they should be exterminated.^
The war was waged with great ferocity from the
first. Philomelus gained some striking successes,
but in 354 was defeated by the Thebans near Neon
and killed himself. He was succeeded by Ono-
marchus, who made an unscrupulous use of the
temple-treasures, not only to pay mercenaries, but
also to give presents to powerful persons in many
cities, no doubt in order to obtain through them
the support of their countrymen. * Among others
who joined him was Lycophron, prince or "tyrant "
of Pherae, who was desirous of restoring the
domination of his house over the Thessalians; for
since the death of Alexander, a few years before,
the house of Pherag had lost its supremacy, and the
Aleuadae of Larissa had come to the front. In 354
and the greater part of 353 Onomarchus appears to
have been in the main successful. He defeated the
Locrians, and also restored Orchomenus and liber-
ated it from the power of Thebes. He also obtained
command of the all-important pass of Thermopylae ;
and though he sustained a check from the Thebans
at Chaeroneia, this does not seem to have greatly
injured his cause. Before the end of 353, the
princes of Larissa, Eudicus and Simus, invoked
the aid of Philip against the rival house of Pherae;
Philip, as we have seen, obeyed the call; and
Lycophron thereupon sent in haste for Onomarchus
and his army.
»Dem., de Cor., § i8. »Theopomp., fr. 240, 241 (Oxford Text).
176 Demosthenes
Onomarchus first sent his brother Phayllus, who
was soon driven off by Philip. He then went to
the rescue himself, and defeated Philip severely in
two battles. Philip was little daunted; encour-
aging his downcast troops, he withdrew from
Thessaly for a time, but only, as he said, "like a
ram, in order to butt the harder next time." For
the moment Lycophron was master of Thessaly,
and Onomarchus pursued his successes farther
south, and captured Coroneia. But early in 352
Philip reappeared, and, crowning his men with
laurel to proclaim their championship of the cause
of Apollo and so to give them confidence, he
obtained a complete victory over Onomarchus and
Lycophron near the coast of Magnesia. Ono-
marchus lost his life, and Philip put to death a
very large number of prisoners as guilty of sacri-
lege; some, however, of the fugitives were picked
up by Chares, who happened to be sailing by the
Magnesian coast at the time. Philip now be-
sieged and took Pherae, deposed Lycophron and
put an end to the despotic regime, and became
master of practically the whole of Thessaly.
Whatever had been the attitude of Athens
earlier in the war, it was now evident that she
could no longer ignore the growing power of Philip.
It has been suggested that Chares may have been
sent to Magnesia in order to co-operate with
Onomarchus; though the only evidence is that of
Diodorus, who treats his presence there as acci-
dental. But when, after taking Pherae, Philip pro-
The Olynthian War 177
ceeded to attack Pagasas, the most important sea-
port of Thessaly, ' the Athenians resolved to send an
expedition to the aid of the town. Unfortunately,
like the expedition to Methone, it arrived too late,
when Philip had already become master of the port.
Philip now arranged the affairs of Thessaly, acting
on the whole in a lenient and conciliatory fashion,
but taking for himself the harbour-dues and re-
taining Magnesia in his own occupation. Then,
before July, 352, he moved towards Thermopylae.
On this occasion the Athenians were in time.
There can be no doubt that Eubulus, no less than
the war-party, now realised the necessity of
measures of defence. The only alternative would
have been to make peace with Philip and come to a
definite arrangement as to territory, both in Greece
and in Thrace; but this would certainly have
meant the renunciation of Amphipolis by Athens;
and to this the majority of the Assembly would
not yet have consented. Nothing remained then
but to oppose Philip, and the measures taken were
proposed by a supporter of Eubulus, Diophantus
of Sphettus. The citizens were thoroughly roused
and volunteered for service; and five thousand
infantry and four hundred cavalry were sent by
sea to Thermopylae under Nausicles at a cost of
two hundred talents (including the private expen-
diture of the soldiers) . At Thermopylae, Phayllus,
the successor of Onomarchus in the command,
already waited on land with a powerful army, in
' It lay close to the site of the modern Volo.
lyS Demosthenes
which the Phocians, whom he had rallied once
more, were supported by large contingents of
Spartans and Achaeans, and by the mercenaries
who had previously fought for Lycophron. On
hearing of the arrival of the Athenian squadron,
Philip abandoned the attempt to cross the Pass;
and Demosthenes more than once'' refers to this
occasion as one of the few on which, in recent
years, the Athenians had acted worthily of their
traditions, and so had entirely succeeded in their
object. Apart from the danger of an advance,
Philip's willingness to retire is not hard to explain.
He had already gained immensely in prestige
in this campaign, not only by the mere fact of
his victory, but by the role he had been able to
assume, of champion of the god of Delphi, whose
sanctuary had been violated by Onomarchus and
the Phocians in a way which shocked the religious
sentiments of the Greeks generally, whatever might
be the political interests of each State. To create
a favourable feeling towards himself in this way
was no slight gain; and he may well have been
content for the moment to enjoy the advantage
of this, without endangering it by attempting to
push his conquests further. It is also probable
that with Thessaly in his power (though not yet
perfectly subdued) to the north of the Pass, and
with the Thebans, his allies, farther south, and
presumably able to hold the defeated Phocians in
check, he saw that less was to be gained by trying
' E. g., Phil. I, § 13; de F. L., §§ 84, 86; de Cor., § 32.
The Olynthian War 179
to cross the Pass in face of strong opposition, than
by pursuing and consolidating his conquests to the
east of Macedonia.
So we find him before the end of 352 once more
in Thrace. It has already been narrated that
about a year before this, he had taken securities
from Cersobleptes and had been opposed by
Amadocus, but had refrained from retaliating.
On the present occasion, he appears to have aided
Amadocus against Cersobleptes. "The peoples of
Byzantium and Perinthus, " so a scholiast states,^
"and Amadocus the Thracian, made war upon
Cersobleptes, king of a portion of Thrace, on
account of some disputed territory. Philip as-
sisted them and defeated Cersobleptes, and forced
him to yield the territory to those who claimed it.
He further took Cersobleptes' son as a hostage,
and carried him off to Macedonia." (^schines
saw Cersobleptes' son at Pella, where he was still
kept in captivity, when he went there as ambassa-
dor six years afterwards.) Philip seems in fact to
have been following the very policy which Demos-
thenes had recommended to Athens in the Speech
against Aristocrates — that of dividing the power
over Thrace among a number of persons or States ;
and his alliance with Byzantium appears natural
enough when we remember that the Byzantines,
like himself, had supported the Theban side in
the Sacred War. He further made alliance with
Cardia, and so secured for himself a stronghold
'On^sch., de F. L., § 8i.
1 80 Demosthenes
overlooking the Chersonese — a very serious menace
to the power of Athens. In November of the same
year he laid siege to Heraeon Teichos. The exact
position of this fortress is not known, but it was
probably so near either to the Chersonese or to the
coast along which the Athenian corn-ships passed
that the Athenians could not contemplate Philip's
action with equanimity; and they were once more
roused to a fit of energy. Demosthenes* own words
best describe the sequel^:
Amidst all the discussion and the commotion which
took place in the Assembly, you passed a resolution
that forty warships should be launched, that men
under forty-five years of age should embark in person,
and that we should pay a war-tax of sixty talents.
That was in the month of November. That year
came to an end. ^ There followed July, August, Sep-
tember.'' In September, after the Mysteries, and
with reluctance, you despatched Charidemus with ten
ships, carr3dng no soldiers, and five talents of silver.
For so soon as news had come that Philip was sick
or dead — both reports were brought — you dismissed
the armament, men of Athens, thinking that there
was no longer any occasion for the expedition. But
it was the very occasion; for had we then gone to
the scene of action with the same enthusiasm which
marked our resolution to do so, Philip would not
have been preserved to trouble us to-day.
' Olynth. Ill, § 4.
' The Athenian year ran, roughly speaking, from July to July.
3 I.e., of 351 B.C.
The Olynthian War i8i
The account which Demosthenes gives can easily
be filled out. We can imagine that the militant
instincts of the democracy were so keenly aroused
by the alarm raised by the war party, that Eubu-
lus thought it necessary to yield so far as to send
an expedition to Heraeon Teichos. Then came the
news of Philip's illness, which enabled Eubulus
once more to advocate inaction, the wealthier
citizens to seek to avoid the expenditure, and the
rest to relapse into their customary unwillingness
to do their own fighting. ^ (It is noteworthy that
we now find Charidemus in the service of Athens.
Probably Philip's activity in Thrace had convinced
him that the cause of Cersobleptes was destined
to be lost, and the Athenians were doubtless better
pleased to have him as a supporter than as an
opponent.)
We have seen that about this time the proposal
of Demosthenes to help the exiled Rhodian demo-
crats was made and defeated, — no doubt by the
influence of Eubulus, who in this matter acted
wisely, since it would have been very imprudent
to risk offending Persia, when there were other
enemies to be reckoned with. Artaxerxes was
just now engaged in the attempt to reduce his
rebellious subjects in Egypt to obedience, and was
doubtless anxious to be free from troubles else-
where. The refusal of Athens to take part in the
' In the Speech for the Rhodians (delivered, probably, early
ill 351)1 Demosthenes had upbraided the Athenians in passing
for thinking of Philip as a foe not worth reckoning with.
1 82 Demosthenes
Rhodian quarrel was therefore convenient to him ;
and at the same time he apparently tried to secure
the inactivity of the Thebans by sending them a
large present of money in answer to the appeal
which they made to him, when they were hard
pressed for funds with which to carry on the Sacred
War. For the war was dragging on inconclusively.
Phayllus had achieved some successes, but had
died before the end of 352, and had been succeeded
by Phalaecus ; but the war continued to be waged in
Boeotia and Phocis for some years, without any
decisive action taking place; though at times the
Phocian territory suffered severely from the in-
cursions of the enemy.
When Philip recovered from the illness which
forced him to raise the siege of Heraeon Teichos, he
appears to have turned his thoughts at once to
Olynthus. He had suffered that city to remain at
the head of the Chalcidic League, and to retain
Poteidasa, Anthemus, and other territories; but it
must have become more and more plain to all that
he was not likely to refrain from requiring the
submission of the league, and so consolidating his
dominions, so soon as it should be convenient to
him. Already in 352 Olynthus had taken ad-
vantage of Philip's absence in Thrace to make
overtures to Athens, and had thus broken her
compact with him, under which peace was only to
be made by her with Athens in conjunction with
himself; and shortly afterwards Philip's step-
brother Arrhidaeus, who had opposed Philip's
The Olynthian War 183
accession to the throne, took refuge in Olynthus
and was welcomed there. ^ Early in 351 — this at
least is the probable date — Philip made his appear-
ance within the territory of Olynthus.^ It may
be that he was only led to cross the borders of the
Chalcidic League in the course of making good his
conquest of the neighbouring territory of the
Bisaltse, on his way back from Herason Teichos^;
he certainly took no hostile steps against the
cities of the League, and even protested his friend-
ship towards them. But it was probably now
that, in response to an embassy from the Chalcidic
cities, he quoted to them' a fable about War and
Violence, which he represented as supernatural
powers whom they seemed Hkely to bring down
upon themselves.''
During the years 351 and 350 Philip left the
Olynthians unmolested. It is possible that he
suffered from a recurrence of his illness, ^ and that
during part of the time he was occupied in the
fortification of strongholds in Illyria, and in hos-
tilities against Arybbas, King of the Molossi.^
But there can be no doubt that he was all this time
fostering in Olynthus a party favourable to himself,
and secretly intriguing in Euboea, with a view to
creating such occupation there for the Athenian
* Dem., in Aristocr., §§ 107-9, ^^^ schol. in Olynth. I, § 5.
'Phil. I, §17; Olynth. I, § 13.
3 See Schafer, ii., p. 122.
^Theopomp., fr. 124 (Oxford Text); comp. Babrius, Fab. 70.
5 Dem., Prooem., xxi., § 2.
« Dem., Phil. I, § 48; Olynth. I, § 13.
1 84 Demosthenes
forces as would render them unable to come to the
aid of Olynthus, when he chose to fall upon it.
It is most probable that it was early in 351 that
his ships began to make those raids upon Athenian
territory which are mentioned both by Demos-
thenes and by ^schines. They not only descended
upon Lemnos and Imbros, and carried off Athenian
citizens as prisoners of war; but they also seized
a fleet of Athenian corn-ships off Gerasstus (the
southernmost point of Euboea), and actually landed
troops at Marathon, and carried off the Athenian
state-galley, which was conveying a deputation to
a religious festival at Delos. ' The alarm which
these acts occasioned is described by ^Eschines,
who says that the special meetings of the Assembly
which were called in the midst of the alarm and
turmoil caused by the news outnumbered the
regular meetings. Yet no active steps were taken,
except that of sending Charidemus — probably to
the Hellespont — as described in the passage
already quoted from the Third Olynthiac, with
ten ships and five talents, and leaving him to find
mercenaries for himself; and it must have been at
one of the meetings of the Assembly in this year
(probably in the autumn, after the despatch of
Charidemus)' that Demosthenes delivered his
First Philippic Oration.
' Dem. Phil. I, § 34; in Near., § 3; Procem., xxi., § 2; iEsch.,
de F. L., § 72.
' This is more likely than the view that the sending of Charide-
mus was due to the speech. The sending of Charidemus is
probably referred to in §43.
11
The Olynthian War 185
It was the first occasion on which Demosthe-
nes had opened the debate, and it required some
courage on the part of a man only thirty years of
age to rise without waiting for older men (in ac-
cordance with the custom of the Assembly) to
give their opinions first. "But," he said, "since
we find ourselves once more considering a question
upon which they have often spoken, I think I may
reasonably be pardoned for rising first of all. For
if their advice to you in the past had been what it
ought to have been, you would have had no occa-
sion for the present debate." He then proceeded
at once to the attack. The unfortunate position
of affairs was entirely due to the refusal of the
Athenians to take a personal part in the defence
of their country. It was the reliance upon mer-
cenaries, the failure to support them and their
generals with funds, and the intermittent charac-
ter of their military operations, that placed the
interests of Athens at the mercy of Philip. In a
few strokes he depicted the Athenian people of his
day — their excitability, their love of sensational
gossip, their inability to sustain any impulse which
they might feel for the moment, and to follow it
out into effective action.
What? [he asked] — do you want to go round ask-
ing one another: " Is there any news?" Could there
be any stranger news than that a man of Macedonia
is defeating Athenians in war, and ordering the affairs
of the Hellenes? "Is Philip dead?" "No, but he is
sick." And what difference does it make to you?
1 86 Demosthenes
For if anything should happen to him, you will soon
raise up for yourselves a second Philip, if it is thus
that you attend to your interests. Indeed, Philip
himself has not risen to this excessive height through
his own strength, so much as through our neglect. I
go even further. If anything happened to Philip —
if the operation of Fortune, who always cares for us
better than we care for ourselves, were to effect this
too for us — you could descend upon the general con-
fusion and order everything as you wished; but in
your present condition, even if circumstances offered
you Amphipolis, you could not take it; for your forces
and your minds alike are far away.
Besides this, the whole military system of Athens
was at fault. The delay in organising a force even
when it had been resolved upon was fatal in dealing
with an adversary like Philip, and offered a strong
contrast to the promptitude with which all ar-
rangements in connection with the popular festi-
vals were carried out. Nor could anything be
done by isolated expeditions\to the places attacked.
The method of your warfare is just that of bar-
barians in a boxing-match. Hit one of them, and he
hugs the place; hit him on the other side, and there
go his hands ; but as for guarding or looking his op-
ponent in the face, he neither can nor will do it. It
is the same with you. If you hear that Philip is in
the Chersonese, you resolve to make an expedition
there; if he is at Thermopylae, you send one there;
and wherever else he may be, you run up and down
in his steps. It is he that leads your forces.
The Olynthian War 187
It was therefore absolutely necessary, Demos-
thenes insisted, that there should be a standing
force, kept permanently at the seat of war. More-
over, this force should consist in a large measure of
citizens, whose presence would at least act as a
check upon the independence of the generals, and
make them less likely to desert the war to which
Athens had sent them and go off upon some more
profitable expedition. Further, Demosthenes re-
minded his hearers, these generals, receiving no
support from home, plundered the very allies of
Athens, and obtained acquittal when brought to
trial, by pleading the difficulties of their position.
This could only be remedied by providing both
funds and citizen-soldiers liberally.
At the same time, Demosthenes was careful to
distinguish his attitude from that of the noisy
orators, who clamoured for war and proposed
measures of a magnitude which was absurd un-
der existing circumstances — with the result that
nothing was done at all. He had thought out
carefully what, in his opinion, the situation re-
quired, and had worked out the details after his
manner. The force ultimately to be created was
one of fifty ships, carrying citizen-troops, with
transports for half the cavalry^ of the city ; and this
was to be kept ready for immediate action in case
of any emergency. But since this armament
could not be organised at once, he proposed that a
smaller force should be prepared for immediate
service, consisting of two thousand soldiers, of
1 8 8 Demosthenes
whom five hundred were to be citizens, and two
hundred cavalry, including fifty citizens. The
citizens should serve in relays, and ten warships
would be required. This force was not to fight
any pitched battle, but to harry Philip's coasts, to
keep him in check, and, above all, to prevent him
from plundering the allies and territory of Athens.
It was to receive bare rations — the amoimt was
exactly calculated — ^and for the rest was to support
itself. (Demosthenes accompanied the proposal
with a detailed exposition of the sources from which
he expected to be able to draw the necessary fimds,
but the schedule was unfortunately not published
with the Speech, and has not come down to us.)
The general in command, he said, would determine
the particular operations to be undertaken, as
circumstances required; the force would winter in
the islands subject to Athens, and whenever the
opportunity occurred, would lie close to the Mace-
donian coast, and block the mouths of the ports.
In order to rouse his countrymen to the pitch of
enthusiasm which would induce them to take the
steps which he urged upon them, Demosthenes
appealed to every motive that could influence
them — pride in the past, shame at the present,
trust in the help given by Heaven to those who
help themselves, alarm for the future if the danger
were not averted by vigorous action. Beside the
eloquence of this Speech the earlier orations — with
the exception of parts of the Speech against
Aristocrates — seem cold.
The Olynthian War 189
The proposals of Demosthenes have often been
criticised. Of their practicabiHty in detail we
have no means of judging. But it is perfectly
clear that if Philip was to be opposed at all — and
it is really upon that fundamental question that his
critics differ from Demosthenes — it could only
be by neutralising the advantages which Philip
possessed, through a change in Athenian methods
of warfare, of the kind which Demosthenes pro-
posed. Whether the Athenians would face the
necessity of personal service and of a standing
army was (just as he represented it) a question of
character and resolution; and he believed in them
enough to think them capable of the necessary
sacrifices. That he was mistaken is perhaps small
blame to him. The suggestion (which, of all that
he makes in the Speech, sounds most strange to
modem readers) , that the presence of citizen-soldiers
in the army was required in order to be a check
upon the generals' independence, was probably
sensible enough in the circumstances of the time.
If, as it was, a general was to a great extent in the
hands of his mercenaries, and had to lead them
where they wanted to go, their influence would at
least be partially counteracted by the presence of a
large body of citizens, whose claim to the general's
services on their country's behalf could make itself
felt on the spot.
But so far as we know, Demosthenes' Speech
bore no fruit. At least we know of no operations
against Philip which can be assigned to the year
190 Demosthenes
350. Instead of this we hear of trivial quarrels of
the Athenians with their nearer neighbours, the
Megareans and Corinthians. The Megareans ap-
pear to have trespassed upon land sacred to the
two goddesses of Eleusis, Demeter and Persephone,
whom the Athenians held in the deepest veneration ;
and an Athenian force, led by the general Ephial-
tes, invaded Megara, and forced the Megareans to
recognise a delimitation of the sacred territory
by the officials of the Eleusinian mysteries.^ An
armed force was also sent into the territory of
Corinth to attend the Isthmian Games, because
the Corinthians, for some reason unknown to us,
had omitted to send the Athenians the customary
official invitation to the Games. To these quarrels
Demosthenes not unjustifiably refers^ with con-
tempt, since in pursuing them the People was
neglecting its more vital interests.
It is probably to the same year that we must
refer the friendly communications ^ between Athens
and Orontas, satrap of Mysia, who was in revolt
against the King of Persia, and had helped the
Athenian generals with supplies of com. These
communications showed a different attitude on
the part of the Athenians towards Persia from that
which had led them in 356 to recall Chares when he
was helping Artabazus. Moreover, the rebellious
subjects of the King in Egypt were being assisted
by the Athenian Diophantus, and owed much of
' See Didym., Schol. in Dent., Col. 13, for details.
•Olynth. Ill, § 20. 3 C. 7. A., ii., 108.
The Olynthian War 191
their success to his generalship. (On the other
hand, Phocion, of whom much more will be said
in the sequel, is found in 350 helping the King's
forces at the siege of Salamis, where Euagoras had
revolted. Perhaps by this time Orontas had been
subdued, and the King may have threatened the
supporters of the rebel satrap, and caused them to
veer round once more.) There is much that is
obscure in the relations of Athens to the King at
this time, but the hostile attitude which she
appears to have adopted for a time may possibly
be explained by recent communications between
Philip and Artaxerxes. It is at least probable
that Philip had thought it well, before turning his
attention to conquests nearer home, to come to a
temporary understanding with Artaxerxes which
would secure him against Persian interference
with his own recently acquired power in Thrace
and on the Hellespont. '
In the meantime Philip was encouraging the
party favourable to himself in Olynthus, the
leaders of which were Euthycrates and Lasthenes,
assuring them that he meant their city no harm,
and inducing them to persuade their fellow-citizens
to dismiss his opponents from their confidence.
• Demosthenes (Phil. I, § 48) alludes to a rumour that Philip
had sent ambassadors to the King; and Arrian, II, xiv., quotes a
letter of Darius to Alexander the Great, reminding the latter of his
father's friendship and alliance with Artaxerxes Ochus. There
is no indication in Arrian of the date of the alliance, and some
would place it about 343; but I think the year 351-0 is more
likely to be the right date.
192 Demosthenes
Thus persuaded, the Olynthians exiled Apolloni-
des, the leader of the anti-Macedonian party, and
before long took what proved to be the fatal step
of appointing Lasthenes to command their cavalry.
And so [says Demosthenes^], when some of them
began to take bribes, and the People as a whole were
foolish enough, or rather, unfortunate enough, to re-
pose greater confidence in these men than in those
who spoke for their own good ; when Lasthenes roofed
his house with the timber which came from Mace-
donia, and Euthycrates was keeping a large herd of
cattle for which he had paid no one anything, when a
third returned with sheep, and a fourth with horses;
while the People, to whose detriment all this was be-
ing done, so far from showing any anger or any dis-
position to chastise men who acted thus, actually
gazed on them with envy, and paid them honour, and
regarded them as heroes — when, I say, such practices
were thus gaining ground, and corruption had been
victorious, then, though they possessed one thousand
cavalry, and numbered more than ten thousand men,
though all the surrounding peoples were their allies,
though you went to their assistance with ten thousand
mercenaries and fifty ships, and with four thousand
citizen-soldiers as well, none of these things could
save them. Before a year of the war had expired
they had lost all the cities in Chalcidice, while Philip
could no longer keep pace with the invitations of the
traitors, and did not know which place to occupy first.
The history of the years 349 and 348 affords a
^De F. L., §265 ; cj. Phil., Ill, §§ 56, 63, 64, 66, and ie Chers.,
§59.
The Olynthian War 193
striking proof of the demoralisation of the poHtical
leaders in these cities, and of the ruthlessness with
which Philip removed out of the way, by foul
means no less than by fair, any obstacle that
barred his progress. He virtually declared war
on Olynthus, despite his renewed professions of
good- will, early in 349, when he demanded the
surrender of his step-brother. This demand the
Olynthians refused. Probably they recognised
that they would now in any case have to fight to
the death ; and they renewed their appeal to Athens,
asking once more for the alliance which had been
talked of three years earlier, and for practical
assistance against Philip.^ In the meantime they
declined to make any agreement with him, though
he appears to have made proposals to them.
The First Olynthiac Oration of Demosthenes
formed part of the debate upon the Olynthian
request. It has indeed been disputed whether it
was actually the first of the three Olynthiacs to be
delivered, but expressions used in it leave no doubt
that the alliance, or at least the nature of the help
to be given to the Olynthians, had not yet been
determined upon, and that at the time of its
delivery Olynthus itself had not been attacked,
and none of the Chalcidic cities had been actually
taken; nor can Philip's expedition to Thessaly
(which occurred later in 349) have taken place.
The traditional order of the Speeches is in fact
the most probable, and the character of the
' Philochorus ap. Dion. Hal. ad Ammaeum, I., ix.
194 Demosthenes
several Speeches, in this order, admits of easy
explanation.
Demosthenes began by congratulating his
hearers on the happy fortune which had offered so
desirable an alliance to Athens, and by laying stress
upon the certainty (as he regarded it) that Philip,
unless checked at a distance, would make his way
to Attica itself; and that if he did this, the country,
and above all the farmers, would be ruined. He
entreated his countrymen to fling aside their short-
sighted indifference, and to exchange their love of
ease for a strenuous activity on behalf of the Olyn-
thians and of their own interests. He reminded
them of Philip's restless energy, and his skill in
using his opportunities, and contrasted it with
the dilatoriness of the Athenians, who were al-
ways too late to effect their object. He further
urged that the present moment was a peculiarly
opportune one ; for not only had Philip been dis-
appointed at not carrying all before him without
having to strike a blow, but the Thessalians were
growing restive and were Hkely to revolt against
his supremacy.
The Speech was not confined to generalities.
Demosthenes had, as usual, a definite plan of
action in view, and did not shrink from the re-
sponsibility and the risk of proposing it. One
force must go to Chalcidice to save the towns of
the League; another to the Macedonian coast, to
inflict damage upon Philip's own country. As
regards funds, he hinted, not obscurely, that the
The Olynthian War 195
only right course was to divert the festival-money
to military uses; but as it was obvious that the
People were not prepared for this, he suggested
a general war-tax as the best means of raising
money.
The ■ proposals of Demosthenes were strongly
opposed, and among others, Demades' (a brilliant
extempore orator who afterwards played a con-
siderable part in the history of Athens) spoke
against them. But the alliance with Olynthus
was made; Chares was sent with two thousand
mercenaries and the thirty ships which were al-
ready under his command; and in addition, eight
ships were to be sent when they could be got
ready. * The mission of Chares, however, proved
fruitless — for what reasons we do not know. His
enemies in Athens (the party adverse to war)
renewed their campaign of accusations against
him, ^ and apparently he was inadequately supplied
with funds; for it seems most likely that at the
time when the Second Olynthiac was delivered, no
war- tax had yet been levied; and it is not improb-
able that the People, in deciding upon an expedi-
tion, had abstained from voting money to maintain
it. Besides this, the same orators appear to have
represented Philip in the most formidable light,
as a power with whom it was useless to contend.
Under some such circumstances the Second
' Suid., s. V. A-ntJuiSris. ^ Philochorus ap. Dion. Hal., /. c.
3 The accusations may very likely have been true enough.
See Dem., Olynth. II, §§ 27-29.
196 Demosthenes
Olynthiac was delivered, not long after the First.
Demosthenes insists briefly upon the shamefulness
of his countrymen's inaction, and then devotes a
large section of the Speech to the argument that
Philip's power, being based upon selfishness and
treachery, could not last, and that there were
already signs of its approaching collapse. The
argument does more credit perhaps to the orator's
faith in moral principles than to his insight into
the situation of the moment. Possibly it was
adopted merely as a convenient method of per-
suading the multitude that Philip was not so
formidable as he was said to be. Yet there is a
ring of sincerity about it, which perhaps justifies
us in thinking that Demosthenes' experience had
not yet been long enough to show him that the
triumph of righteousness in mundane affairs is
often long postponed, and cannot be reckoned
upon at any given moment.
When power [he says] is cemented by good-will,
and the interest of all who join in a war is the same,
then men are willing to share the labour, to endure
the misfortimes, and to stand fast. But when a man
has become strong, as Philip has done, by a grasping
and wicked policy, the first excuse, the least stumble,
throws him from his seat and dissolves the alliance.
It is impossible, men of Athens, utterly impossible, to
acquire power that will last, by unrighteousness, by
perjury, and by falsehood. Such power holds out
for a moment or for a brief hour; it blossoms brightly,
perhaps, with fair hopes; but time detects the fraud.
The Olynthian War 197
and the flower falls withered about its stem. In a
house or a ship or any other structure it is the foun-
dations that must be strongest; and no less, I believe,
must the principles which are the foundation of men's
actions be those of truth and righteousness. Such
qualities are not to be seen in the acts of Philip
to-day.
In the later speeches against Philip we find little
remaining of this fine faith.
But the orator's application of these principles
was not a happy one. For the picture which
follows of the disaffection of Philip's followers, and
of the incompetence of the warriors who surrounded
him (if not of their dissoluteness) , must be greatly
overdrawn, even though it purports to be based
on first-hand evidence. There can also be little
doubt that the representation which he gave of
Philip's condition was ill-judged, for it is never
wise to set too low a value on an enemy, and
Demosthenes may even have contributed to the
failure of his own object, by encouraging the
People (contrary to his custom) to think too lightly
of their danger. They were not at all unlikely to
seize on this part of his Speech and neglect the
rest.
Demosthenes next turns upon the Athenians
themselves the blame for the misconduct of their
generals, whom they would not supply with the
means to carry on the war, and who therefore
resorted to actions which roused the virtuous
indignation of the citizens who sat at home at
198 Demosthenes
ease. He demands once more (as the only solu-
tion of the difficulty) that the citizens shall go on
active service in person, and shall contribute
funds in proportion to their wealth; and further
that they shall reform their behaviour in the
Assembly and listen impartially to the various
counsels given to them, in order that they may
choose the best. "You used, men of Athens, to
pay taxes by Boards; to-da:y you conduct your
politics by Boards. On either side there is an
orator as leader, and a general imder him," — the
reference is probably to Chares and Charidemus,
who were respectively patronised by rival groups,
— "and for the Three Hundred,^ there are those
who come to shout. This system you must give
up; you must even now become your own masters;
you must give to all their share in discussion, in
speech and action. " The Second Olynthiac goes
beyond the First in the hint which it contains of
a reform of the taxation-system, by which all,
without exception, should be obliged to contribute
in proportion to their income; in the proposal
(repeated from the First Philippic) that the citizens
should serve in the army in relays, until all had
served; and in the suggestion that an embassy
should be sent to make common cause with the
discontented Thessalians. But none of these sug-
gestions was carried out; there was little or no
improvement in the attitude either of the dominant
party or of the People towards the war ; and about
» See above, p. 51.
The Olynthian War 199
this time Chares was recalled to take his trial upon
the charges preferred by his enemies, and was not,
it would seem, immediately replaced.
Philip now began a series of attacks upon the
towns of the Chalcidic League. Among the first
to suffer was Stageira, the birthplace of Aristotle,
which was razed to the ground.^ (Its restoration
was permitted many years later upon the in-
tercession of the philosopher.) His operations,
however, seem to have been interrupted by the
necessity of reducing the Thessalians to order.
They had grown restive, as we have already seen.
Peitholaus, one of the dynasty expelled from Pherae
had returned^; the fortification of Magnesia by
Philip's generals had been interfered with; and
the Pheraeans had resolved to demand from PhiHp
the restoration of Pagasae, and to refuse him the
enjoyment for the future of their harboiu* and
market dues. In consequence of this, PhiHp once
more expelled Peitholaus, and took steps to quell
any tendency to insubordination, whether by
force or by those friendly assurances which he
knew so well how to give and to break.
In the coiirse of the summer, probably as soon
as Philip's operations in Chalcidice began, the
Olynthians again appealed to Athens for help.
In response to the appeal Charidemus was trans-
ferred from the Hellespont to Chalcidice, with
eighteen ships and a mercenary force consisting
of four thousand light infantry and 150 cavalry.
' Diod., XVI, Hi. 'Ibid.
200 Demosthenes
At first his conduct of the war appeared to promise
success. He overran Pallene (one of the three
promontories of the Chalcidic peninsula, already
invaded by Philip), and devastated Bottiaea, a
district of Macedonia south of the river Lyd-
ias. But the promise came to nothing, through
Charidemus' own fault; for instead of prosecut-
ing the campaign further he gave himself up to the
grossest debauchery, and even demanded from the
Olynthian Council the means to satisfy his lusts. *
Nevertheless the temporary success of Charide-
mus may have caused some elation in Athens,
and in the debate in which Demosthenes* Third
Olynthiac oration was delivered most of the
speakers appear to have talked light-heartedly of
wreaking vengeance upon Philip. It is prob-
able that the special subject of the debate was the
financial provision to be made for the operations in
aid of Olynthus; the date which seems most likely
is the auttimn of 349. Though the orator repeats
briefly some of the points of the earlier Speeches
(emphasising the discredit attaching to Athens,
and the danger of allowing the war to be carried
into Attica), his main object is now to urge the
necessity of setting free the money which at present
passed into the festival-fund, and of using it for
the purposes of the war. The probable nature of
the difficulty has already been explained.^ De-
mosthenes' words leave no doubt that Eubulus and
' Philochorus c/>. Dion. Hal., /. c; Theopomp., fr. 139 (Oxford
Text). ' See above, p. 127.
The Olynthian War 201
his party had succeeded, by means of a compara-
tively recent law, in giving fresh security to the
distributions of festival-money. No motion to
use that money for the war would be legal, until
the law in question had been repealed; and the
repeal of the law could only be effected by the
Nomothetae, the Legislative Commission appointed
out of the jurors for the year, to which the rriaking
and immaking of laws was entrusted.
The danger of attempting to secure the desired
end by any more direct means was illustrated by
the fate of Apollodorus, who about this time
proposed a resolution in the Council (and sub-
sequently brought it before the Assembly) that
the Assembly should decide whether the surplus
funds at the disposal of the administration should
go to the festival -fund or to the military chest.
According to the account given in the Speech
against Nesera' (the work of an unknown con-
temporary of Demosthenes), no one in the As-
sembly voted against the proposal; and though
this is probably an exaggeration, the Assembly
doubtless approved warmly of the proposal. But
Apollodorus was indicted by Stephanus for the
illegality of his decree, and was fined a talent. We
do not know what the precise relations between
Demosthenes and Apollodorus at this time were.*
It is clear, however, that their policy in regard to
the festival -money was identical,^ but that Demos-
' §5. » See Appendix to this chapter.
* On this policy in general, see above, pp. 96-98.
202 Demosthenes
thenes was more careful than ApoUodorus to go
to work in a legal manner.
In the Third Olynthiac he demands the appoint-
ment of a Legislative Commission, and further
requests that the first step shall be taken by those
who were responsible for the mischievous law.
He also demands the repeal of certain laws with
regard to military service, which gave encoiu^age-
ment to malingerers, and took the heart out of
patriotic citizens. He goes on to insist with
greater emphasis than ever upon the need of
personal service, and of such a reorganisation of
the financial system as would require every citizen
to render his duty to the State, according to his age
and capacity, before becoming entitled to any
share in the public funds. We do not know if this
proposal was embodied in any formal motion ; if it
was, it was not carried; and certainly no Legisla-
tive Commission was appointed. But the words
in which Demosthenes outlines the kind of re-
organisation which he has in view are siifficiently
remarkable.
"What?" some one will ask, " do you suggest that
we should work for our money?" I do, men of Ath-
ens ; and I propose a system, for immediate enforce-
ment, which will embrace all alike ; so that each, while
receiving his share of the public funds, may supply
whatever service the State requires of him. If we can
remain at peace, then a man will do better to stay at
home, free from the necessity of doing anything dis-
creditable through poverty. But if a situation like
The Olynthian War 203
the present occurs, then, supported by these same
sums, he will serve loyally in person , in defence of his
country. If he is beyond the age for military service,
then let him take, in his place among the rest, that
which he now receives irregularly and without doing
any service, and let him act as an overseer and man-
ager of business that must be done. In short, with-
out adding or subtracting more than a small sum,
and only removing the want of system, my plan re-
duces the State to order, making your receipt of pay-
ment, your service in the army or the courts, and your
performance of any duty which the age of each of
you allows, and the occasion requires, all part of one
and the same system. But it has been no part of my
proposal that we should assign the due of those who
act to those who do nothing ; that we should be idle
ourselves and enjoy our leisure helplessly, listening to
tales of victories won by somebody's mercenaries^;
for that is what happens now. Not that I blame
one who is doing some part of your duty for you ; but
I require you to do for yourselves the things for
which you honour others, and not to abandon the
position which your fathers won through many a
glorious peril, and bequeathed to you.
It may be that such a proposal had no chance
of success; and modem critics have spoken con-
temptuously of Demosthenes' unpractical and
fanciful schemes of reform. Yet we cannot but
feel that the history of Athens would have been
the poorer, if no one had set forth a policy worthy
of the great traditions of the city. It is true that
' An obvious reference to Charidemus.
204 Demosthenes
idealism is easier for the Opposition than for those
who are responsible for the detailed working out of
practical measures. Yet it is plain that it re-
quired no small courage in Demosthenes to speak
in this tone. Those who associate him with vulgar
demagogues need to remember that on this occa-
sion Demosthenes was opposing not merely the
dominant party, but the whole force of popular
desire; for, so far as the festival-money was
concerned, Eubulus and the People were entirely
at one. Consequently, he tried to make the
People realise the wrong done to them by the
politicians who spoke to please them, and effected
their own ends by flattering the desires of the
multitude; and he repeats with little alteration
some of the passages which he had already used in
composing the Speech against Aristocrates. The
contrast between the spirit of the great statesmen
of Athens in old days and that of his own oppon-
ents is drawn in a passage^ which is too long for
quotation, but is one of the most impressive in all
his speeches.
In 348 Philip made his appearance again in
Chalcidice with a large army, and continued the
work of conquest. One after another the towns
fell into his hands ; corruption and treachery did his
work even more effectively than force.' Mecy-
bema, the port of Olynthus itself, distant less than
three miles from the city, and Torone, the chief
'§§24-31. • Diod., XVI, liii.
The Olynthian War 205
town of the Sithonian peninsula, were betrayed,
and he took them without having to strike a blow.
At last he threw off all pretence. Hitherto he had
continued to profess friendly intentions towards
Olynthus; but when he was within five miles of
the city, he suddenly told the Olynthians that
there were only two alternatives — either they must
cease to live in Olynthus, or he to live in Mace-
donia/ Once more the Olynthians appealed to
Athens, begging for a force, not of mercenaries,
but of citizens. The Athenians were at last roused ;
but they were in great difficulties ; for, owing to
the intrigues of Philip in Euboea, they found them.-
selves involved in hostilities with their former
allies in that island. It was, however, determined
that Chares should go to the relief of Olynthus
with a citizen force of two thousand heavy infantry
and three himdred cavalry,^ But Chares had not
yet passed the public examination of his conduct
in his former expedition to Olynthus, in reference
to which a trial upon charges brought b}^ Cephi-
sodotus hung over his head ; and he demanded that
the matter should be settled before he went.
Cephisodotus complained that Chares was making
the demand with his hand on the throat of the
People; but it may be taken as certain that no
accusation was allowed to stand in the way of his
departure, and he sailed.^ Unhappily he was
hindered by the stormy wind which blows for some
' Dem., Phil. Ill, § 1 1. ' Philochorus ap. Dion. Hal., /. c.
3 Ar., Rhet., Ill, x., 1411a.
2o6 Demosthenes
weeks in the summer from the north over the
^gean; and before he could arrive at Olynthus,
the city had fallen by treachery. ^ It had held out
bravely against repeated assaults by Philip's army,
and had inflicted heavy losses upon it. But in the
end Lasthenes, who had been given the command
of the Olynthian cavalry, betrayed them on the
field, in conjunction with Euthycrates; and with
their betrayal all was lost.'
\ About the month of August, 348, Philip entered
Olynthus. By his orders the inhabitants (among
whom a number of Athenian citizens were cap-
tured) were sold as slaves ^ ; and with cruel cynicism
the traitor Euthycrates was appointed to deter-
mine the price to be paid for each. ^ Philip's step-
brothers Arrhidaeus and Menelaus were taken and
put to death. ^ The conqueror made large presents
of captives and spoil to his friends and supporters;
and not long afterwards ^schines described how
he had met the Arcadian Atrestidas travelling
home from Macedonia with a large body of women
and children given to him by Philip.*^ The Olyn-
thian territory was given principally to Macedon-
ian chieftains, and large parts of Chalcidice were
' Suid., V. s. Kdpavoi.
' Dem., Phil. Ill, §§ 56, 66; de F. L., § 267; Diod., /. c, etc.
3iEsch., de F. L., § 15; Dem., Phil. II., § 21; Diod., /. c, etc.
<Hypereides, fr. 76 (Oxfd. Text). The truth of the story that
Aristotle the philosopher pointed out to Philip the wealthiest of
the citizens happily rests on very doubtful authority. (See
Grote, Pt. II, ch. Ixxxviii).
s Justin, VIII, iii. *Dem., de F. L.. §§ 305, 306,
The Olynthi
probably worked by their for^i^^Mai.
slaves, for the benefit of Philip atid h$s H&t^ ..crv
Among the friends of Philip who pr6fi?83. by life
distribution of the lands taken from fee allies erf
Athens were (according to Demosthenes)^ both
^schines and Philocrates, of whom much more
will be heard shortly. By the time that Philip's
work was finished, thirty-two Chalcidic towns had
been annihilated, and that (Demosthenes tells us^)
with such savagery that a few years afterwards no
one could have told that their sites had ever been
inhabited. Most of them were never restored;
and Appian,'* writing in the second century after
Christ, says that no trace remained of them except
the foundations of the temples. Even if, as some
modem writers ^ assert, Demosthenes somewhat
exaggerated the calamity for rhetorical effect,
there can still be no real doubt of the sweeping
nature of the destruction inflicted by the conqueror
upon this unhappy region.^ Those who could
derived some satisfaction from the fact that when
the traitors had done their work, they were cast
aside by Philip, who knew them too well to trust
them. 7
The Athenians gave a home and the privileges of
citizenship to those fugitives from Olynthus who
' ^Esch., de F. L., § 156, and Dittenb., SylL Inscr. (ed. 2), No.
178. => Dem., de F. L., §§ 145, 146. sphil. Ill, § 26.
* Bell. Civ., IV, 102. s E.g. Beloch, Gr. Gesch., ii., p. 505 n.
' Pliny (Nat. Hist., ii,, 27) spoke of the blood-red meteor, which
fell to earth in 349, as a message of the sanguinary cruelties which
accompanied the fall of Olynthus. ^ Dem., de Chers., §40.
mosthenes
"'their escape, and tried to quiet
"ISI gBonsciences by passing resolutions of
sljrong gpndemnation against the traitors.* But
th^^rospeirt of the final loss of all hope of recover-
ing -Amphipolis (for this was a necessary conse-
quence of Philip's victory) cannot have been easy
to face. Philip, on the other hand, celebrated his
victory by holding a festival in honour of the
Olympian Zeus, with dramatic performances to
which he summoned all the most celebrated actors
of Greece, feasting his friends and making presents
to them with lavish generosity.'
We must now recur to the unexpected crisis in
Euboea, which was at least a partial cause of the
failure of the Athenians to render effective aid to
Olynthus.^ We saw that the influence of Athens
in Euboea had been restored by the brilliant
campaign of Timotheus about the year 357, when
the Athenians liberated the people of Euboea
at their own request from the domination of
Thebes; and in 352 Demosthenes^ mentioned
Menestratus of Eretria as a ruler friendly to Athens.
But very soon after this Philip had begun to feel
his way in the island. In the First Philippic
Demosthenes quoted a letter which Philip had
sent to the Euboeans, though its purport has not
' Dem., de F. L., §267; Suid., *. v. Kdpavoi; Harpocr., s. v.
IfforeK-fis etc.
' Demosthenes {de F. L., § 192 flE.) tells a touching story of the
favour asked, in response to Philip's invitation, by the comic
actor Satyrus. J Above, p. 183. * In Aristocr., ^124.
The Olynthian War 209
come down to us. It appears probable, however,
that he went to work by encouraging the estab-
lishment of tyrants in the important cities of the
island, and by supporting them with money and
men. In Eretria, in 348, the ruler, who was
favourable to Athens, was Plutarchus; and a ris-
ing against him was led by Cleitarchus, ^ who was
probably now (as he was later) in close touch with
Philip. Plutarchus accordingly sent to Athens to
ask for aid. Demosthenes strongly opposed the
granting of this request, desiring doubtless that the
undivided forces of the city should be employed
to save Olynthus from Philip. His action in so
doing has been much criticised, on the ground that
Euboea was far nearer to Athens than Olynthus,
and that a hostile power there could be a very
dangerous foe. But it is quite possible that he was
right. The only chance of defeating Philip was to
strain every nerve, and to let no other call stand
in the way. Experience had shown that a short
and sharp campaign^ might sufBce to reduce
Euboea; and this might, without inordinate risk,
be postponed until the Olynthian crisis was over.
However this may be, Plutarchus had a power-
ful helper in Athens in the wealthy Meidias, the
friend of Eubulus and the enemy of Demosthenes,
whom he actually accused of fomenting trouble in
Euboea in order to injure Plutarchus, the friend of
Athens.^ Owing to the influence of Eubulus and
' Schol. on Dem., de Pace., p. i6i.
' Like that of Timotheus; see p. 68. » Dem., in Meid., §i lo.
14
210 Demosthenes
Meidias, it was resolved to send assistance to
Plutarchus ; Phocion, a brave soldier and a member
of Eubulus' party, but trusted by all alike for his
blunt and outspoken honesty, crossed with a force
of infantry and cavalry about the month of Febru-
ary, 348, ^ and Meidias went with him as a cavalry
officer.
The detailed history of the expedition is not very
certain. But it appears that some of the cavalry
were transferred to Olynthus,^ and that Phocion
unwisely sent home the rest of them, thinking
that they were not wanted. ^ With the remainder
of the force Phocion took up a disadvantageous
position near Tamynas, while Plutarchus encamped
in the neighbourhood. Here Phocion was be-
leaguered by Callias and Taurosthenes, two
brothers who held sway over Chalcis, and of whom
the former had obtained aid from Philip (probably
in the form of troops serving under Philip's generals
in Thessaly) , and the latter had hired mercenaries
who had previously been engaged in Phocis.'*
Phocion was hardly pressed, and though he affected
to think little of the desertions of the more frivo-
lous of his soldiers, he sent to Athens for reinforce-
ments. The Council at once ordered back the
' Dem., in Bceot. de nom., § 16. Demosthenes described
Phocion as ' ' the pruner of his periods " (^ tuv ifiuv \6yav kotIs).
' Dem., in Meid., § 197.
J Meidias on his return home denounced the way in which the
expedition had been conducted; ibid., § 132.
^iEsch., in Ctes., §§ 86, 87; Plut., Phocion, xii., xiii.; Dem., in
Meid., § 161 sqq. See also Note i at the end of the Chapter.
The Olynthian War 211
cavalry who had been sent home, and called for
rich men to volunteer to be trierarchs, so heavy was
the expenditure demanded at this time. Among
the volunteers was Meidias himself/ Before the
reinforcements could leave Athens, an engagement
had been forced upon Phocion at Tamynas by the
action of Plutarchus, who marched out of camp
to meet an attack of the enemy without waiting
for Phocion. The Athenian cavalry, also too
impatient to wait for Phocion, followed Plutarchus
in some disorder. After very little fighting Plu-
tarchus fled ; and it was only by hard fighting that
Phocion, having appeared on the field of battle,
was able to win the day. Among those who were
specially distinguished in the fight was ^schines,
who was sent to take home the news of the vic-
tory.^ The conduct of Plutarchus was set down
to treachery, and Phocion proceeded to expel him
from Eretria, and to occupy the commanding
fortress of Zaretra, while Callias took refuge with
Philip.
On hearing of Phocion 's victory, the Athenians
had countermanded the reinforcements which they
had voted; and Phocion was obliged to send a
second message to ask that they should be de-
spatched. Before they could leave Athens, the
Dionysiac festival took place (in March, 348) 3,
* Demosthenes ungenerously suggests that he volunteered to
be trierarch only to avoid fighting with the cavalry, of which he
was an oflficer. ^ Plut., Phoc, xiii.; ^sch., de F. L., § 169.
* Note 2. The Speech of Demosthenes against Meidias is the
chief authority for this affair and the events connected with it.
212 Demosthenes
and Demosthenes acted as choregus on behalf of
the Pandionid tribe, having volunteered to under-
take the expenditure and returned from the
army in Euboea, where he had been serving, in
order to fulfil the duties of his office. In the
midst of the festival, to which a certain religious
sanctity was attached, Meidias entered the theatre
in a violent manner, and struck him a number of
blows on the head with his fist. This outrageous
act was only the last of a series of attempts to
interfere with Demosthenes in the discharge of his
duties. For Meidias had already tried to prevent
the members of the chorus which Demosthenes
furnished from obtaining the usual exemption
from military service; he had broken into the
house of the goldsmith whom Demosthenes em-
ployed, and had damaged the gold crowns and
gold-embroidered robes which were being made for
the chorus; he had corrupted the chorus-trainer
and even the archon who presided at the Dionysia;
he had tried to induce the judges at the festival to
promise to vote against Demosthenes' chorus ; and
he had blocked up the entrances by which the
chorus was to march into the theatre. It is not
surprising that though Demosthenes had secured
the services of the best flute-player in Athens,
Telephanes by name, and Telephanes had done
his best to replace the chorus-trainer, the prize
went to another.
On the day following the Dionysia, the Assembly
met in the theatre, to consider (as was customary)
The Olynthian War 213
any matters that arose out of the festival. Demos-
thenes laid a formal complaint against Meidias,
and the Assembly passed a vote condemning the
latter's act, and so strengthened Demosthenes'
hands with a view to his intended prosecution of
Meidias before a law-court. We shall see later
on what the issue of this affair was. The prosecu-
tion of Demosthenes by Euctemon, the friend of
Meidias, for desertion in returning from Eubcea
was not persisted in. It was indeed too absurd
to have a chance of success.
After the Dionysia the troops which Phocion had
asked for were sent, and the cavalry encamped
(as before) at Argura. (Meidias however stayed
with his ship.) In the course of the summer
Phocion was succeeded in the command by
Molossus. The recall of Phocion is possibly ex-
plained by the fact v/hich Plutarch mentions
immediately before it, that Phocion, after occupy-
ing Zaretra, had set free all the prisoners who were
of Hellenic nationality, fearing the orators at
Athens, lest they should force the People in anger
to take some cruel action against the prisoners —
an action at once creditable to Phocion's good feel-
ing, and significant of his well-known contempt for
the People and their leaders. However this may
be, his successor mismanaged the war, and was
himself taken prisoner. Before the summer was
over, peace was made upon terms disadvantageous
to Athens. The Euboean towns obtained their
independence, and the Athenians cherished some
214 Demosthenes
ill-feeling against them for several years. Carystus
alone remained a member of the Athenian alliance.
A particular cause of annoyance lay in the fact
that Plutarchus, when pressed for payment by
some of his mercenaries, had given them some
Athenian soldiers as security, * and these the Athen-
ians had actually been obliged to ransom at heavy
cost.
The Euboean war may temporarily have cast
a shadow over the popularity of Eubulus. His
cousin Hegesileos. who had been second in com-
mand to Phocion and was accused of abetting
the proceedings of Plutarchus, was tried and con-
demned, and Eubulus did not venture to appear
in his defence.*
The events of the year 348 were thus disastrous
for Athens. Not only was Philip's power now
consolidated down to the southern borders of
Thessaly, but Athens herself was practically iso-
lated. The Euboeans, her most powerful allies,
were lost to her; her settlers in Lemnos, Imbros,
and other islands were exposed to the attacks of
Philip's captains; and if Philip made his way to
the Hellespont, it was doubtful whether she could
oppose him with any chance of success. ^
To assign the responsibility for the course which
events had been allowed to take is no easy task.
There can be little doubt that Demosthenes was
right in seeing signs of grave moral decay in the
^ Schol. on Dem,, de Pace. ' Dem,, de F. L., § 290.
• Note 3.
The Olynthian War 215
Athenian People as a whole. Their love of pleasure
and their indifference (except in sentiment) to the
national honour, so long as the festival-money
was not interfered with, did not exist only in his
imagination; and when all allowance is made for
the excuse — it was hardly more — afforded by the
religious character of the festivals, we cannot but
feel that the People had primarily themselves to
thank for their disasters. It was the same moral
causes, reinforced by the unwillingness of many to
leave their business, that accounted in a great
measure for the refusal of personal service in the
army. The professional soldier might be a more
efficient fighter, but professional soldiers were ruin-
ously expensive ; and the better morale of the citi-
zen-soldier fighting for his own country probably
went some way towards compensating for his tech-
nical deficiences ; the hard-won success of Phocion's
citizen-hoplites at Tamynce showed that such a
force was not to be despised. Now and then, in a
moment of excitement, the citizens would rise and
take the field; but their enthusiasm was short-
lived, and they would not face a fully-considered
system of regular service in relays, such as Demos-
thenes advocated.
It is not worth while to attempt to apportion
the blame more precisely between the People and
their leaders. Eubulus' policy came to shipwreck
over foreign and military affairs, largely because
funds were not forthcoming for active warfare,
however well he had provided for defensive
2 16 Demosthenes
measures ; and funds were not forthcoming because
he either would not or dared not curtail the festival-
fund, nor would he draw, as he might have done by
means of a war-tax, upon the wealth of the richer
classes who were his principal supporters. A few
volunteer trierarchs were a poor substitute for
the contributions which the considerable private
wealth of the citizens of Athens might have pro-
vided. But the measures of a political leader
necessarily depend to a great extent upon what he
can expect his followers to consent to; and the
defects of the policy of Eubulus largely arose
out of those of both the richer and the poorer
classes ; for the one would not make great sacrifices,
and the other would not give up the distributions ;
and it was doubtless his misfortune that he was
given no time to carry out his policy of retrench-
ment and the gradual building up of a navy, but
was confronted by a combination of circumstances
which proved too strong for him and for Athens.
The conjunction of the Euboean difficulty with the
Olynthian crisis was cunningly contrived by Philip,
and rendered the efforts of the Athenians ineffect-
ual just at the moment when they were preparing to
throw some real energy into the assistance which'
they gave to the beleaguered town. The strain
upon them was great ^; and though it might
probably have been met by means which they did
' In the early part of 348 there was not enough money to pay
the juries, so that the courts had to be suspended (Dem., in
Boeot. de notn., § 16).
The Olynthian War 217
not see fit to adopt, neither politicians nor people
proved equal to dealing with the situation. It is
to the credit of Demosthenes that throughout
these years he represented fearlessly the higher
side of the national spirit as he understood it, and
attempted to revive in his countrymen what, in
spite of themselves, he believed to be their true
character.
Before closing this account of the first period
of the war with Philip, it will be convenient to
narrate the sequel to an incident which has already
been described, the assault of Meidias upon
Demosthenes at the Dionysia of 348. Demos-
thenes, as we have seen, encouraged by the vote
which the Assembly passed in condemnation of
Meidias' misconduct, gave notice that he would
prosecute him before a jury. Even after this,
Meidias proceeded to commit further acts of
annoyance against Demosthenes, and opposed
(though unsuccessfully) his selection as a Coun-
cillor for the year 347-6, by bringing false accusa-
tions against him at the scrutiny to which, like all
other candidates for office, Demosthenes had to
submit. At the meeting of the Assembly at which
Meidias' conduct at the Dionysia had been con-
sidered, Eubulus, in spite of Meidias' entreaties,
had refused to rise and speak in his defence. But
it became known later that he intended to support
Meidias at the trial ; and it also became apparent
that no public speaker would give his aid to
2 18 Demosthenes
Demosthenes. That the influence of Eubulus
with an Athenian jury was very great is proved
by the pains which Demosthenes took to counter-
act it both in the Speech against Meidias and in his
prosecution of ^schines.^ Meidias himself was
also a person of no small influence, and held a
number of offices which carried with them some
importance and dignity, however reprehensible he
might have been in his performance of the duties
attached to them. Demosthenes therefore may
have felt that his chances of winning his case, in
the existing condition of public feeling, were small,
for the popular indignation at the insult to a
choregus had doubtless soon worn off ; and Meidias'
friends appear to have intimated that Meidias
was ready to pay adequate compensation, if the
prosecution were dropped. Accordingly, before the
case was actually brought into court, Demosthenes,
after repeatedly rejecting all overtures, at last
came to terms with Meidias (probably late in the
year 347), and accepted half a talent from him in
settlement of his grievance." It is possible that
he was partly influenced by political considerations ;
for we shall see shortly that in the year 347-6
Demosthenes acted in harmony with Eubulus and
his party in forwarding the negotiations for the
Peace with Philip, which had now become neces-
sary; and he may have been glad, by abandoning
»Dem., de F.L., §§29oflf.
' Half a talent was by no means a contemptible sum, though
^schines and others scoff at Demosthenes for accepting it.
The Olynthian War 219
his suit against Meidias, to avoid creating diffi-
culties, and also, it might be, imperilling his own
position in Athens.
The speech which Demosthenes composed for
the prosecution of Meidias survives, though there
are indications that it did not receive a final re-
vision, and it was probably not published by De-
mosthenes himself. It is a vigorous attack upon
the whole life and career of Meidias (including
unhappily some of those fictions about the parent-
age of the accused which seem to have appealed
to Athenian juries) . The orator repeatedly insists
that the insult was less to himself than to the
People (who had already expressed their indigna-
tion), and recalls, one after another, the acts of
violence and outrage of which he alleges Meidias
to have been guilty. He deals with parallel cases
in the past — both those from which Meidias might
hope to draw some arguments in his defence, and
those which formed precedents for his condemna-
tion. He disparages the vaunted public services
of Meidias, and compares them with his own.
After employing every argument which can
blacken the guilt of Meidias himself, he attacks
Eubulus and the other supporters of the accused,
and calls upon the jury to vindicate the laws,
and to make Meidias an example to all other
offenders.
The Speech follows the obvious lines, but is
powerfully written in a tone of warm indignation,
varied here and there by pathos, when he recoimts
220 Demosthenes
the calamities of Meidias' former victims,^ and
even by a touch of something Hke humour, as
when he imitates Meidias' own manner of address-
ing the People, ^ or when he sums up his considera-
tion of the services of Meidias to the State. ^
Where then is his brilliant record? What do his
services to the State and his magnificent outlay
amount to? I cannot see, unless we are to think of the
house that he has built at Eleusis — so tall that it
darkens the whole neighbourhood ; or the pair of whit-e
horses from Sicyon which takes his wife to the Mys-
teries or wherever she pleases; or the three or four
footmen who accompany him as he sweeps through
the market-place, talking about his bowls and drink-
ing-horns and wine-cups in a loud voice, so that the
passers-by may hear.
The attitude which Demosthenes takes up — that
of a champion of the rights of the democracy
against the vulgar and insolent rich — ^is perhaps
a little overdone ; but the portrait of Meidias is vig-
orously drawn, and takes its place worthily beside
those of other villains depicted in Greek and Ro-
man oratory.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI
{On the Affair oj Phormio and ApoUodorus)
The action of Demosthenes in connection with the dispute
between Phormio and ApoUodorus is so much disputed, and the
questions raised are of such importance, owing to their bear-
ing upon the estimate to be formed of his character, that they
demand special consideration.
^£.«-§§95ff. '§303. » §158.
The Olynthian War 221
Phormio was first the slave and then the confidential freedman
of Pasion, the great Athenian banker. Pasion died in 370, leaving
two sons, ApoUodorus and Pasicles. In his will he provided that
Phormio should marry his widow (receiving with her a consider-
able dowry) and should be one of the guardians of his younger
son Pasicles; and that until Pasicles came of age, Phormio should
rent the business, which included a shield-factory as well as the
bank, paying a fixed rent to the estate, and making what profit
he could for himself. It was intended that the property should
remain undivided until Pasicles came of age, and should then be
apportioned equally between him and his elder brother, ApoUo-
dorus. But the conduct of ApoUodorus made this impossible.
He appears to have been a man of some public spirit, and to have
served more than once as trierarch with distinction. (We have
already seen how he claimed the "Trierarchic Crown" oflFered in
360. 0 But his ambition to serve the State was more than com-
pensated by his careless and extravagant habits, and he was at
the same time extremely litigious. No less than eight of the
speeches included, rightly or wrongly, among those of Demos-
thenes were written by or for ApoUodorus, and we know that
he appeared in many other lawsuits, and was ready to prosecute
any one, relation or stranger, upon any provocation.
The result of ApoUodorus' conduct was to imperil the security
of the joint estate by the liabilities which he was always incurring :
and in consequence of this, the guardians of Pasicles resolved to
make a division of the property, without waiting for Pasicles to
come of age, in order to save their ward's share. It was, however,
arranged that Phormio was to retain the lease of the business,
paying half the rent to ApoUodorus, and keeping half for the
benefit of Pasicles. In 362 Pasicles came of age, and Phormio's
lease determined; he set up business as a banker on his own
account, and was granted the citizenship of Athens, in recogni-
tion of his high qualities, as his master Pasion had been granted
it before him. In the course of the negotiations which followed
the termination of the lease, and again after certain legal pro-
ceedings which took place on the death of ApoUodorus' mother in
360, ApoUodorus gave Phormio a formal release from all claims.
In spite of this, about the year 350, he entered a claim against
' See pp. 31-32.
222 Demosthenes
Phormio for twenty talents. Phormio thereupon resorted to the
procedure by paragraphs,^ pleading that (whatever the merits
of the case) the action brought was illegal, because ApoUodorus
had already given a discharge from all claims, and because the
Statute of Limitations forbade such claims to be made after the
expiration of five years from the winding-up of the trust.
A litigant who pleaded a paragraphs had the right to be
heard first, and Phormio, who, owing to his foreign descent and his
unfamiliarity with the courts, did not speak in person, was re-
presented by his friends, one of whom delivered the speech com-
posed for him by Demosthenes. This speech not only made
good the technical plea, but also dealt in a manner which seems
almost mercilessly conclusive, with the original case. It further
attempted to meet the jealous attitude adopted by ApoUodorus
towards Phormio — once his father's slave, but now his stepfather
— and emphasised the services rendered by Phormio not only to
ApoUodorus and his family, by the preservation of their property
for them, but also to the State. Above all the speaker insists on
the value of honesty in business, in contrast to the spendthrift
life and dishonest litigiousness of persons like ApoUodorus. The
moral force of the speech proved irresistible. ApoUodorus did
not receive one fifth of the votes of the jury, and therefore
incurred a very heavy fine, in addition to the loss of his case.
But ApoUodorus would not accept his defeat without a struggle.
As Aphobus had prosecuted one of Demosthenes' witnesses, so
ApoUodorus prosecuted one of the witnesses who had supported
Phormio. As in the former case, so in the latter, the witness
was one whose evidence was unimportant; Phormio's justification
of the paragraphs would have been conclusive without it. Never-
theless any conviction for false-witness would almost certainly
have led to a new trial of the original case, and a new trial in-
stituted under such circumstances would not have been likely to
terminate in favour of Phormio.
Now among the speeches of Demosthenes there have descended
to us two written for ApoUodorus in prosecution of this very
witness, Stephanus; and it has naturally been felt that if, after
his impassioned oration for Phormio, Demosthenes changed sides,
and assisted ApoUodorus in the attempt to overthrow a verdict
* See above, p. 33-
The Olynthian War 223
which he himself had done most to secure and to justify, he did not
act like an honourable man. Nor would this be his most serious
deflection from a high standard of honour in the matter. For the
manner in which the First Speech against Stephanus treats the
case is even more discreditable, if it is the work of Demosthenes.
He argues that the very documents on which he had relied to
prove Phormio's plea in the previous trial are either non-existent
or are forgeries by Phormio himself; and whereas he had in the
former speech paid an eloquent tribute to Phormio's high charac-
ter and distinguished services, he now attacks him in a scurrilous
and ungentlemanly manner, coupling the attack with the gross-
est insinuations with regard to Apollodorus' own mother and
brother. Apollodorus himself might conceivably have spoken
thus; but if Demosthenes carried the art of writing in the character
of his client so far as this, we can only say that it proves his
ability more conclusively than his honour. The case against
Stephanus was in fact a very lad one; to most of the conten-
tions of the speaker the reply is either actually contained in the
Speech for Phormio, or is such as suggests itself immediately ; and
the skill of the advocate is not sufficient to conceal their weakness.
Unfortunately no final decision as to the authorship of the
Speeches against Stephanus is possible. The Second Speech,
indeed, which is weak both in argument and in style, no one now
believes to be the work of Demosthenes; possibly it is a sub-
sequently written version of a reply made by Apollodorus on the
spur of the moment. But in regard to the First Speech the
arguments for and against Demosthenes' authorship are almost
equally divided. As regards the internal evidence there is, on
the one hand, little in the style or the argument which would have
suggested that it was not his work, had it not been for the incon-
sistency of the attitude adopted in this speech with that assumed
in the Speech for Phormio ; and one striking passage is almost
identical with a passage in the Speech for Pantasnetus, which is
usually admitted to be Demosthenes' work. On the other hand,
there are a few phrases and passages which do not read as if they
were his, and which at least leave room for the possibility that
the Speech was composed by another. A certain monotony of
expression — particularly in the use of connecting particles and
pronouns — has been thought to be unlike Demosthenes, and the
parallelism with the "Pantasnetus" does not prove identity of
224 Demosthenes
authorship, since identical passages sometimes occur in different
orators. '
But the question is further complicated by external evidence.
It is clear that Demosthenes was thought to have done something
dishonourable in connection with ApoUodorus and Phormio; but
what he was originally accused of was not the composition of
speeches for both sides. " What idea , ' ' asks .^schines, ' ' are we to
have of a born traitor? Is he not a man who treats those who
have to do with him and trust him, as you have treated them? —
a man who writes speeches for money, to be used in court, and
shows them to the other side? You wrote a speech for Phormio
the banker, and got your fee; and you showed it to ApoUodorus,
who had prosecuted Phormio on a capital charge."' This can
only mean that Demosthenes showed ApoUodorus his Speech for
Phormio in the original trial. (The charge is called a capital one
by a slight exaggeration, not unparalleled in Greek oratory,
because the sum involved was so great that Phormio, if con-
demned, would be obliged to go into exile.) It is possible that the
explanation which certain scholars J propose is the true one —
that Demosthenes tried to reconcile ApoUodorus to Phormio, and
showed him the Speech to prove to him the hopelessness of his
case, but in vain. It would be easy for ^schines to misrepresent
this as an act of treachery to Phormio, while it is very diflBcult to
suppose that if Demosthenes had actually treated Phormio as
the writer of the First Speech against Stephanus treats him,
./Eschines and Deinarchus, who raked up every possible scandal
against him, would not have made full use of the fact.
But if this is so, how are we to explain the fact that Plutarch *
and other late writers definitely state that Demosthenes wrote for
both ApoUodorus and Phormio? Plutarch says that it was like
selling swords to both sides from the same factory. (This does
not in itself seem to be a very grave offence; but the point per-
haps lies in the reference to the occupation of Demosthenes'
father.) Probably the statement is due simply to the fact that
speeches for both were found in the Corpus of Demosthenic
speeches, compiled in the first instance at Alexandria. A
» See above, p. 27. * .^sch., de F. L., §§ 165, 173.
» Note4. 4 Pint., Dem., xv.
The Olynthian War 225
later writer, Zosimus (c. 500 a.d.), still further exaggerates the
supposed iniquity of Demosthenes; and it may be that the whole
story is based on a misunderstanding, which, when once started,
went on enlarging itself.
Those who believe that Demosthenes did write the First Speech
against Stephanus usually ascribe his conduct to political motives.
We have seen' that just about this time, Apollodorus proposed a
decree in the Assembly that the People should decide whether
the surplus revenues should be used for military purposes, instead
of passing automatically into the festival-fund. This was pre-
cisely in accordance with the policy which Demosthenes earnestly
advocated in the very year of the trial of Stephanus, with a view
to war against Philip of Macedon. But it is very doubtful
whether such considerations could really have weighed with
Demosthenes. Apollodorus' proposal was probably made in the
same headstrong spirit as his many prosecutions; it was illegal; he
was heavily fined for it; and it is probable that it did more harm
than good to the cause which Demosthenes desired to forward.
It is, moreover, difficult to suppose that any advocate who had
triumphantly succeeded in a good case would take up a bad one
against his former client in reference to the very same matter,
whatever the political situation.
There is, therefore, at least good reason to hope that Demos-
thenes was not guilty of the atrocious conduct ascribed to him.
If he was, there is little that can be said in extenuation of it. The
plea that the relations of a speech-writer and his client were not so
close as those of a modern lawyer with those whom he represents
cannot help him much ; and it does not even touch the real point
of the gravamen — the utter heartlcssness and want of good feeling
shown by an attack upon Phormio's character as scurrilous as his
previous eulogy had been noble. The eulogy, no less than the
attack, viewed in this light, would be no more than a piece of
cold-blooded trickery. All that can be said is that if Demos-
thenes did act thus, there is nothing in all the rest of his career —
for his fierce attacks upon his own enemies are a very different
matter — which is even remotely parallel to this action; and
though this is no exculpation, it at least enables us to deny that
such conduct was characteristic of him.
' Above, p. 201.
IE
226 Demosthenes
NOTES
1, Some historians assume that these mercenaries were sent
by the Phocian leader Phalaecus. But this is nowhere stated in
our authorities, and the Phocians were in alHance with Athens.
It is at least equally likely that Taurosthenes induced some of the
mercenaries hitherto employed by Phalascus to come over to
Euboea by oflFering higher pay. If, however, Phalaecus deliber-
ately sent them to oppose the Athenians, it must have been
because the dissensions in the Phocian ranks had already reached
a point at which, because the party^opposed to Phalascus was
friendly to Athens, he himself chose to take the opposite line.
This happened towards the end of 347 (see below, p. 238) ; but we
have no evidence that early in 348 it was already so.
2. The date of the Euboean expedition has been much dis-
puted, and some historians place it in 350 or 349 rather than in
348. The following are the principal considerations which appear
to determine 348 as the true date:
(i) Demosthenes was choregus in the year of the expedi-
tion and the Speech against Meidias was written for delivery
in the archonship of the second archon after the one in
whose year the choregia fell (jplrov eras tovtI, § 13). Further
(§ III) Demosthenes was a member of the Council in the
year of the Speech. Now supposing that his choregia fell
in March, 348 (in the archonship of Callimachus, who held
oflSce from July, 349, to July, 348), the Speech must have
been composed for the archonship of Themistocles, i.e., for
a date after July, 347 ; and in the archonship of Themistocles,
347-46, we know that Demosthenes was in fact a Councillor.
Those who date the expedition and the Speech earlier suppose
that he was also 'a Councillor in 350-49 or 349-8. This
would have been legally possible; but as the Councillors were
chosen by lot, it is hardly likely; and there is absolutely no
independent evidence of his having been a Coimcillor in
either of those years.
(2) The Olynthiac Orations, probably delivered in the sum-
mer and autumn of 349, know nothing of the Euboean trouble.
(3) The Speech against Neaera, § 3, and the Speech against
Meidias, § 197, make it certain that the citizen-expedition to
help Olynthus fell in the same year as the Euboean expedition.
I
The Olynthian War 227
(4) According to ^schines, de F. L., § 12, ths Eubcean en-
voys came before the Assembly to discuss terms of peace shortly
before the capture of Phrynon by privateers, which took
place during the Olympian truce. The truce fell in July, 348.
3. Grote is very probably right in assigning to the weeks
immediately following the fall of Olynthus the disappearance of
Chares from view. Antiochus was sent to look for him, and to
teU him that the people of Athens failed to understand why, when
Philip was on his way to the Chersonese, the Athenians did not
even know where to find their general or the force which they had
sent out; and ^schines {de F. L., § 71) speaks of 1500 talents
spent in the course of the war upon runaway generals, of whom
he names Deiares, Deipyrus, and Polyphontes — men otherwise
unknown to us. Grote connects the mission of Antiochus with a
panic on the part of th6 settlers in the Chersonese, and it is very
likely that rumours of Philip's alleged intention to proceed thither
may have been circulated at this time. Schafer (ii., p. 178)
even thinks that Philip's generals were actually sent thither.
4. Schafer in particular takes this view. The whole question
is well summed up in Paley and Sandys' Select Private Orations of
Demosthenes, ii., pp. xxxix fif. It should be added that it is very
improbable that the Speech was composed either by Apollodorus
himself, or by the writer who composed most of the extant
speeches delivered by him.
CHAPTER VII
THE FIRST EMBASSY TO PHILIP
EVEN before the actual fall of Olynthus it must
have become plain to most clear-sighted
politicians that Athens was not in a position to
carry on the war against Philip with success. She
had let slip the opportiinity which she might have
taken in 349, of throwing herself with vigour
into the defence of Olynthus, and in 348, when
the Athenians realised somewhat more clearly the
gravity of the situation, it was too late; for the
, movements in Euboea led them to divide their
\ forces, and neither their energy, nor the fimds which
they chose to consider available, were sufficient
for the double task. The successful continuance
of the struggle with Philip being thus impossible,
the only course which sensible men could take was
to come to terms with him.
Philip also was anxious for a suspension of
hostilities. Athens was not indeed, from his point
of view, so serious a foe as the Athenians liked to
believe, and he could well afford to have patience
before he proceeded to bring his rivalry with her
to an issue. At the same time she was strong
enough at sea to make the carrying out of his more
228
The First Embassy to Philip 22^
immediate objects much more difficult than it
would otherwise have been. Her action at
Thermopylae in 352, and the determination which
she had shown, even under the leadership of
Eubulus, to maintain her position on the shore of
the Hellespont, were sufficient evidence of this;
and it would be easier for him both to advance his
power in Greece itself and to confirm and extend his
sway in Thrace, if he could come to some such
arrangement with Athens as would get rid of, or at
least delay and hamper, her interference with his
movements. Further, he was suffering from the
closing of his ports by Athenian ships, and the
raids which Athenian commanders made upon his
coasts.^ Some have even thought that he had
already in view the project of uniting all Hellas
imder his sway, in order to proceed to the conquest
of the East; and that for this purpose he desired
the co-operation of the Athenian fleet, which was as
superior to his own, as his land forces were to those
of Athens. However this may be (and there is no
evidence upon the point), in the summer of 348,
when the envoys from the Euboean towns went to
Athens to discuss the terms of the Peace to be made
between Athens and the Euboeans, Philip author-
ised them to say that he too desired to come to an
understanding. *
» Dem., de F. L., §315.
" ^sch., de F. L., § 12. The last Athenian expedition to
Olynthus had doubtless already departed, but owing to bad
weather had not reached its destination.
230 Demosthenes
Shortly afterwards an Athenian named Phrynon
was captured by PhiHp's ships in the course of a
raid, during the time (so he asserted) of the Olym-
pian Truce, ^ when, according to Greek custom,
hostilities should have been suspended. He was
ransomed, and on his return to Athens requested
the Athenians to appoint an envoy to go on his be-
half to Philip, and to ask for the restoration of the
sum paid for his freedom. Ctesiphon was sent, and
returned with a message from Philip stating that
he had entered upon the war with Athens against
his will, and would still be glad if it could be termi-
nated. He added other friendly expressions; the
message was welcomed by the People with enthusi-
asm, and a vote of thanks to Ctesiphon was passed.
Immediately afterwards, Philocrates carried a
decree that permission should be given to Philip
to send envoys to Athens to discuss terms of peace.
Thereupon Lycinus (representing, according to
^schines, certain interested persons, who had
stood in the way of a similar proposal of Philocrates
before the return of Ctesiphon) impeached Phi-
locrates for the alleged illegality of the decree,^
and demanded the infliction of a fine of one
' I.e., about the month of July. The object of the Truce was
to allow all who desired to do so to travel to Olympia for the
games without fear.
' Philocrates' decree may have run counter to a resolution to
receive no envoys from Philip, forming part of the terms of
alliance with the Olynthians (Schafer, vol. ii., pp. 23, 166); but
there seems to be no definite evidence as to the nature of the
illegality alleged.
The First Embassy to Philip 231
hundred talents. Philocrates, who was ill at the
time of the trial, was defended by Demosthenes,
"in a speech which lasted all day," and was
acquitted. Lycinus failed to obtain a fifth part of
the votes of the jury, and so became himself liable
to a heavy penalty. ^
The action of Demosthenes in defending Phi-
locrates may be explained in one of two ways,
according as the trial of Philocrates is supposed to
have taken place before or after the fall of Olyn-
thus. If Demosthenes defended the proposer of
negotiations for peace even before Olynthus had
fallen, we can only suppose that he had already
seen the hopelessness of continuing the struggle
for the present, and had had the courage to act
upon his changed conviction. On the other hand,
it is improbable that he would really have con-
sented to abandon Olynthus in the hour of her
greatest need; and it is much more likely that the
trial of Philocrates did not take place until some
time after Olynthus had been taken. ^ For
Phrynon can hardly have returned to Athens before
the end of July, 348 ; some time must have elapsed
between his return and that of Ctesiphon; and
also between the proposal of Philocrates and his
trial. It is probable therefore that the trial did
not take place imtil some weeks at least — possibly
monthvS — after the fall of Olynthus, and by this
time, as we shall see, Demosthenes was certainly
' iEsch., de F. L., § 14; in Ctes., § 62.
» Note I at the end of the Chapter.
232 Demosthenes
convinced of the necessity of peace, and could de-
fend Philocrates without inconsistency.
The capture of Olynthus and PhiHp's treatment
of the inhabitants and (together with them) of the
Athenians whom he found in the city, caused a
momentary revulsion of feeling in Athens against
the proposed arrangement with Philip ; and even
Eubulus himself and his supporters were carried
away by it. Eubulus addressed the Assembly in
very strong terms in regard to Philip, praying
(Demosthenes tells us^) that perdition might seize
him, and proposed to send embassies throughout
the Greek world and "almost to the Red Sea,"'
with the object of uniting all the Hellenes in
opposition to Philip, and of summoning a congress
for the purpose. These proposals were supported
in speeches of a highly patriotic tone, and among
those who spoke in their favour was ^schines — a
man of somewhat humble birth, who had been
first a schoolmaster, then an actor, and then a
clerk in government offices, until he came into
prominence as a supporter of Eubulus. He was a
man of great talent, and a ready extempore
speaker; and the magnificent voice with which
nature had endowed him gave him a great ad-
vantage when addressing a people so impression-
able as the Athenians. On the present occasion,
Demosthenes tells us, -^schines quoted the decrees
of Miltiades and Themistocles — the heroes of the
^DeF.L., §291. 'Ibid., §304.
i
The First Embassy to Philip 233
Persian wars — and the oath of allegiance taken
by the young Athenian soldier on assuming his
armour." He doubtless pictured Athens as once
more taking the leadership of a Panhellenic
confederacy, as she had done in the Persian wars.
The embassies were sent.^ ^schines himself
went to Arcadia, where Philip had been intriguing
with some of the leading politicians, and had
evidently found favour; for the Athenian party
among the Arcadians had already sent repre-
sentatives to Athens through Ischander.^ On his
return, Demosthenes says, * ^schines
reported to the Assembly the long and noble
speeches, which, he said, he had delivered on your
behalf before the Ten Thousand at Megalopolis,
in reply to Philip's spokesman, Hieronymus; and he
described at length the criminal wrong that was done
not only to their own several countries, but to all
Hellas, by men who took bribes and received money
from Philip. Many a time in the course of his speech
he called Philip ' barbarian ' and ' devil ' and he re-
ported the delight of the Arcadians at the thought
that Athens was now waking up and attending to
affairs, s
He also gave an indignant account of the fate
of the captured Olynthians, illustrating it by that
' De F. L., § 303.
' As to the date of the embassies, there can be little doubt that
they took place in the late autumn and winter of 348-7, though
there is no direct evidence. Diod., XVI, liv., has obviously no
chronological value. » Ibid., § 303. * Ibid., § 11.
^Ibid., §305.
234 Demosthenes
of the women and children carried off to Arcadia
by Atrestidas, ' and narrating how he had been
moved to tears by the sight, and by the thought
of the unhappy condition of the Greek world, in
which such cruelties could go unpimished. ^
r The embassies, however, entirely failed to secure
their object. None of the southern Greek States
seem to have imagined at present that Philip's
growing power involved any danger to themselves ;
and none of them had reason to be so much
interested in the welfare of Athens as to join in a
league for her benefit. It has indeed been sug-
gested that Eubulus did not expect any result from
these missions to the Greek States ; that they were
only sent in order to convince the People, who were
momentarily in a militant mood, of the hopeless-
ness of continuing the war, by demonstrating the
isolation of Athens; and that the speeches of him-
self and ^schines (both at Athens ; and at Megalo-
polis) were nothing but a piece of elaborate acting.
Fortunately it is not necessary to ascribe such
motives in order to explain their action. It is
far more probable that the state of public feeling
immediately after the fall of Olynthus was such
that Eubulus resolved to make a desperate effort
to bring about the Panhellenic coalition, which
alone could offer to Athens the least chance of
defeating Philip at that time. When this attempt
failed, all parties alike must have seen the in-
evitableness of a Peace ; and Demosthenes himself
* See above, p. 206. * Dem., /. c, § 306.
The First Embassy to Philip 235
acted in concert with Philocrates in forwarding the
negotiations, though, in the light of his subsequent
conduct, we can have Httle doubt that he regarded
the Peace only as an armistice, during which Athens
might recover her strength and prepare herself to
return to the struggle with renewed vigour.
Among the Athenians who had been taken
prisoners in Olynthus were latrocles and Eucratus.
(The latter is otherwise unknown; the former
appears again as an ambassador to Philip.) The
relatives of these men supplicated the Assembly
in solemn form, laying an olive-branch upon the
altar and beseeching the People to take steps to
obtain the liberation of the captives ; and they were
supported by Philocrates and Demosthenes. In
answer to their appeal, with which many others
whose friends had been captured must have
sympathised, the actor Aristodemus, who was on
familiar terms with Philip in consequence of his
professional visits to the Macedonian court, was
sent to negotiate for their release. ^ Another actor,
Neoptolemus, appears to have accompanied him, or
at least to have travelled to Macedonia about the
same time.^ latrocles was set at liberty without
^JEsch.., deF.L.,\% 15 ff.
»Dem., de F. L., §§ 12, 315. It is possible that Neoptole-
mus had been for some time bringing messages of good-will from
Philip, even before Demosthenes had been convinced of the
necessity of peace. For Demosthenes (de Pace, §§ 6, 7) de-
scribes how he had warned the People against Neoptolemus
(though in vain), and this can hardly have happened after the
fall of Olynthus.
236 Demosthenes
ransom, and, on arriving at Athens, spoke of
Philip's good-will towards the city. Aristodemus
did not return for some time, owing (as ^schines
tells us) to some matter of business, though others
have supposed (less probably) that he was detained
by Philip as a kind of hostage, when he heard of the
embassies sent from Athens to the other Greek
States. The Athenians became impatient at his
absence, and at last — probably late in the summer
of 347 — the Council passed a resolution ordering
him to return. He obeyed, and in his report to the
Assembly again declared Philip's good-will to
Athens, and added that Philip would gladly form
an alliance with her. Demosthenes, who was a
member of the Council for the year 347-6, and
apparently an influential member,^ proposed that
the Coimcil should not only pass the vote of thanks
which was customarily given by the Council to a
returning ambassador, but should also award him
a crown. ^
It was about this time that a fresh crisis occurred
in the Sacred War, in consequence of which
a serious complication was introduced into the
relations between Athens and Philip. The war
* This is shown by the fact that on the entry of the Council
into office, he was chosen to perform the solemn inaugural sac-
rifices on its behalf, and was appointed to other posts of dignity —
among them those of leader of the mission sent to represent the
city at the Nemean Games, and of priest to the Awful Goddesses,
whose shrine lay in a cave beneath the Areopagus {in Meid., §
114). See Note 2. «iEsch., de F. L., § 17.
The First Embassy to Philip 22,7
had been dragging on indecisively. The Phocians
retained possession of the important Boeotian
towns of Orchomenus, Coroneia, and Corsiae, as well
as of the places which gave them command of the
Pass of Thermopylae — Alponus, Thronium, and
Nicaea. But the Delphian treasury was exhausted
by the expenses of the war; and it was found that
some of the Phocian leaders had been enriching
themselves out of the temple treasures. Phalae-
cus was deprived of his command, and replaced
by Democrates, Callias, and Sophanes; but since
his deposition only divided the forces, and the
mercenaries still remained faithful to him, he was
restored to the generalship, though the strife of
the factions was not healed. At this point the
Thebans and Thessalians, still unable to conquer
their enemy, applied for help to Philip, in the name
of the Amphictyonic Council. Philip appears
either to have postponed giving an answer, or at
most to have sent a few soldiers, wishing to reduce
the Thebans to a lower depth of humiliation before
coming to terms with them — so at least Diodorus
says.^ The Phocians appealed to Athens, and the
Athenians promised to help them. ^ (The promise
must have been made before Philip had definitely
given his adhesion to the Thebans ; it would hardly
have been possible to give it afterwards without
' Diod., XVI, Iviii.
» Their readiness is doubtless explained by the attractive bait
which the Phocians dangled before them — the control of Ther-
mopylcE.
238 Demosthenes
breaking off the negotiations for peace with
Philip.) The Phocian envoys offered to place the
strongholds commanding Thermopylas in the hands
of the Athenians, if they would send a force to
take them over; and Proxenus, the Athenian
admiral, was ordered to proceed to Thermopylae at
once. At the same time it was resolved to equip
a fleet of fifty ships, and to call upon all citizens
under thirty years of age, who were liable to
service, to join the expedition.
But when Proxenus appeared at Thermopylae,
Phalascus dismissed him in an insulting manner;
and Archidamus, who came from Sparta in re-
sponse to an appeal from the Phocian authorities,
was similarly treated. For so strong was the
dissension in the Phocian ranks that Phalascus
refused to acknowledge the acts of the rival faction
(by which, it seems, the messages to Athens and
Sparta had been sent); and he also insiilted the
heralds who came from Athens, in accordance with
custom, to announce the religious truce at the
season of the Eleusinian mysteries (September,
347), and imprisoned the envoys who had carried
the appeal for help to Athens. Proxenus appears
to have returned to his former station at Oreus, and
the fifty ships which had been voted were of course
not sent, though they lay ready in harbour in case
of need. ^ For the Phocian people as a whole, the
* Dem., de F, L., § 322. On the chronological difficulty see
Notes.
The First Embassy to Philip 239
conduct of Phalaecus proved fatal, as will appear
hereafter.
Philip seems not to have committed himself for
some time to any definite step; for as late as the
spring of the next year, all the parties interested
appear to have been quite uncertain of his inten-
tions.* He did, however, send his general Par-
menio into Thessaly, to intervene in a dispute
between the towns of Pharsalus and Halus in the
interest of the former; and the treatment of Halus,
as well as that of the Phocians, became a disputed
question in connection with the peace-negotiations,
to which we may now return.
Not long after the beginning of 346, Philocrates
proposed a decree ia the Assembly, that ten
ambassadors should be sent to Philip to discuss the
question of peace, as well as other matters that
were of interest to both parties, and to request
him to send plenipotentiaries to Athens, with
whom peace might be finally concluded. De-
mosthenes was nominated one of the ten by
Philocrates, ^schines by Nausicles^; and as the
assistance of Aristodemus upon the embassy was
desirable, owing to his previous friendly relations
with Philip, Demosthenes moved a resolution
in the Coimcil that messengers should be sent to
the towns in which Aristodemus had professional
» See below, pp. 268, 274.
» See above, p. 177. Nausicles was probably a member of
Eubulus' party.
240 Demosthenes
engagements, asking that he might be excused
from fulfilHng them/ The other members of the
embassy were latrocles, Ctesiphon, and Phrynon
(all of whom had, like Aristodemus, experienced
Philip's favour), Philocrates himself, Nausicles,
Dercylus, and Cimon. With them went Agla-
ocreon of Tenedos, as the representative of the
allies of Athens.
Up to this point there is no serious doubt as to
the facts (for although within a year or two, when
the Peace had come to be regarded with disgust
at Athens, both Demosthenes and -^schines were
eager to disclaim all connection with the inception
of the negotiations, ^ there can be no question that
both were in fact prominently concerned in it).
But from this point onwards the two orators —
and they are virtually our only authorities — give
quite different accounts of the facts at every stage ;
and neither of them scrupled to distort the truth
when it suited their purpose, each being anxious
to appear to have had nothing to do with Phil-
ocrates or with the steps which led to results so
unwelcome to the Athenians as those which fol-
lowed the Peace proved to be. Much therefore
remains uncertain.
The discrepancy between the two accounts of
the embassies begins even before the departure of
the ambassadors from Athens. According to
Demosthenes' story ^ — told in 343, when he wished
' ^sch., de F. L., §§ 18, 19. • Note 4.
»Dem., de F. L., § 13.
The First Embassy to Philip 2^1
to convict ^schines of corruption, by proving
that, having once been opposed to Philocrates, he
had inexplicably altered his mind — ^schines
came to him and suggested that they should act
in concert during their mission, and should par-
ticularly keep an eye upon "that abominable
and shameless man, Philocrates." To this story
-^schines replied, with justice, that such a proposal
would have been absurd and even impossible,
when he knew that Demosthenes had been support-
ing Philocrates from the outset and had been
nominated a member of the embassy by him.^
-^schines adds that Demosthenes (who especially
associated with Aglaocreon and latrocles) made
himself intolerable to his colleagues on the journey ;
and that when the ambassadors were discussing
what they should say to Philip, and Cimon ex-
pressed his apprehension lest Philip should get the
better of them in argument, Demosthenes boasted
that he had an inexhaustible stream of arguments ;
and that what he had to say about the Athenian
claim to Amphipolis and the origin of the war was
so convincing that he would be able to "sew up
Philip's mouth with an unsoaked rush," — to per-
suade Philip to restore Amphipolis, and to induce
the Athenians to permit the return of Leosthenes,
who had been banished from Athens for his mis-
conduct of the war.^
Whether this tale was true or not, the ambassa-
dors lost no time on the journey. They did not
' ^sch., de F. L., § 20. ' Ibid., §21.
16
242 Demosthenes
even wait at Oreus for the herald who had been
sent in advance to procure a safe-conduct, and
who should have returned to meet them there;
instead of doing so, they sailed at once and came
to Halus, which was being besieged by Parmenio,
Philip's general; passing thence through the
Macedonian camp, they came to Pagasae, and did
not meet the herald till they reached Larissa. On
their arrival at Pella, they were granted an inter-
view by Philip, and addressed him in order of age,
the last place being assigned to Demosthenes, as
the youngest member of the mission.'
^schines (from whom we get our only report of
the interview) describes his own speech at length,
and tells how he recounted the services rendered
by Athens in the past to Philip's house and to
Philip himself, the earlier history of the struggle for
Amphipolis, the legendary grounds for the Athen-
ian claim to that town, and the acknowledgment of
that claim by Philip's father Amyntas. If, he
concluded, Philip based his own claim upon his
capture of the town in war, it could be justified
only if the war was a war against Athens — ^which
Philip had never admitted; for if it was not, he
had taken from the Amphipolitans a town which
belonged not to them, but to Athens. We can
imagine that Philip must have smiled inwardly at
this academic harangue, which ^schines retails
without any consciousness of the futility of ad-
dressing legendary and historical arguments to one
»^sch.,/. c, §§22,25.
The First Embassy to Philip 243
so little likely to be swayed by such considerations. ^
We do not know what the other envoys said; but
at last it came to the turn of Demosthenes, and his
colleagues, ^schines tells us, expected a grand
fulfilment of his boasted intentions. But instead
of rewarding their expectations, he broke down
hopelessly from nervousness, forgot his notes, and
lost the thread of his argument ; and in spite of the
kindly encouragement of Philip, who bade him
not take his misfortune to heart as though he had
broken down on the stage, he was utterly unable
to proceed, and the interview was suspended.*
When the ambassadors had retired, Demosthe-
nes attacked ^schines angrily — we have still only
-^schines' word for the story — and declared that
he had ruined the city and her allies ; and, when
he was asked for an explanation, demanded if
iEschines had forgotten the exhaustion of the
People and their intense desire for peace. "Or is
it," he asked, "those fifty ships which have been
voted, ^ but will never be manned, that have made
you so confident? For you have irritated Philip
to such an extent by what you have said, that the
result of the embassy is likely to be, not peace,
but an interminable war."'' The meaning of this
scene, if it ever took place, must be that Demos-
' Such arguments however were conventional in Greek diplo-
macy, and Isocrates uses them, even to Philip, almost ad nauseam.
» ^sch., /. c. §§ 34, 35. See Note 5.
3 The reference is to the ships which were to have been sent to
Thermopylae to join Proxenus. (See p. 238.)
4.Esch.,/.c.,§§36,37.
244 Demosthenes
thenes was himself intensely anxious for peace, in
view of the helpless condition of Athens at the mo-
ment, and thought that, by opening the question of
Amphipolis, -^schines had spoiled all chance of it.
(It may even have been this fear v/hich led him to
break down before Philip.) ^schines had no
time to answer this attack before the herald re-
called them to Philip's presence to hear his deci-
sion. Philip proceeded to reply to each of the
ambassadors in order, referring with special em-
phasis to the arguments of ^schines — iEschines
himself tells the story — but making no allusion to
anything that had been said by Demosthenes.
His friendly tone disproved the truth of Demos-
thenes' apprehensions, and Demosthenes was so
mortified at being proved in the wrong that he
lost control of himself, and even behaved badly
at the complimentary feast to which Philip had
invited the ambassadors. ^ As to the substance of
Philip's answer, we learn* that Philip undertook
not to attack the Chersonese before the Athenians
had come to a decision in regard to the Peace; and
the ambassadors took with them a letter from him,
promising in general terms to confer great benefits on
Athens if he were granted alliance as well as peace. ^
Demosthenes, according to .^schines' story,
appears soon to have regretted his unfortimate
conduct; and lest it should become known at
Athens, he did his best on the way home to in-
gratiate himself with his colleagues, promising to
' iEsch., /. c, §§ 38, 39. ' Ibid., § 82. J Dem., de F. L., § 40.
The First Embassy to Philip 245
assist them individually in their private needs and
their public career, and lavishing fulsome praises
upon the address of .^schines to Philip ; and while
they were all dining together at Larissa, he even
laughed at himself for his breakdown, and spoke
with admiration of Philip's ability, ^schines ex-
pressed his agreement, and Ctesiphon went so far
as to say that he had never seen so charming a man
as Philip. "Ah!" cried Demosthenes, "neither of
you would dare to speak of Philip in such terms
to the People!" They declared that they would
do so; and Demosthenes in turn declared that he
would hold them to their promise, while at the sam.e
time he entreated ^schines to tell the People that
"Demosthenes also had spoken in defence of the
claim of Athens to Amphipolis." ' (It is clear that
the People had not yet realised that the recovery
of Amphipolis, however nearly it might touch their
pride, was not practically possible; and though
the ambassadors must have known it well enough,
none of them was anxious to admit it publicly.)
The ambassadors must have re-entered Athens
about the end of March, 346. They first an-
nounced the result of their mission to the Council ;
and the Council, on the motion of Demosthenes,
who spoke in laudatory terms of his colleagues, and
of -^schines in particular, decided to propose to the
People that a crown of olive should be awarded to
each of them, and that they should be invited (in
»^sch., /. c, §§40-43.
246 Demosthenes
accordance with custom) to a complimentary ban-
quet in the Prytaneum — the Guildhall of Athens. *
They next came before the Assembly, and spoke
as had been arranged, ^schines and Ctesiphon
used the language which Demosthenes had de-
clared they would not dare to use, in praise of
Philip's charm, his good memory, and his talents
as a speaker; and ^schines described Philip as a
thorough Hellene, and anything but a barbarian, as
some called him.^ ^schines also tells us that he
remembered Demosthenes' request, and told the
Assembly that he had left it to Demosthenes to
say anything that might have been passed over
in regard to Amphipolis. But when last of all
Demosthenes rose, he turned upon his colleagues
(says^schines), and rubbing his head and making
his usual fantastic gestures, rallied them upon their
garrulity and their compliments to Philip. "I
will show you," he said, "how to report the re-
sult of an embassy. Read the resolution under
which we were sent." The clerk read it. "Well,"
he said, "these were our instructions, and we have
fulfilled them. Here is Philip's answer, and it is
for you to discuss it." This businesslike brevity
met with some applause, though some (-^schines
says) exclaimed at its maliciousness. Demosthe-
nes proceeded:
^schines thought Philip an able speaker; I did
not. Any one else in the same position could have
done nearly as well. Ctesiphon thought he had a
' iEsch,, /. c, §§ 45, 46. « Dem., de F. L., § 308.
li
THE STATUE OF AESCHINES IN THE NAPLES MUSEUM
The First Embassy to Philip 247
glorious face; to me Aristodemus the actor is just as
handsome. He was, they say, a good companion
to drink wine with. Our colleague Philocrates was
better. It is stated that an opportunity was left me
of speaking about Amphipolis; but .^schines would
rather have given me a share in his life-blood than
in his argument.' All this, in fact, is beside the
point, and I propose simply that a safe-conduct
be given to the herald who has come from Philip,
and to the envoys who are about to proceed hither ;
that, when they have arrived, meetings of the As-
sembly be summoned for two days, to discuss the
question of alliance as well as that of peace; and
that, if you think we deserve it, a vote of thanks be
passed to us for our services, and that we be invited
to a banquet in the Prytaneum to-morrow.
Demosthenes' mockery of his colleagues, if the
scene really took place, was very unworthy of him ;
but he can hardly be blamed for proposing to carry
out the ordinary formalities of Greek diplomacy, or
for asking for the conventional expressions of ap-
proval from the Assembly; and his further motion,
to give Philip's envoys seats of honour at the forth-
coming Dionysiac festival was (like the banquet
which he gave them) a natural civility, which his
enemies afterwards misconstrued as evidence of
disloyalty to his country. ^
The two meetings of the Assembly were fixed,
on Demosthenes' motion, for the i8th and 19th
» See Dem., de F. L., § 254.
"iEsch., de F. L., §§46-55; in Ctes., § 63. For Demosthenes'
reply, see de Cor., § 28, and de F. L., §§ 234-236.
248 Demosthenes
of Elaphebolion — April 15th and i6th; and it was
necessary, before any treaty could be made, that
the situation should be discussed by the Synod
representative of the allies of Athens, which was
then meeting in the city. ^ The Synod, according
to vEschines, resolved to agree to peace upon such
terms as the Assembly should decide; they said
nothing of an alliance with Philip; but added a
proposal that it should be lawful for any Greek
State to become a party to the Peace within three
months. The effect of the acceptance of this
proposal would clearly have been to give the
Phocians a chance of securing themselves against
Philip and the Thebans, by joining in the Peace.
They also suggested that the decision of the
Assembly should be postponed until the envoys
sent in the winter by Athens to the Greek States
had returned; probably because they wished to
discover whether the other States would be likely
to favour such a general Peace ; and at a later time
^schines accused Demosthenes of having hiuried
on the meetings of the Assembly, without waiting
for the return of those envoys, and so having
ruined the chance of a universal Peace. It is
very probable that Demosthenes did not desire
to risk the chance of any change of feeling in
Athens, and that, seeing peace to be necessary, he
thought it best to conclude it as soon as possible. '
' See Marshall, The Second Alhentan Confederacy, p. 334.
^ The evidence, which is very perplexing, is discussed in Note 7.
The view given in the text seems to be the most probable.
The First Embassy to Philip 249
It appears to have been resolved on the motion of
Demosthenes that the discussion in the Assembly
should take place on the i8th of Elaphebolion, and
the voting on the proposals made (but no speeches)
on the 19th. ^ At the first meeting, Philocrates
proposed that alliance as well as peace should be
made with Philip, but that the Phocians and Halus
should be excluded from it. (The envoys sent
by Philip — Antipater, Parmenio, and, probably,
Eurylochus — may already have made it plain to
Philocrates that Philip would not admit the
Phocians, and no doubt the terms proposed
were virtually dictated by Philip.) This proposal
^schines denounced in very vigorous language,
declaring that he could not support it so long as a
single Athenian remained alive. ^ Instead of it, he
upheld the proposal of the Synod of the allies,
which would have given the Phocians and the
people of Halus an opportunity of participating in
the Peace, since it allowed three months during
which any State might declare its adhesion to the
treaty. 3 Demosthenes also supported the allies'
proposal, and the Assembly broke up under the
impression that peace would certainly be made,
but that for the alliance it would be better to
wait for three months or so, in case a general
arrangement should then seem desirable. '' On the
^ Msch.,deF.L., §65.
»Dem.,(ieF. L., §14; M^ch..,dc F.L., §63.
J Msch., in Ctes., § 71.
^ Ibtd. See Note 8.
250 Demosthenes
next day, despite the motion which Demosthenes
had carried in regard to the procedure, there was
clearly considerable discussion as well as voting.*
But the two accounts of the proceedings are
entirely different. Qemosthenes claims to have
spoken in favour of the resolution of the allies, and
implies that he was opposed to the making of an
alliance with PhiHp; he declares that the People
would not even listen to Philocrates, who had
proposed alliance as well as peace; but that
^schines rose and supported Philocrates, de-
nouncing those who reminded the Athenians of the
deeds of their forefathers in ancient days, and
expressing his intention of proposing a law that
the Athenians should assist no Hellenic people
by whom they had not previously been assisted —
meaning that in the present case they should not
support the Phocians. ^ ^schines, on the contrary,
declares that he did not speak on the second day at
all 3; and that the sentiments imputed to him by
Demosthenes were a distortion of those which he
uttered on the first day, in reply to inflammatory
speeches by certain orators, who tried to prevent
the making of peace at all, and pointed to the
Propylaea and the Acropolis, and appealed to the
memory of Salamis and the tombs and trophies
of the Athenians of old. In answer to such fire-
* ^sch., de F. L., §§ 65-67, denies that there was any dis-
cussion; but in thein Ctes., §§ 71 ff., he himself gives an account
of the discussion on the second day of the debate.
'Dem.,deF.L., §§15,16,311. 3^sch.,de F. L., §§66.
The First Embassy to Philip 251
brands, ^schines declared, he had urged that while
it was well to bear these great traditions in mind, it
would also be well if the People were to imitate
the wisdom of their forefathers, without falling
into their errors and their unseasonable passion
for strife; he had held up to them as a warning
the disasters brought about by the rash policy of
Cleophon in the latter part of the Peloponnesian
War, and as an example the battles of Plataeae,
Salamis, and Marathon.^ But as to the second
day, he states that Demosthenes himself supported
Philocrates, and showed to a certain Amyntor
(who was ready to give evidence of the fact) a
resolution to the same effect as that of Philocrates
— ^proposing alliance as well as peace with Philip —
which he had himself drafted and was ready, if
necessary, to hand in to the chairman.^ In the
Speech against Ctesiphon^ he goes farther, and
declares that Demosthenes rose without leaving
time for any one to anticipate him, and said that
the proposals of the previous day were idle, unless
Philip's ambassadors agreed to them; that it was
wrong, however much they disliked the mover and
the name of an alliance, to "snap off the alliance
from the peace ' ' ; and that instead of waiting for
the tardy adhesion of the other States before
making the alliance, they should settle the ques-
tion of peace or war for themselves.'* Demos-
' ^sch., de F. L. §§ 74-77. ' Ibid., §§ 67, 68.
iln Ctes., §§71, 72.
* Almost the very opinion which Dem., de F. L., § 307, at-
tributes to ^schines!
252 Demosthenes
thenes then (so ^schines says) called Antipater
and asked him directly whether he would accept
the Peace without the alliance, and received a
negative answer. This of course meant that
any one who desired the Peace must give way on
the question of the alliance.
Thus ^schines and Demosthenes each accused
the other of supporting the resolution of Philoc-
rates as against the proposal of the allies, and of
thus becoming responsible for the exclusion and
subsequent overthrow of the Phocians. (It must
be borne in mind that the accusations were made at
a time when they had become declared enemies,
when the overthrow of the Phocians had caused
the Athenians to regard the Peace with detestation,
and when each of the orators desired to prove to the
jury that he had supported the side which had since
become the popular one.) Can we form any rea-
sonable opinion as to their real attitude at the
time? What seems clear is that on the i8th of
Elaphebolion it appeared likely that a Peace would
be made which would leave the door open to the
Phocians and the people of Halus, and to other
Greek States, if they decided within three months
to join in an alliance; and this proposition both
^schines and Demosthenes supported. It is also
tolerably clear that between the debates of the
1 8th and the 19th something happened which
convinced certain of the politicians that such a
Peace was impossible — Philocrates had probably
known this before — ^and this can only have been
i
The First Embassy to Philip 253
the discovery that Philip was absolutely resolved
not to agree to such terms. This must have been
intimated to them by Philip's envoys. That being
so, what course was open to one who, like Demos-
thenes, believed peace to be necessary for the time?
What but to attempt to convince the People that
they must give up the proposal of the allies, and
accept peace on Philip's own terms, viz., the mak-
ing of a Peace and an alliance at once, without
waiting three months? The most obvious way of
doing this was that which, according to -^schines'
account, Demosthenes adopted, viz., putting the
question publicly to Antipater in the Assembly;
and it is highly probable that, as Amyntor told
.^schines, Demosthenes had a consequential mo-
tion drafted and ready. But even when they
heard Antipater's reply, the Assembly were not
ready to give up the plan which they had approved
of on the previous day; and it is probable that
before they consented they were led in some way or
other to believe that they were not really sacrificing
the Phocians to Philip and the Thebans by mak-
ing the alliance at once. How was this managed?
The Phocians and Halus were passed over in
silence; Philocrates' motion was introduced, but
they were not mentioned by name; and the
explanation was given, so Demosthenes says,^
by ^schines and his friends that Philip could not
receive the Phocians openly as allies, owing to his
' Dem., de F. L., § 321; comp. Phil. II, §§ 12, 28, and see
Note 9.
254 Demosthenes
own existing relations with the Thessalians and
Thebans; but that when the Peace was made he
would act in such a way as to satisfy the Athenians.
If this was so, ^schines also had changed his mind
in the night, and that is perhaps the most probable
account of the matter ; though -^schines may have
sincerely believed that Philip would act in the
manner described. Nor do we find any statement
that Demosthenes on this occasion expressed any
other belief.
But even with these assurances before them, the
People were not induced to agree to the proposal of
Philocrates, until Eubulus told them bluntly that
tmless they accepted it (of course in its new form,
without any express mention of the Phocians or
Halus) they must prepare for immediate war, pay
a war-tax, and devote the festival-fund to military
purposes.^ This of course was the plain truth.
Philip held all the cards; and unless peace were
made on his terms, there must be a war, and the
People must make those very sacrifices which they
had so steadily refused to make. The threat was
sufficient. It was resolved that the Athenian
People and their allies should make peace and
alliance with Philip and his allies, and none were
specially mentioned or excluded. Further, it was
agreed that each of the two parties to the Peace
should retain what it possessed at the time when
the Peace was made * ; and the treaty also contained
various provisions in reference to freedom of trad-
» Dem., de F. L., § 291. ' Hegesippus, de Hal., §§ 18, 26.
The First Embassy to Philip 255
ing and the suppression of piracy.^ The same
ten ambassadors were appointed to receive the
oaths of PhiHp and his allies in confirmation of the
treaty.
But who were the "allies" on either side? The
advocates of peace, in order to get their proposal
carried at all, had left this point indefinite ; and it
was this that was a principal cause of the troubles
and misunderstandings of the next few years. The
politicians themselves can hardly have misimder-
stood the situation. The allies and possessions of
Philip included all whom he had conquered, and his
possession of Amphipolis and Poteidasa could not
be questioned. The allies of Athens were those
who were actually members of her confederacy,
and were represented in the Synod of the con-
federacy. Philip evidently did not intend, and
could not be expected, to recognise her right to
make peace in the name of any others. It was no
small thing that the possession of the Chersonese,
with the exception of Cardia, was now guaranteed
to her. *
But obviously a less precise interpretation of
the term "allies" was also current in popular lan-
guage, and there was no science of international
law to lay down definitions. Consequently not
only orators at Athens, but even diplomatists sent
to Philip's court, could make a show of arguing
' "Philip's Letter, " § 2; comp. Hegesippus, /. c, §§ 12-15.
*'Dem.,deF.L., §78.
256 Demosthenes
that the allies of Athens included any people or
persons with whom she had a treaty of friendship,
or to whom she had promised support — the Pho-
cians, Halus, and even Cersobleptes. * (This
prince, though he had been forced to give hos-
tages to Philip, was no doubt still formally on
terms of friendship with Athens''). It was even
argued at a later date that Amphipolis still
belonged to Athens by right. ^
Difficulties arose from this cause almost im-
mediately. For, a few days after the decision had
been made, the Athenians and the allies repre-
sented in the Synod, in pursuance of a motion
proposed by Philocrates, took the oath to maintain
the Peace, in the presence of Philip's envoys. No
representative either of the Phocians or of Cer-
sobleptes took the oath'*; but a representative of
Cersobleptes claimed to do so ; and at a later time,
Demosthenes and ^schines each tried to blame
the other for his exclusion. Probably both were
agreed at the time that Cersobleptes' envoy could
not legitimately be included, and it fell to Demos-
thenes, as president of the Assembly held on the
25th of Elaphebolion, to give a formal ruling to
that effect. ^
When the tangled evidence is carefully studied,
there can be little doubt that up to the point at
*Dem.,de Cor., §27.
»-^sch., de F. L., § 9: in Ctes., § 61, describes him as the
"friend and ally of the city."
3 See below, p. 312. t^sch,, in Ctes., §§ 73-75. s See Note 10.
The First Embassy to Philip 257
which the Athenians swore to the treaty, Demcs-
thenes had not changed his mind as to the necessity
of making peace, and although on the first day of
the debate he had made an effort to confine the
treaty to a Peace, without an immediate alHance,
and so to save the Phocians and Halus, he had
immediately seen the necessity of giving way upon
these points, and had acted accordingly. If this
is so, it is impossible to relieve him of the respon-
sibility (which he shared with his colleagues) for
the consequences of the Peace, however vehemently
he may have wished to repudiate it afterwards.
Not that the responsibiUty really involves any
blame, for he was fully justified in carrying into
effect his conviction of the necessity of peace at
the time; he was acting as the interests of his
country demanded ; and there is no sign, up to this
point, of any serious division of opinion among the
leading politicians in Athens. It is only in their
respective records or falsifications of the facts, and
in their comments upon them in the light of their
subsequent dissensions, that differences appear.
If Demosthenes is to be blamed, it is not so much
for helping to make the Peace, as for trying after-
wards to disown his action.
For from this point onwards the friction, which
seems to have arisen from comparatively trivial
and personal causes, between Demosthenes and
the other ambassadors, became rapidly trans-
formed into definite opposition, accompanied by
ill-will which neither he nor they took any pains
17
258 Demosthenes
to conceal. To him, the Peace was no more than
an armistice, rendered absolutely necessary by cir-
cumstances, but only tolerable because it might
be turned to good account, if the opportunity
were taken of preparing for a resimiption of
the struggle. They, on the other hand, desired a
lasting Peace, such as was inconsistent with De-
mosthenes* ideal of national honour. No sooner,
therefore, was the Peace made, than he began to
think about the means of preventing Philip from
gaining fresh power or extending his influence
farther southward. From this point of view,
every action of his colleagues which seemed to
fiu-ther Philip's plans, or to offer any prospect of
permanence to the Peace, presented itself to his
mind as treason; and this attitude of mind de-
veloped so rapidly, that (if what he declared three
years later was true) he was very unwilling to serve
upon the Second Embassy, and would not have
done so, but for the fact that, on his previous visit
to Macedonia, he had promised to take ransom-
money to some of the Athenian prisoners there.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VII
1. JEsch., de F. L., § 15, says simply inrh Si Toi>s airoiis xp^wus
'O\vv0os idXu. In the Speech against Ctesiphon, § 62, he places
the acquittal of Philocrates before the beginning of Themistocles'
archonship (July, 347), but does not give any nearer indication of
date.
2. At a time when both ^schines and Demosthenes were
anxious to disown all connection with the Peace, ^schines (in
Ctes., § 62) accused Demosthenes of having obtained his place in
the Council by corrupt means for the express purpose of support-
I
The First Embassy to Philip 259
ing Philocrates. But there is no doubt that this story was an
invention on the part of ^schines. He made a similar assertion
about Timarchus {in Tim., § io6); and, as Schafer remarks, he
had not thought of this calumny against Demosthenes at the
time of the Speeches on the Embassy.
3. ^sch., de F. L., § 134, says that the letter of Proxenus,
giving an account of the treatment he had received, and the report
of the heralds of the Mysteries were read at the same meeting of
the Assembly as that at which the Peace was discussed. This
has caused much difficulty; for the resolution of Philocrates,
constituting the First Embassy, can hardly have been proposed
for some months after the rebuff by the Phocians. Consequently
Schafer and others have thought that the Mysteries referred to
were the "Lesser Mysteries," held in March and therefore
(according to Schafer) announced in February. But was there
any solemn announcement of these to all the Greek states, as
there was of the Eleusinian Truce in September? Grote is
probably right in saying that there must have been many dis-
cussions of the peace-negotiations before Philocrates' resolution
was proposed, and that the news from Thermopylae was brought
during one of these.
4. ^schines disclaims connection with the early negotiations
in the de F. L., § 20, and the passage in the Speech against
Timarchus, § 174 (delivered in 345), does not prove that he
claimed any credit for the Peace then (as is sometimes supposed),
but only that he expected Demosthenes to charge him with re-
sponsibility for it, along with Philocrates — in other words, that
by the time of the trial of Timarchus, Demosthenes wished to
disavow his own share in the matter. In the de Cor., §§ 20-24,
Demosthenes disclaims all share in it very insistently, but none
the less falsely.
5. Schafer, ii., p. 204, thinks that .^Eschines is exaggerating
Demosthenes' breakdown, and that Demosthenes, as the last
speaker, naturally had not much to say, but summed up briefly.
This is only conjecture, though we have no means of testing the
truth of ^schines' story. Plutarch's statement (Dem., xvi.) that
Philip paid special attention to Demosthenes' arguments may
refer to the Second Embassy, or may quite possibly be unhistori-
cal.
6. iEschines {in Ctes., § 67) says that Demosthenes at first
26o Demosthenes
proposed that the Assembly should meet on the 8th of Elaphe-
bolion, April 5th, without waiting for the arrival of Philip's
envoys. It is of course conceivable that he proposed a prelimin-
ary discussion on that day, though it is inconceivable that any one
should have suggested the giving of a final decision without
hearing what Philip had to say. ^schines treats the proposal as
sacrilegious, since the 8th of Elaphebolion was a feast of Asclepius
and the day appointed for the Proagon, a ceremony preliminary
to the Dionysiac festival. For whatever reason, the i8th and
19th, when the festival would be over, were actually chosen.
7. The testimony as regards the allies' proposal and the en-
voys mentioned in it is found in ^schines, de F. L., §§ 57-62,
in Ctes., §§64-70, Dem., de F. L., §16, in Ctes., §§22, 23.
The chief points are as follows:
(i) Demosthenes (de F. L., § 16) is indignant with ^schi-
nes for making certain remarks on the 19th of Elaphebolion,
in the presence of the envoys who had come from the Greek
States in response to the embassies sent from Athens, on the
advice of ^schines, in the vain hope of getting up a united war
against Philip. This must refer to the embassies sent out late
in 347 (above, pp. 232-33).
(2) To this ^schines replies {de F. L., §§ 57 ff., and in
Ctes., §§ 67, 70) that there were no envoys present from any
Greek States, and that the Athenian ambassadors sent to the
States had not returned; but he seems to suggest that it was
still worth while to wait for their return, and states that the
Synod of the allies wished to delay the decision of the Assembly
until their arrival; and he attacks Demosthenes for having
forced on the meetings of the Assembly, without waiting for
the envoys, and for having thus spoiled the chance of making a
universal Peace and so saving the Phocians.
(3) To this Demosthenes answers (de Cor., §§ 22, 23) that
there were no Athenian envoys out on a mission to the Greek
States at the time, for the Greeks had all long ago been tried
and found wanting.
There are thus two points (often confused with one another
by modem writers) upon which the orators contradict one
another:
(r) Demosthenes states that there were envoys from the
Greek States present in Athens on the 19th of Elaphebolion, who
The First Embassy to Philip 261
had come in response to the Athenian embassies sent in the
previous winter, ^schines denies this; and Demosthenes him-
self {de Cor., § 23) implies that the Greek States had generally
failed to respond to those embassies. If therefore any States
at all had sent envoys to Athens, it is probable that very few
had done so (see below).
(2) i^schines states that certain envoys sent from Athens to
the Greek States had not yet returned, but were still out on their
mission on the 19th of Elaphebolion. (As a matter of fact
some of those sent in the winter had certainly returned — he
himself, for instance.) Demosthenes replies that there were
no Athenian envoys then out on a mission to the Greek States.
It is strongly in favour of .^schines' statement, that in the
de F. L., § 60, he quoted the actual decree of the Synod of the
allies, expressly asking that the Assembly should meet "when
the envoys had returned to Athens and reported the result of
their'mission. " It is difficult to avoid concluding that there
must have been some Athenian envoys out on a mission at the
time, and they must have been either some of the envoys sent
in the winter of 347-6 to get up a united war against Philip
(in which case .(^schines is misrepresenting the facts — in the
de F. L., § 57, though not in the in Ctes., § 64 — in describing
the object of their mission as a united war or a united peace) ;
or else envoys sent after the mission of the ten ambassadors to
Philip, to invite the Greek States to join in a general Peace.
Kahrstedt {Forschungen, p. 67) adopts the latter alternative;
but there is no real evidence of the sending of such envoys, and
it is highly improbable that so soon after the sending of envoys
to propose a united war, the Athenians would have sent others
to propose a united peace. The first alternative therefore is
the more probable — that some of the envoys sent in the winter
had not yet returned, and that the allies thought it desirable to
wait and ascertain from them what was the feeling of the other
Greek peoples before finally concluding peace. (Although the
embassies had on the whole proved a failure, some of the Greek
peoples may actually have sent envoys to Athens in response, as
Dem., de F. L., § 16, implies, and if so .^schines was telling
a falsehood in denying it; though it seems almost more likely,
in view of his confident challenge to Demosthenes, that he was
speaking the truth, and that Demosthenes was telling a false-
262 Demosthenes
hood in order to exaggerate the shockingness of ^schines'
language by stating it to have been used in the very presence of
the envoys. Demosthenes is also probably wrong — de Cor.,
§ 23 — in saying that no Athenian envoys were still out on a
mission.) Demosthenes probably did not wish, for the reason
given in the text, to delay the conclusion of peace by waiting
for the return of the envoys.
8. Demosthenes' account of the proceedings of the i8th of
Elaphebolion is probably less accurate than that of .(Eschines.
He says {de F. L., § 144) that the Assembly on that day ratified
the proposal of the allies, and was on the point of summoning
Philip's envoys to inform them of the decision, when .^schines
forced an adjournment of the question until the next day. But
by his own motion, no voting could take place on the first day;
the only possible " ratification " on that day can have been in the
form of applause ; and the adjournment of the decision to the next
day was the result of his motion, not of any action of .^schines.
(The procedure laid down in his motion was not followed on the
second day ; but there was clearly some good reason for setting it
aside, and this must have commanded the assent of the Assembly.
No such reason can have been suggested on the first day, upon
which there seems to have been no excitement or difficulty.)
9. Demosthenes implies that the statements of ^schines and
his friends as to Philip's promises and intentions were made on
this occasion as well as later, in July, not only in his speech in 343
at the trial of ^Eschines (§321), but also in 344 in addressing the
Assembly itself, which it would be less easy, perhaps, to mislead as
to what had taken place in its presence, viz., Phil. II, §§ 12, 28,
— where references are made to the promises on the strength of
which Philip obtained the Peace. This could only apply to April,
and not to July, when the Peace had already been made. Whether
the statements were really made by .(Eschines himself, and not
rather by Philocrates, may be doubted; but if they were made by
iEschines, it can hardly be doubted that he believed them; for,
as we shall see, he was really anxious to save the Phocians, and
Demosthenes' account of .^schines' attitude towards them is
the grossest perversion of the truth. It was Demosthenes himself
who was prepared, if necessary, to sacrifice the Phocians, in order
to obtain peace for the time.
The First Embassy to Philip 263
10. According to ^schines, de F. L., §§ 82-86, the Assembly
met on the 25th of Elaphebolion, and Demosthenes was in the
chair. At this meeting Critobulus of Lampsacus appeared, and
demanded in the name of Cersobleptes (who had not been men-
tioned in the debates of the i8th and 19th) to be allowed to swear
to the Peace among the allies of Athens. Aleximachus proposed
that he should be permitted to do so; but Demosthenes refused to
put the motion — the passing of which he said, would mean the
breaking oflf of the Peace — until he was practically forced to do so.
(iEschines does not say that the motion was carried.) On the
other hand .^schines (in Ctes., § 73-5) says that Philocrates pro-
posed, and Demosthenes put to the vote, a resolution that the
oath should be taken that day by the allies represented in the
Synod then sitting; and that as there was no representative of
Cersobleptes present in the Synod, Cersobleptes came to be
excluded. It is obvious that these two accounts are not consis-
tent with each other. Both speeches, however, agree that Cer-
sobleptes was in fact excluded; for in the de F. L., § 86, ^schines
states that Demosthenes had charged him with driving Cer-
sobleptes' representative away, when the oaths were taken,
immediately after the Assembly had been broken up. Plainly
the exclusion of Cersobleptes was a thing which the Athenians
came afterwards to view with disfavour, and both orators try to
disclaim responsibility for it. (Grote, Pt. II., ch. 89, and Hogarth,
Philip of Macedon, p. 91, both assert that Cersobleptes' repre-
sentative was allowed to take the oath. This seems to be contrary
to the evidence. The "Letter of Philip" appears to preserve
a tradition of his exclusion, though it is there ascribed to the
generals of Athens, doubtless because the oaths were taken in the
generals' office.)
CHAPTER VIII
THE SECOND EMBASSY AND THE PEACE OF
PHILOCRATES
THE ten ambassadors, upon their appointment
to serve on the Second Embassy to PhiHp,
were instructed to administer the oath of fideUty
to the treaty just negotiated, both to Philip, and
also to the magistrates of the peoples allied with
him, in their several cities.^ They were further
ordered to negotiate for the ransom of the Athen-
ian prisoners who were in the hands of Philip and
his subjects, and to do all that they could to serve
the interests of Athens in regard to the general
situation.^ Demosthenes states also that it was
forbidden that any of them should have a private
interview with Philip; but it is very doubtful
whether an instruction implying so strong a mis-
trust of them and so overtly insulting both to them
and Philip was really ever given them; though it
was obvious, and it may have been stated, that
only their collective action would be binding upon
Athens.
As soon as Philip's envoys had left the city,
' Dem., de F. L., § 278. » ^sch., de F. L., §§ 103, 104.
264
I
The Second Embassy 265
Demosthenes urged his colleagues to sail as quickly
as possible to the Hellespont, where Philip was
now operating, in order to prevent him from mak-
ing conquests in that region before taking the
oath, and then excusing himself on the groimd that
he had not yet sworn to a Peace. He knew, he
said, that the Athenians would not go to war
afresh on account of places so conquered, when
they had once agreed to peace on general
grounds. His colleagues, however, displayed no
haste ; and since no regular meeting of the Assembly
was due for some time, he procured a decree of
the Council (which had been given authority on
the matter), ordering the ambassadors to depart
at once, and to join Proxenus, who was still lying
off the north coast of Euboea with his ship;
Proxenus was then to convey them without delay
to Philip, wherever he might be. The ambas-
sadors left Athens and met Proxenus at Oreus;
but instead of sailing, delayed there in order to
enable ^schines to obtain an appointment as
representative or consul of Oreus at Athens. ^ At
last they went, not to the Hellespontine region by
sea, but by land to Pella, and arrived there
twenty-three days after leaving Athens. All the
time Demosthenes protested against their dilatori-
ness with increasing emphasis. '
' He IS mentioned as holding this office in 343-2 by Dem., de
Cor., §82.
' Dem., de F. L., § 156. (Most of our information about the
Second Embassy comes from §§ 150-178 of this Speech.)
266 Demosthenes
After their arrival at Pella, they had still to
wait twenty-seven days before Philip himself
appeared. The interval was spent by Demosthe-
nes in making arrangements for the ransom of all
the Athenian prisoners he could find ; and for this
purpose he had taken with him a talent of his own
money.* In the meantime Philip had captured
a number of strongholds in Thrace, — Doriscus,
Serrhium, the Sacred Mountain, Myrtenum, and
Ergiske, ^ — and had taken Cersobleptes prisoner.
Cersobleptes' kingdom thus passed into Philip's
power, though he did not remain in captivity —
his son being already a hostage — but was allowed
to remain nominally in possession of his dominions,
though no doubt under conditions.
When, at a later date, the Athenian Eucleides
was instructed to ask Philip for an explanation of
his action in Thrace, Philip answered that he was
within his rights, since he had conquered these
places before he met the ambassadors or took the
oath.^ Demosthenes lays great stress on these
conquests, as evidence of the faithlessness of
Philip, and of the injury done to Athens through
the dilatoriness of his colleagues. But in reality
Philip's defence was a good one; and the fact that
in 341 Demosthenes^ thought it worth while to
' The attempt of ^schines, de F. L., §§ 99, 100, to cast dis-
credit upon Demosthenes' charitable work is unconvincing.
' Some of these places were probably unimportant, and ^Es-
chines scoffs at Demosthenes for his lamentation over places
which no one had ever heard of before.
3 Schol. on Dem., de F. L., § 162. 4 Phil. Ill, § 15.
The Second Embassy 267
invent the certainly false statement that Philip
had already taken the oath when he captured
these places, shows that he was conscious of the
soundness of Philip's case when the facts were
truly stated. Indeed, according to ^schines*
account^ of the matter, Philip had captured Cer-
solDleptes and the Sacred Mountain on the day
before the Athenians themselves took the oath,
and therefore before the ambassadors left Athens ;
and as evidence of this, he produced a letter from
Chares. We cannot then tell whether the delay
of the ambassadors really injured the interests of
Athens at all. But, however this may have been,
PhUip was within his rights in acting as he had
done: for these strongholds did not belong to
Athens at all, but to Cersobleptes ; and though
Chares was defending them, it was for Cersobleptes,
who was at war with Philip, that he was doing so;
and Philip kept his word faithfully in not attack-
ing the Chersonese. Further, it may be doubted
whether Philip would really have brought to an
end his conquests in Thrace (as Demosthenes
said he would have), even if the ambassadors had
proceeded directly thither and received his oath.
He would have been under no obligation to do so ;
but the Athenians w^ere so accustomed to regard
that region as within their own sphere of influence,
that Demosthenes found no difficulty (in 343) in
speaking of the loss of it as a loss to Athens, and
as due to the disobedience of the ambassadors to
' ^sch., de F. L., § 89-92.
[
268 Demosthenes
their instructions. No doubt the conquest of
Cersobleptes' kingdom brought Philip nearer to
the Chersonese, and this is what Demosthenes
had sought to prevent; but he had no right to
complain that Philip was playing Athens false.
Nor is there any proof that the delay of the ambas-
sadors was due to their corruption by Philip or
his agents, though, if Demosthenes was telling
the truth, they did contravene their instructions.
When Philip returned to Pella, he found there
representatives of many Greek States, each hoping
to persuade him to fall in with their wishes. He
made himself agreeable to all, and seems to have
led all alike to imagine that they were certain of
success. Besides the Athenian ambassadors, there
were envoys from Thebes, bent upon urging Philip
to cross the Pass of Thermopylae and terminate
the Sacred War in their interest; there were
Spartans, who hoped for the commission of the
Delphian temple to the care of their kinsmen, the
Dorians of Mount Parnassus, and also doubtless
wished to deprecate Philip's intrigues with their
enemies in the Peloponnese; there were Phocians,
who had every reason to attempt to agree with
the adversary quickly; and there were Euboeans,
who in all probability were not well disposed
towards Athens, and desired to retain Philip's
support.
Philip appears to have courted the good-will
of the Athenian representatives by lavish gener-
osity. Demosthenes states that offers of large
The Second Embassy 269
sums of money were first made privately to each
of them ; that when one of them refused — he coyly
abstains from mentioning his own name — Philip
sent a large sum to them all in common ; and that
when he himself prevented the acceptance of it
in this form, his colleagues divided the sum among
themselves, in addition to what they had already
received. For his own part, he tells us, he asked
Philip to use the mone3% which he was offering the
ambassadors, to redeem the captive Athenians
from those of his subjects who had come into
possession of them, and that Philip, not liking to
reply that Demosthenes' colleagues had taken the
money, consented to do this, but postponed the
fulfilment of his undertaking, promising to send
the prisoners back in time for the Panathenasa. ^
How much truth there is in this story, apart from
Philip's promise to send home the prisoners, we
cannot tell, ^schines declared that the other
ambassadors, having learned wisdom from the
trick played on them by Demosthenes on their
previous journey,^ kept aloof from him,^ and this
may have helped to make him unduly suspicious
of them. But that Philip tried to secure friends
for himself in Athens by lavishing presents upon
the ambassadors is more than probable, when we
know the use which he made of Macedonian gold
elsewhere ; the pretext of hospitality to his guests
was a convenient one, and may have served to
' Dem., de F. L., §§ 166-171. »Seeabove, p. 245.
3 ^sch., de F. L., § 97.
270 Demosthenes
quiet their consciences. That scrupulous absten-
tion from all appearance of evil, which is demanded
of public servants at the present day, was not
expected, or at least was rarely found, in ancient
Greece.
The Theban envoys, Demosthenes tells us,
proved absolutely incorruptible; though it may be
doubted whether he is right in concluding that
the success of the Thebans was due to the impres-
sion made upon Philip by the conduct of their
ambassadors. Philip's perception of his interest
was hardly likely to be affected by such edifying
examples. ^
It is evident that there was considerable dis-
sension between Demosthenes and his colleagues
as to the way in which they were to carry out their
instructions.^ They first read their instructions
aloud; and for some time the discussion turned
on points of minor importance. At last, ^schines
says, fearing that matters of greater weight would
be overlooked entirely, he reminded his colleagues
that while, of course, they were bound to receive
the oaths of Philip and his allies, and to negotiate
for the ransom of the prisoners, the real difficulty
lay in the execution of the injunction to do their
best for the interest of Athens in general. He
himself interpreted this instruction as having
reference to the advance of Philip to Thermopylae,
' Dem., de F. L., §§ 139-142.
» We are here dependent on iEschines {de F. L., §§ 108-I17)
for our information.
The Second Embassy 271
which every one assumed to be about to take place,
as it was evidently Philip's intention to bring the
Sacred War to an end ; and he understood the wish
of the Athenian People to be that they should try
to persuade Philip to humble the Thebans, and
to set up the walls of those cities of Boeotia which
the Thebans had destroyed. This had not been
expressed in the decree of the Assembly, only
because, if they failed in their object, it would be
better that the intention of the People should not
be generally known. It would be wrong, he de-
clared, for the ambassadors of Athens to shrink
from coming to the point, for fear of incurring
the hostility of the Thebans. But Demosthenes
(^schines declared) loudly protested against this
proposal, asserting that it was not the business
of the ambassadors to set up strife between Athens
and Thebes. "Let Philip go to Thermopylae,"
said he; "no one will prosecute me for any move-
ments of Philip with his army; but only for any
words or actions that are not covered by our
instructions." The result of the discussion was
that it was arranged that each of the ambassadors
should say to Philip what he thought it desirable to
say.
When the time for their interview with Philip
came, Demosthenes, though the youngest of the
ambassadors, insisted on speaking first, in order
that everything might not be said by others, before
his turn came. He began his address to Philip
by hinting that the ambassadors were not all
272 Demosthenes
there with the same object, and proceeded to
recount and emphasise his own services in for-
warding the peace-negotiations, and the attentions
which he had paid to Philip's envoys (upon which
he laid such stress that his colleagues were thor-
oughly ashamed); he concluded with some very
tasteless remarks about Philip himself, alluding
sarcastically to the complimentary language that
his colleagues had used. "I have not called you
beautiful, for woman is the most beautiful thing
on earth ; nor a good drinker, for that, I conclude,
is the way to praise a sponge; nor have I praised
your memory; for such adulation is a task for
a hireling sophist"; and he concluded amid the
laughter of the assembled envoys of all the Greek
States. Then ^Eschines rose, he tells us ; and after
remarking that the ambassadors had not been sent
by the Athenians to defend their own actions,
but had been chosen on account of their personal
character, he spoke briefly of the ratification of
the treaty, which they had come to obtain, and
the other points definitely contained in their
instructions; and then passed on to Philip's
intended march to Thermopylas. He begged
Philip, if possible, to settle the questions in which
the Amphictyonic powers were interested not by
force of arms, but by a vote of the Council, after
a regular trial of the case ; but if that were impos-
sible (as he supposed it was, since Philip's army
was assembled and ready to start), he begged to
put before Philip certain considerations arising
The Second Embassy 273
out of the constitution of the Amphictyonic
League, and the oath which bound its members
together. This oath the Thebans had transgressed
in destroying the Boeotian cities; and although it
was right to punish the sacrilege committed against
the temple at Delphi, it was those who had com-
mitted it that should be punished, and not their
countries. Finally, he called upon Philip not to
ratify by force the wrong-doing of the Thebans;
and warned him, if he supported Thebes, to expect
no gratitude from her.
It is not very difficult to gather from this account
what policy ^schines and Demosthenes respec-
tively had in view, ^schines seems to have made
an honest attempt to save the Phocians, and to
turn Philip's forces against Thebes by a recital
of the misdeeds of the Thebans and a discussion
of constitutional questions, though these could
hardly be expected to influence Philip. This was
certainly the policy which the majority of the
People of Athens would have approved, as the
debates upon the Peace had shown ; and ^schines
was probably right in his interpretation of the
rather vague instructions given to the ambassadors.
Demosthenes looked somewhat farther ahead.
He saw that if Philip were to possess himself of
the Pass of Thermopylae, and so to obtain the
power to march farther southward, when he chose,
the best chance of averting the submission of
Athens to him would be in a combination between
Athens and Thebes ; and he did not want to cut of!
274 Demosthenes
"all hope of this by taking a line hostile to Thebes
at Philip's Court. Accordingly he desired to con-
fine the action of the ambassadors to the receiving
of the oaths and the ransoming of the captives.
His colleagues were probably aware of his object;
but the prevailing dislike of the Thebans was so
great that they could have no sympathy with him.
"To crown all his faults," ^schines declared,*
" he is a pro-Theban. ' ' But assuming — as Demos-
thenes assumed and his colleagues did not — that
the Peace was to be only an armistice, and that
the war against Philip was to be renewed so soon
as Athens was in a condition to renew it, Demos-
thenes' caution was probably wise.
PhiHp's own aim was doubtless by this time
tolerably well-defined. He intended, sooner or
later, to conquer both Thebes and Athens, or to
make satisfactory terms with them, but he was in
no hurry, and for the time it was quite convenient
to him to support Thebes, and so keep Athens
powerless. He must have seen, as clearly as De-
mosthenes saw, that the one thing which might
thwart him would be an alliance between Athens
and Thebes. Besides this, his prestige would suf-
fer if he at once threw over the Thebans, with
whom he was supposed to be on friendly terms.
He therefore went his way as he had planned, but
played with the envoys of the various States until
the time came for him to make the decisive move ;
and there is no reason to doubt that he led some
» ^sch., de F. L., § io6.
The Second Embassy 275
at least of the Athenians (of course without making
any official intimation) to believe that he really
intended to march against Thebes, just as he led
the Spartans to believe that he would fulfil their
particular wishes. (So certain of this did the
Spartans feel, that they ventured to use threaten-
ing language to the Thebans present.') He may
even have led the Phocians themselves to hope
for his favour. ^
Philip declared his acceptance of the Peace at
Pella^; and the ambassadors remained there until
he was ready to proceed southwards. They then
accompanied him and his army as far as Pherse;
and there the oaths were taken, Demosthenes
says,'' in an insulting manner, in an inn; and the
ambassadors, instead of visiting Philip's allies in
their several cities and administering the oath to
their respective magistrates, were content to re-
ceive it at Pherae from the persons introduced by
Philip as the representatives of his allies. Demos-
thenes perhaps exaggerates the importance to
Philip of preventing the Athenian ambassadors
from making a tour of the States allied to himself;
but Philip may well have thought that they might
cause mischief. That they disobeyed their in-
structions in not making such a tour seems certain;
but they probably attached little importance to
the manner of the ratification, so long as the
' iEsch., de F. L., § 136. ' Dem., Phil. Ill, § 11.
3 Dem., de Cor., § 32. See Note i at the end of the Chapter.
* Dem., de F. L., § 158.
276 Demosthenes
ratification itself was secured. The Phocians,
the people of Halus, and Cersobleptes had already
been tacitly excluded from participation in the
Peace, and it is probable that Philip expressly
declared, before taking the oath, that they were
not covered by the treaty to which he swore. ^
The representatives of Cardia took the oath among
the allies of Philip; and though Demosthenes
afterwards^ blamed his colleagues for permitting
this, he was not justified in doing so; for Cardia
had been specially excepted from the towns
in the Chersonese given up to Athens by Cer
sobleptes, and had made alliance with Philip
in 352.
The ambassadors had now finished their work»
and had only to make their report. Demosthenes
(who had already tried to go home in advance of
his colleagues, in order to denounce their alleged
misconduct, and had chartered a vessel for the
purpose, but had been prevented) drew up a draft-
report, which his colleagues naturally rejected.
They sent instead a letter drawn up by themselves,
announcing the accomplishment of their mission. ^
They then proceeded homewards, bearing with
them a letter from Philip, which Demosthenes
afterwards asserted (no doubt falsely) to have
been composed by ^schines at a private interview
with Philip on the river Lydias in Macedonia,
» Dem., de F. L., §44.
' Ibid., § 174: comp. de Pace, § 25; de Chers., § 66.
3 Dem., de F. L., § 174.
The Second Embassy 277
before they started for Pherae. ' At the same time
PhiHp marched towards Thermopylae, and arrived
there before the ambassadors reached Athens.
They re-entered the city on the 13th of Sciropho-
rion, or about July 6th.
The ambassadors had now to meet the Council,
the Assembly, and the Board of Auditors or
Logistae, whose approval was required in the case
of every public official on the termination of his
office. In the Council, Demosthenes immediately
denoimced his colleagues as guilty of misconduct
upon the embassy, and recounted the history of
the negotiations from the beginning. Doubtless
the charges which he made against them in the
first instance were based on their delay at the
outset, their failure to go direct to Philip in Thrace,
and the manner in which they had allowed Philip's
allies to take the oath. (He can hardly at this
stage have charged them, as he did afterwards,
with injuring the prospects of the Phocians.)
The Council were convinced by his statement,
and withheld from the ambassadors the compli-
ments which were almost invariably paid to such
persons — the vote of thanks, and the invitation
to a banquet in the Prytaneum. ^
Demosthenes further states ^ that he entreated
' Dem., de F. L., § 36; ^sch., de F. L., § 124. The gross in-
sinuations which Demosthenes (de F. L., § 175) makes against
^schines, who left Pherae twenty-four hours later than his col-
leagues, are doubtless malicious inventions.
' Dem., de F. L., §§ 18, 31, 32. i Ibtd., § 18.
278 Demosthenes
the Council that Proxenus, who was still lying
with his squadron off the north coast of Euboea,
should be instructed to go to Thermopylae, and
prevent Philip from crossing the Pass. This
statement it is very difficult to believe; it may well
have been manufactured after the overthrow of
the Phocians, when he was very anxious that the
People should imagine that he had tried his
hardest to prevent that calamity, and that his
colleagues had deliberately helped Philip to ac-
complish it. It is most improbable that he wished
to break the Peace at once, when the object for
which he had desired it was unachieved; and the
interference of Proxenus would have rendered
the prospect of the alliance with Thebes, for which
he ultimately hoped, more remote. Nor do we
hear anything about the bringing of such a proposal
before the People.
The Assembly met on the i6th of Scirophorion
(July loth). According to Demosthenes' account
of the proceedings, ^schines rose without waiting
for the resolution drafted by the Coimcil to be
read, ^ and announced that he had persuaded
Philip to grant all the desires of the Athenians,
and that there was no occasion for the alarm which
' This resolution should have contained the proposal about
Proxenus, had any such been made. It is very doubtful whether
.^schines would have been allowed to anticipate the promulga-
tion of a resolution of the Council; and probably Demosthenes
was trying to account for the fact that no one had ever heard of
his proposal about Proxenus, by saying that -^schines prevented
them from doing so by rising first.
II
I
The Second Embassy 279
his arrival at Thermopylae had occasioned; for if
the Athenians would only wait for two or three
days, they would hear that Thebes was being
besieged, that Thespiae and Plataeae were being
restored, and that the money due to the temple
of Delphi was being exacted, not from the Phocians,
but from the Thebans, who had themselves planned
the seizure of the temple; for he had persuaded
Philip, he said, that to plan such a deed was as
impious as to commit it; and on this account the
Thebans had set a price on his own head. He also
gave the Assembly to understand that Philip
would restore Athens to her old position in Euboea
— that was at least what the Euboeans themselves
expected — and he added that there was yet an-
other matter which he had arranged with Philip,
but he did not wish to mention it yet, since even
now some of his colleagues were jealous of him.
This, Demosthenes says, was intended as a hint
at the restoration of Oropus to Athens. Philip's
letter was also read to the Assembly. In it
Philip explained the fact that the ambassadors
had not visited his allies severally by saying that
he had himself retained them to help him effect
a reconciliation between the two hostile Thes-
salian towns, Pharsalus and Halus. (Whether
they really attempted to forward such a reconcili-
ation we do not know. In any case Halus cap-
itulated to Philip not long afterwards, and the
inhabitants were banished or enslaved. ^ He
I Dem., de F. L., §§ 36-39-
28o Demosthenes
also offered to do anything to gratify the Athenians
that was consistent with his honour; but no specific
promises were mentioned. This last fact made
Demosthenes suspect that the promises made by
-^schines were not genuine, and were made through
the mouth of ^^schines in order that no one might
be able afterwards to accuse Philip himself of
breaking his word. He therefore rose and denied
all knowledge of any such intention on Philip's
part, and tried to give his reasons for disbelieving
in them ; but being refused a hearing, owing to the
insulting interruptions of ^schines and Philoc-
rates, and the unwillingness of the People to dis-
believe such good news, he contented himself
with solemnly asserting his own disbelief in the
promises, and disclaiming all credit, if they should
be realised ; while Philocrates remarked insolently,
"No wonder that Demosthenes and I cannot
agree! for he drinks water and I drink wine"; at
which the audience laughed.
Such is Demosthenes' account of the debate,^
and ^schines' attempt ^ to disprove its substantial
truth is on the whole unconvincing. He denies
that he made any promises : he admits that he had
told Philip that in his own opinion Thebes ought
to be a part of Boeotia, and not Boeotia a depend-
' Dem., de F. L., §§ 19-26, 34-41, 44-46, 68, 102, 220; de
Cor., 35. Substantially the same account is found in the Speech
on the Peace, §§ 9, 10, delivered very soon after the events and
therefore more reliable; comp. also Phil. II, §§ 29, 30.
»^sch., de F. L., §§ 1 19-123.
The Peace of Philocrates 281
ency of Thebes; and this, he says, was the only
basis for Demosthenes' description of his speech.
He also gives a slightly different version of the
alleged conversation between himself and the
Euboean representatives. But when he admits
so much, we can hardly fail to discern that he and
his supporters did lead the Assembly to believe
that Philip meant no ill to the Phocians. The
result of the debate was the passing of a decree
proposed by Philocrates, thanking Philip for his
promised acts of justice, extending the Peace and
alliance with Philip to posterity, and declaring
that if the Phocians refused to surrender the temple
of Delphi to the Amphictyons, Athens would take
steps against those responsible for the refusal.^
It is inconceivable that the Assembly should have
passed this resolution, and recommended the Pho-
cians to lay down their arms, had they thought
that the Phocians would be treated as they after-
wards were treated. Some one must either have
caused them or allowed them to think that Philip
would act generously towards them, and would not
give way to the wishes of the Thebans. ^schines
stated ^ at his trial in 343 that every one expected
this, since no one believed that Philip would wish
to render Thebes more powerful, and so more
dangerous to himself; and that the ambassadors
received the same impression from what they had
seen and heard in Philip's camp. It may be taken
• Dem., de F. L., §§ 47, 48; comp. §§ 55, 310.
»^sch., de F L., § 136.
282 Demosthenes
as certain, therefore, that -^schines' own speech
on the 1 6th of Scirophorion confidently expressed
that view, though it was probably expressed with
perfect sincerity; and it is a confirmation of this,
that in 345, at the trial of Timarchus, ^lEschines
still spoke in sanguine terms of Philip's promises
to Athens, and of his hope of their fulfilment. *
Very shortly after the return of the ambassadors
from the Second Embassy, Philip sent two letters,
inviting the Athenians, now his allies, to send a
force to join his own army at Thermopylae, and to
help in the decision of the questions in which the
Amphictyons were interested. Now this was
just what, if ^schines' account of Philip's inten-
tions was correct, Philip might have been expected
to do; and it is very probable that he desired to
have an Athenian force at his side, to counteract
the influence of the Thebans in case the latter
should pursue an extreme policy, or attempt to
aggrandise themselves to an inconvenient extent,
Moreover, if the Phocians were to be helped at all,
it might well seem that the Athenians had now an
opportunity of using their influence to help them.
The invitation, however, was declined, on the
advice of Demosthenes and on the motion of
Hegesippus. Different reasons are given for the
refusal. On the one hand, the fear was suggested
by the anti-Macedonian party that Philip would
» iEsch., in Tim., § 169. See Note 2.
4i
,
The Peace of Philocrates 283
keep the Athenian soldiers as hostages^; and on
the other, the People may have been influenced,
as Demosthenes asserts,^ by the idea that the
invitation showed that Philip meant no harm to
the Phocians, and that therefore no action was
necessary — a conclusion which they were always
ready to adopt, and which was almost, if not quite,
as much to Philip's advantage as their acceptance
of his invitation would have been. Whether
Demosthenes really feared treachery on Philip's
part, or whether he was convinced that the Phocian
cause was hopeless, and desired to avoid a fruitless
collision with Thebes, there is no direct evidence
to show, ^schines^ attributes Demosthenes' ac-
tion expressly to his leaning towards Thebes, and
he is very likely right.
The Assembly had appointed ten ambassadors
to convey to Philip the resolution of the i6th of
Scirophorion. Demosthenes had been nominated
as one of the ten, but in spite of much pressure,
had refused to serve, and had entered a sworn
excuse.'' ^schines had also been elected, but
either declined the office, or else failed to start at
the same time as his colleagues, on account of
illness. ^ But when the ambassadors had travelled
no further than Chalcis in Euboea, they were met
with the news that Phalsecus and the Phocian
mercenary army had surrendered to Philip on the
^ Msch., de F. L., §137. =" Dem.,deF. L.,§§5i,52.
iMsch.,deF.L., §141. ^Dem., de F. L., § 122.
» Note 3.
284 Demosthenes
23d of Scirophorion (July 17th). There can be
little doubt that treachery had been at work here ;
possibly Phalagcus, whose dissensions with the
rival party among the Phocians have already been
mentioned, ^ had had an understanding with Philip
for some time ; and certainly the terms of surrender
permitted him and his eight thousand mercenaries
to go to the Peloponnese unmolested, and thus
left the Phocian people entirely at the mercy of
Philip and his Theban and Thessalian allies ; for the
Spartan force, which had marched under Archi-
damus to help them, had returned home when they
saw the position of affairs.
/ Demosthenes represents the surrender of the
phocians as the consequence of the resolution of
Philocrates which the Assembly had passed on the
1 6th of Scirophorion, and therefore lays upon
Philocrates and ^schines the whole responsibility
for the fate of the Phocians. His argument,
however, plausible as it is, must be pronounced
quite imconvincing. Nothing could have saved
the Phocians. Financial exhaustion, internal divi-
sion, and treachery were the cause of their over-
throw; and it is extremely doubtful whether their
surrender was in any way hastened by the news
of the debate in Athens, or by the impression con-
veyed by the speeches of ^schines and his col-
leagues, that Philip intended to deal generously
with the Phocians. ^ ^schines was quite justified
in replying that it was not his speeches, but the
' See above, p. 226. » Note 4.
The Peace of Philocrates 285
presence of Philip's army, that brought about the
capitulation ; but that if any action on the part of
Athens had aggravated the disaster, it was the
refusal of the Athenians, on Demosthenes' advice,
to join Philip and use their influence to save the
Phocians.
On hearing of the capitulation of Phalaecus, the
Athenian ambassadors at once returned home.
The first to reach Athens was Dercylus, who gave
the news to the Assembly during a meeting which
was held at the Peiraeus in reference to the dock-
yards, on the 27th of Scirophorion (July 21st).
The intelligence w^as received with the utmost
horror and alarm by the People, who had evidently
been relieved of all apprehension for their Phocian
allies, but were now panic-stricken lest Philip
should intend to march into Attica itself. On the
motion of Callisthenes, the Assembly resolved to
bring in the women and children and movable
property from the country, to strengthen the
frontier garrisons, to fortify the Peiraeus, and to
hold the rural festival of Heracles within the city
walls. They also instructed the ambassadors to
depart once more for Philip's camp, and to do what
they could to ameliorate the situation, ^schines
now went with his colleagues, and found Philip
engaged, along with the Thebans, in celebrating
the success of his plans with high festivities, in
which (according to Demosthenes') they heartily
joined. It was not, in fact, a time to make a de-
'Dem., de F. L., §§ 128-130.
286 • Demosthenes
monstration of hostility to Philip by refusing his
hospitality, and ^schines probably acted with
tact, though by doing so he gave an opportunity
to his enemies to misrepresent his motives. ^
Philip naturally made his mastery of the Phocian
territory complete, garrisoning those towns which
surrendered to him, and storming and destroying
those which did not. At the same time, he sent
a letter to Athens, announcing what he had done,
and expressing his astonishment at the hostile
attitude which the People had adopted, seeing
that the Phocians were not included in the Peace. '
He next summoned the Amphictyonic Coimcil,
as ^schines had previously urged him to do.^
The representatives of the Boeotians and the
Thessalian tribes were doubtless in a majority,
the Thessalians having of course recovered their
Amphictyonic rights, of which the Phocians had
deprived them. The (Etasans proposed that all
the adult males of the Phocians should be executed
as guilty of sacrilege. Such savagery as this was
not approved by the Council ; but it was decided
that the Phocian towns should be destroyed and
the inhabitants settled in hamlets of not more than
' Demosthenes' argument {de F. L., §§ 126, 127) that it was
remarkable that ^schines should go to the Theban camp, if the
Thebans had set a price on his head, is also misleading; for, as
an ambassador, he would be safe in any case.
2 The "Letter of Philip" cited in Dem., de Cor., § 39, is prob-
ably not genuine; and Grote appears to be right in thinking that
the real letter must have been more conciliatory in tone.
3 See above, p. 272.
The Peace of Philocrates 287
fifty houses each — the hamlets to be at least two
hundred yards apart; that the Phocians should
be permitted to own the land, but should repay to
the temple, by annual instalments of sixty talents,
the value of the stolen treasure, and should not
be allowed to possess horses or arms until the
repayment had been completed; and that those
who had fled should be liable to arrest anywhere,
as being under a curse for their sacrilege.^ The
destruction of the towns was carried out by the
Thebans, and the country was garrisoned with
Macedonian troops. ^
^schines claims to have saved the Phocians
from a worse fate by his efforts at the meeting, ^
and in fact, when the customs of Greek warfare
are considered, it is doubtful whether they were
harshly dealt with. The wholesale enslavement
and the executions which generally followed a
capitiilation were conspicuously absent; and the
life in villages, and those very near to one another, '•
was no serious hardship to an agricultural people.
No doubt the condition to which they were reduced
was painful enough. The Thebans probably went
beyond the letter of the sentence, or at least spared
no cruelty in carrying it out 5; and most of those of
the inhabitants who had the courage or the means
withdrew into exile, in preference to submitting
^ Diod., XVI, ix. ' Dem., de F. L., § 8i.
J^sch., de F. L., §§ 142, 143.
* Not, of course, near enough for the formation of large strong-
holds by uniting the villages. 5 Justin, VIII, v.
288 Demosth enes
to the new conditions.' The pathetic picture
which Demosthenes afterwards drew of the state
of Phocis may not be greatly exaggerated.
Men of Athens [he says*], the horror and the im-
mensity of this calamity have never been surpassed
in our day in the Hellenic world, nor even, I believe,
in the time before us. . . . The nature of the ruin
which the unhappy Phocians have suffered may be
seen, not only from these decrees, but also from the
actual results of the action taken; and an awful and
piteous sight it is, men of Athens. For when recently
we were on our way to Delphi, we could not help
seeing it all — houses razed to the ground, cities
stripped of their walls, the land destitute of men in
their prime — only a few poor women and children left,
and some old men in misery. Indeed no words can
describe the distress now prevailing there.
But it is doubtful whether, according to Greek
ideas, the guilt of sacrilege was not lightly
atoned for. For Orchomenus and Coroneia, the
Boeotian cities which had helped the Phocians,
there was no mercy. These the Thebans destroyed
utterly, and sold the inhabitants as slaves; and
the supremacy of Thebes over Bceotia was once
more complete.
The Amphictyonic Council transferred to Philip
the two votes which the Phocians had possessed
at their meetings ; and in order to punish the States
which had given or promised assistance to the
' Dem., de F. L., § 80. ^ lUd., §§ 64, 65.
The Peace of Philocrates 289
Phocians, the Council took from Athens the right
to precedence in consulting the oracle, which they
had hitherto enjoyed, and gave this also to Philip.
The Spartans were forbidden to enter the temple
at all. Finally, it was resolved that Philip should
preside over the Pythian games at Delphi in Sep-
tember, 346.
The news of these decrees of the Council was
received at Athens with great indignation, and
was followed by a strong revulsion of feeling
against the Peace and its advocates. Both Sparta
and Athens refused to send their usual official
deputations to attend the Pythian games, though
-^schines appears to have been present as Philip's
guest. * This omission the Amphictyonic Council-
lors were not disposed to pass over, and they sent
an embassy to Athens, bearing a letter from Philip,
and demanding that the Athenians should recognise
him as an Amphictyonic Power in place of the
Phocians. ^Eschines supported the request, plead-
ing that Philip's action had been dictated by the
Thebans and Thessalians, in whose hands he had
been.* But so strong was the feeling against him
and against Philip, that the Assembly would not
hear him; and so, says Demosthenes, "he stepped
down from the platform, and showing off before
the envoys who had come from Philip, told them
that there were plenty of men who made a clamour,
but few who took the field when it was required
of them."
•Dem.,<ieF,L., §128. » Dem.,de Pace, §22; Phil. II, § 14.
290 Demosthenes
It would, however, have been the height of folly
to have brought down upon Athens at this moment
the united strength of Philip and the Thebans and
Thessalians ; and Demosthenes himself intervened
to prevent this, and for this ptupose delivered the
Speech on the Peace, which has come down to us.
Athens therefore gave the required recognition,
and the Peace remained for the time undisturbed.
The result of the events of the two years between
the autumn of 348 and that of 346 was that Philip
had gained all that he had set out to gain, with no
loss to himself, by the skilful handling of men and
circumstances. He had secured a foothold to
the south of Thermopylce; his soldiers or allies
held the Pass and the neighbouring town of Nicaea.
(Nicaea itself was committed to the Thessalians,
and they were also given control of Magnesia.)
Phocis was held by Macedonian garrisons; and if
he desired to march farther south there was nothing
to hinder him. His recognition as an Amphicty-
onic Power had given him a definite position as
the head of a Hellenic State, and the part which he
had played as the champion of the god was one
which brought with it a certain prestige.
Just after the Peace had been concluded at
Athens in April, and before the surrender of the
Phocians in July, the aged Isocrates addressed a
letter to Philip, urging him to put himself at the
head of the forces of the Greek States and lead
a great expedition to the conquest of the East.
The Peace of Philocrates 291
This union in a great enterprise, the old man
argued, would heal the discords of the States with
one another, and would enable them to rid them-
selves of the mercenary armies which were the
curse of the time; for when the conquest of Asia
was accomplished, the mercenaries could be settled
in cities to be planted in these new dominions.
In spite of the garrulity, the almost pathetic self-
consciousness, and the want of all sense of pro-
portion which the letter displays, there was
something prophetic in the aged writer's advice.
Philip may indeed have already conceived the
great design which Alexander was destined to
carry out; but it is at least possible that it was
first suggested by Isocrates ; though his fancy that
the Greek States would take part in it voluntarily,
before they were decisively conquered, and that
their discords would vanish in the enthusiasm of
a worthy common aim, was sadly out of date,
and was never destined to be realised. Even if
Philip was not inspired by Isocrates, the writings
of Isocrates were widely read, and may have
prepared men's minds for the announcement of
the great design when the time came. Philip,
however, was not yet ready. He at least had no
misunderstanding as to the temper of the Greek
States; and the hill-tribes on the northern and
western frontiers of Macedonia claimed his
attention. In the meantime he could feel toler-
ably secure against the fear of any hostile move-
ment south of Thermopylas.
292 Demosthenes
The pOvSition of Athens was a far less enviable
one than that of Philip. It was long before the
People recovered from their remorse at the fate
of their allies, the Phocians, for whose preserva-
tion they had done nothing; and Demosthenes
took full advantage of this feeling to renew by
degrees a more active hostility to Philip, whom he
regarded with implacable determination as the
enemy of his country's freedom.
The question of the responsibility of the several
Athenian statesmen for the events of the years
348 to 346 is a very vexed one. But if the view
which we have so far taken is correct, Demosthenes
deserves no serious blame, however unattractive
his behaviour on certain occasions may have
been. He had plainly worked for the Peace from
the time of the fall of Olynthus, imtil the Athenians
swore to the treaty. But regarding the Peace
simply as a breathing-space, to be spent in prepara-
tion for war, he had been anxious that the alliance
\ with Philip should not be given too intimate or
too permanent a character; and he had therefore
strongly opposed Philocrates' motion to extend
it to posterity, and he had attempted to secure
the repulse of any friendly overtures which Philip
made. Above all, he had looked forward to the
I future, and saw that the day would come when the
I Thebans might be ready and even glad to make
\ alliance with Athens; and that whenever hostili-
ties with Philip were renewed, the prime need of
The Peace of Philocrates 293
Athens, herself a sea-power, would be that of a
land army to co-operate with her. For this he
could not look to Sparta, though Athens was on
friendly terms with the Spartans. For not only
was the day of the greatness of Sparta over, but the
freedom of action of the Spartans would always be
held in check by the other Peloponnesian peoples.
He could look only to Thebes. And so, although
it was impossible, in the existing state of feeling
in Athens, to advocate this policy openly, he had
opposed every step which might deepen the enmity
between the Athenians and the Thebans; and had
taken little or no part (so far as we can gather) in
advocating the sending of assistance to the Pho-
cians, although when their ruin was accomplished,
he made it his main argument in his attacks upon
his opponents — sl proceeding which it is impossible
to view without a certain disgust, and which can
only be justified in a very slight degree by the
patriotic ideal, the realisation of which he hoped
to advance by such unhappy means.
But what is to be said of the part played by
Philocrates and ^Eschines? Were they, as Demos-
thenes urged, the corrupt hirelings of Philip,work-
ing deliberately against what they knew to be the
interest of their country? It is very difficult to
prove this. With regard to the making of the
Peace in the first instance, there need be no ques-
tion that they acted in perfect good faith; and
-^schines' change of mind between the two debates
on the 1 8th and 19th of Elaphebolion — the time
294 Demosthenes
from which many writers are inclined to date
his corruption by Philip's envoys — was probably
made with perfect honesty, when he found that
Philip was prepared to allow the Athenians less
latitude than they had hoped. The delay of the
ambassadors in carrying out some of their instruc-
tions and their failure to fulfil others to the letter
must be admitted to have been grave faults in men
placed in such a position of reponsibility. Yet it
is extremely doubtful whether these faiilts had in
fact any very serious consequences. It is very
uncertain whether the ambassadors could have
succeeded in preventing Philip from making good
his conquests in Thrace; and even more uncertain
whether any injury — beyond, at most, a trifling
loss of prestige — was inflicted on Athens by the
manner in which Philip's allies took their oath.
The most serious question was whether it was
their doing that Philip was able to pass through
Thermopylae unopposed, and whether the doom
of the Phocians had been brought upon them owing
to the predictions which ^schines made to the
Assembly in Athens: and the more carefully the
facts are considered, the more certain it appears
that it was not their doing. Nothing could, under
the circumstances, have prevented the surrender
of the Phocians ; it is more than doubtful whether
it was hastened by a single day owing to the
decision of the Athenian Assembly; and if an
Athenian contributed at all to the mitigation of
their calamity, it was -^schines.
The Peace of Philocrates 295
The strength of Demosthenes' charges against
^schines lay in the fact that ^schines' predic-
tions had proved false. Was that ^schines'
fault? Should he have realised beforehand that
no reliance was to be placed upon the rumours
which Philip had caused to be disseminated about
the camp, or even upon the promises made by
Philip himself? It was in his failure to realise
this that his true weakness probably came out;
and it is because, in spite of all that he should have
learned from the conduct of Philip towards Athens
in the matter of Amphipolis and Pydna, he was
not on his guard, but was carried off his feet by
the attitude of apparent friendliness and generosity
which Philip adopted towards Athens, and also
(it must probably be added) by the unconscious
influence of Philip's lavish generosity towards
himself and his colleagues, that he forfeits the
claim to the highest character as a statesman.
That he was definitely bribed to perform particular
services and to deceive the People, in the manner
alleged by Demosthenes, there is nothing to show.
That he, and Philocrates to an even greater extent,
benefited by Philip's munificence, and were influ-
enced in their judgment of him accordingly, seems
certain ; and owing to this, they led the Athenians
to believe much that was never destined to be
realised. And although these promises and pre-
dictions were in all probability not the cause of
the Phocian disaster, Demosthenes was right when
he declared that all receipt of presents by an am-
296 Demosthenes
bassador was criminal, and that when once there
was money in one scale of the balance, it would
always outweigh the reason in the other.
There is one other possible explanation of -^s-
chines' conduct, though it seems a less probable
one. It may be that he did not in fact place great
reliance on the predictions which he made; but
that he believed nevertheless that it was of vital
importance to Athens that a lasting alliance with
Philip should be made, and therefore thought
himself justified in using these predictions and
the promises contained in Philip's letter to gain
that end, taking the risk of their being falsified.
But this also, though it might be defended by a
casuist, would not be a wise or proper course for
a statesman.
Demosthenes certainly supposed that the con-
duct of yEschines was corrupt and traitorous
throughout. His subsequent friendly relations
with Philip, maintained in spite of the failure of
his predictions, were, Demosthenes thought, a
proof of this.^ We know little of these friendly
relations, apart from the fact that ^schines went
to Philip's camp after the surrender of Phalaecus,
and remained with him until after the Amphicty-
onic meeting and perhaps imtil after the Pythian
games. But there is no reason to doubt that at
this time he was exerting his influence, as a friend
of Philip, on behalf of the unhappy Phocians; and
the statements, which Demosthenes often makes,
I Dem., de F. L., §§ 102 ff.
The Peace of Philocrates 297
that ^schines shared Philip's joy at the success
of his deception, instead of sharing the disappoint-
ment of the Athenians, rest on no evidence but
Demosthenes' word, which in such a case is un-
fortunately worth nothing. Even if ^Eschines'
friendship with Philip was as great as Demosthenes
alleged, it would still have to be remembered that
Philip was the accepted ally of Athens, that
iEschines and his party believed the alliance to
be the best thing for Athens as well as for Philip,
that it was to be a permanent alliance, and that
Philip's action in regard to the Phocians was no
wrong to Athens under the terms of the treaty;
and so it could hardly be a crime to be Philip's
friend.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that ^schines de-
ceived the People, only because he was himself
deluded; that for his own delusion he was doubt-
less to blame; but that the consequences of the
delusion and the deception were not in fact so
serious as Demosthenes represented. Indeed the
Athenians were perhaps prevented by them from
going to war with Philip, when they were not well
prepared to do so, in a fit of alarm at his arrival
at Thermopylae: and their worst result was the
cruel disappointment of the People at their non-
fulfilment — a disappointment the consequences of
which were to no one more serious than to Phi-
locrates and ^schines themselves.
For the rest, we have before us here, as in the
rest of this history, two irreconcilably different
298 Demosthenes
ideals of national policy. Demosthenes is filled
with the passion for national freedom. ^Eschines
and his party aim at a soHd and lasting peace.
Both ideals are defensible; and it was not yet
certain that the former, any more than the latter,
was impracticable. According as the one or the
other appeals to us most strongly, we shall side
with Demosthenes or ^schines ; for, as has already
been stated, it is upon the temperament of the
critic rather than upon argument that the decision
will depend. In the following chapters we shall
trace the gradual rise of Demosthenes to a position
in which he became as powerful as if he had been
formally elected Prime Minister. His ascendancy
was not attained all at once, and he had to suifer
more than one rebuff; but in the end he succeeded
in causing the People to realise that his ideal for
Athens was also their own, and to face a decisive
struggle in the cause of freedom.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII
I. It is disputed whether Philip actually took the oath at
Pella or at Pherae. Demosthenes, de Cor., §32, only says that
w/«)X67i;<re ttiv dpi)vi)v (which might signify an informal declara-
tion of acceptance) — and his expression in the de F. L., § 44,
Toiii 6pKovs f/JxWev dfivipat, if taken literally, implies that
Philip, like the allies, took the oath at Pherae. But Demos-
thenes, de Cor., § 32, certainly means it to be understood that
Philip had sworn to the Peace in Macedonia; otherwise he could
have no ground for saying that the ambassadors ought to have
left Philip, instead of accompanying his march southward. (He
adds that they were bribed to remain with Philip.) Demosthe-
nes may however be misrepresenting the facts; and the am-
The Peace of Philocrates 299
bassadors may really have remained at Philip's side because they
could not get him to take the oath till he reached Pherae.
2. The passage (^sch., de F. L., § 121) which some have
interpreted as an assertion by ^schines that Demosthenes him-
self expressed his commendation of ^schines' address to Philip
on the Phocian question, is seen, when properly interpreted, to
record only a sarcastic reply to ^schines (Schafer, ii., 269 n.;
Goodwin's edition of the de Corona, p. 262). Rohrmoser (Ueber
den philokrateischen Frieden, p. 809) tries to save ^schines'
credit by supposing that the promises of Philip were only made on
condition that the Athenians joined Philip's forces and helped
him to settle the Phocian difficulty; but there is really no
evidence of this.
3. Demosthenes' suggestion that i5)schines stayed behind in
order to counteract any possible change of feeling on the part
of the People during his colleagues' absence is probably quite
groundless. Demosthenes further states that .(Eschines entered
a sworn excuse, and sent his brother, with a physician to testify
to his illness. To this ^Eschines replies (probably without truth)
that the laws did not allow any one to decline an office to which he
had been elected; and that he had only sent his brother to apolo-
gise for his failure to set out with his colleagues.
4. Demosthenes' argument in the de F. L., § 123, that Philip
could not have remained at Thermopylje or in Phocis, if the
Athenians had not abstained from helping the Phocians and so
left them powerless to resist, is at first sight plausible. "It was
absolutely impossible for Philip to stay where he was, unless you
were misled. There was no com in the country, for, owing to the
war, the land had not been sown, and to import com was im-
possible so long as your ships were in command of the sea; while
the Phocian towns were many in number, and difficult to take
except by a prolonged siege. Even assuming that he were taking
a town a day, there are two and twenty of them." But the
argument depends on the assumption that Phalsecus would not
have surrendered anyhow — an assumption not likely, when we
consider that he had no money, that the Phocians were divided,
and that he probably had an understanding with Philip. (Philip
would otherwise hardly have given him such easy terms.) Nor is
it likely that Philip's commissariat was so imperfectly organised
as Demosthenes implies; and we do not know what powers of
300 Demosthenes
resistance the Phocians could have offered without Phatecus and
his troops. Further, the calculation of dates by which Demos-
thenes {de F. L., §§ 52-61) tries to prove that the debate in
Athens was the cause of Phalaecus' surrender, is highly ingenious;
but it is no proof.
CHAPTER IX
THE NOMINAL PEACE AND THE RENEWAL OF
THE WAR
IN spite of the adverse judgment passed by the
Council, ^schines had succeeded in persuading
the Assembly to accept the motion of Philocrates,
and to refuse to listen to Demosthenes' version of
the proceedings of the embassy. There remained
a third ordeal which he must face, before he could
feel himself to be out of danger. The returning
ambassadors had to undergo a scrutiny by the
Board of Auditors or Logistas; and any citizen
could give notice that he intended to prosecute an
official under an audit for misconduct in his office.
Then the case must be tried by a jury, over which
the Logistae presided. If Demosthenes ' statement *
is true, ^schines made an attempt to evade this
scrutiny; and Demosthenes alleged that he did
so through consciousness of guilt, though his
motive, when we consider the state of popular
feeling immediately after the surrender of the
Phocians, may well have been nothing worse than
consciousness of danger. The attempt, however,
'Dem.,dcF.L.,§§2iiff,
301
302 Demosthenes
failed, and when ^schines appeared before the
Board, Demosthenes gave notice of his intention
to prosecute him.
Demosthenes was supported by Timarchus, who
had been, Hke himself, a councillor in the year
347-6, and had taken a somewhat active part in
promoting the repair of the fortifications. ^ Tim-
archus had also proposed to the Council a measure
forbidding any Athenian, on pain of death, to
supply arms or fittings for ships of war to Philip.'
But unfortunately Timarchus had in his youth
been notorious for his gross immorality, and this
gave ^schines an opportunity for delaying the
attack upon himself and weakening its force. He
prosecuted Timarchus himself for the sins of his
past life, and demanded that he should be dis-
franchised as the law commanded. Despite the
fact that Timarchus had filled many important
offices, and that the offences alleged against him
had been committed many years before, the record
against him was too clear to be ignored; Demos-
thenes did not even venture to speak in his defence;
and he was condemned and lost his citizenship.
Some discredit was doubtless reflected upon
Demosthenes owing to his association with Tim-
archus, and he waited for this to pass off be-
fore proceeding further with the prosecution of
.^schines. ^
' ^sch,,t» Tim., § 80. » Dem., de F. L., § 28.
3 In the course of that prosecution, he replied, with very strong
feeling, to part of ^schines' speech against Timarchus.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 303
The trial of Timarchus probably took place
eariy in 345. During that year, while the Athen-
ians were actively restoring their fortifications
and dockyards and rehabiHtating the fleet, ^ Philip
was busily engaged upon the internal organisation
of Macedonia. As a security against the less
settled tribes upon his frontiers, he planted colonies
among them, which he supplied partly by the
transplantation of some of his Macedonian subjects
— not without some hardships to them,^ — and
partly, in all probabiUty, by the transference to
those districts of the inhabitants of the Greek
towns which he had conquered in Thrace and
Chalcidice. ^ This policy had probably the double
effect of introducing a civilising influence where
it was much needed, and of breaking down, by
the transference of inhabitants from place to place,
the local subdivision of his kingdom, and so prepar-
ing his subjects for a more truly national unity."
At the same time he probably re-organised the
financial arrangements of his kingdom, increased
his store of arms, and enlarged his fleet ; and a few
years of comparative peace greatly increased his
material prosperity. '
Peace, however, in the full sense, was not long
» By the year 343, they possessed 300 ships of war, fully
equipped (Dem., de F. L., § 89). " Justin, VIII, 5.
J See Reich enbacher, Die Gesch. der Athenischen und Make-
donischen Politik, pp. 8-10.
* A few years later he carried the same policy further by
planting colonies among the "barbarians " of Thrace. See below,
p. 330. s Dem. de F. L., § 89.
304 Demosthenes
possible for him. Early in 344 we find him once
more engaged in a campaign against the Illyrian
tribes on his frontiers ' ; and it was probably in this
campaign that he was wounded in the leg, while
in pursuit of the Illyrian King Pleuratus. '
When this expedition was over, he carried out —
probably in the late summer of 344 — a re-organisa-
tion of Thessaly, setting a tetrarch (no doubt a
partisan of his own) over each of the four divisions
of the country,-^ and placing a Macedonian garri-
son in Thessaly. It was arranged that the public
revenues of Thessaly should henceforth be paid
to himself, and perhaps also that Thessalian troops
should form a regular part of his army.^ In the
same year the Thessalians elected him archon or
overlord of Thessaly for his life. ^ Philip accom-
plished these changes, it would seem, with great
tact; the supersession of the local princes or
"tyrants" was a popular step; and he appears
everywhere to have turned the strife of factions
to his own advantage. Isocrates, in a letter to
Philip,^ written probably just after the work in
' Diod., XVT, Ixix.
' Didym., schol. in Dent., Col. 12. Meyer {Isokrales^ zweiter
Brief, pp. 760, 761) is probably right in inferring from the name of
Pleuratus that it was against a northern branch of the Illyrians
that his campaign was directed, and that Philip may have pene-
trated almost to the Adriatic. ^ Note i at the end of the
Chapter. * Dem., Phil. II, § 22; rfe Chers., § 14.
s See E. Meyer, I.e., p. 762, and his edition of Theopompus'
Hellenika, p. 229, etc.
« Isocr. , Ep. ii. ,§21. For the date of this letter, see E. Meyer,
/.c, pp. 762, 763.
Nominal Peace and Reneival of War 305
Thessaly was accomplished, congratulated him
upon it, adding that it was far harder to capture
the good-will of a people than to take their walls.
In the same letter he begged Philip, in view of
his high vocation, not to expose himself rashly
to personal dangers, and urged him to court the
good-will of Athens, and not to believe all the evil
that he heard spoken of her. "You will never,"
he declared, "find a State that can do better
service either to the Hellenes or to your own
interests."
Philip had in fact some reason to feel vexation
with Athens. Public opinion in the city had set
strongly against him since the overthrow of the
Phocians, and Demosthenes had done his best to
encourage this unfriendly feeling. The Athenians
had sent Eucleides— probably late in 346 — to
remonstrate with Philip in regard to the Thracian
towns which he had taken before returning to
Pella to ratify the Peace, and to ask for their
restoration to Cersobleptes, and for the extension
to that prince of the advantages of the Peace. ^
This request he naturally refused. But he was
by no means anxious to re-open hostilities with
Athens, and his whole policy from this time on-
wards goes to prove that he really desired, at this
period, not, as Demosthenes incessantly asserted,
the conquest of Athens, but a good understanding
with her, and an alliance on friendly terms ; though
• "D^m.^de F.L., § i8l.
3o6 Demosthenes
the fact that Philip was bound to be the predomin-
ant partner in any such alliance must in any case
have set Demosthenes against it. And so, while
rejecting a demand which was not reasonable*
Philip offered to cut a channel across the Cher-
sonese at his own charges' — an operation which
would have provided the Athenian settlers in the
Chersonese with a good line of defence against the
incursions of the Thracians, and would probably
have conferred a great benefit upon Athenian
merchant-ships. The offer does not appear to
have been accepted; and in the autumn of 344 —
probably about the time when Isocrates was com-
posing his letter — envoys were sent, of whom
Demosthenes was the chief, to the Peloponnese,
to counteract the influence of Philip there.
The Peloponnesian peoples were no nearer con-
tentment than they had been for many years.
We have seen how the Arcadians — those at least
whose centre was at Megalopolis — had been
compelled by the rejection of their appeal to Ath-
ens in 353 to rely upon Thebes, and the growing
friendliness between Athens and Sparta had also
induced other Peloponnesian peoples who were
hostile to Sparta or afraid of her to enter into
relations with Philip. The embassies from Athens
after the fall of Olynthus had failed to arouse any
feeling against Philip in southern Greece; the
^ Dem., Phil. II, § 30; cp. Heges., de Hal, §§ 39, 40. The
exact date of Philip's offer is uncertain; but Schafer (ii., p. 347)
must be approximately right in placing it at this point.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 307
Arcadians, Messenians, and Argives were all uhder
the domination of parties which had an tinder-
standing with him, and he had helped them by
sending them supplies of money and mercenary
soldiers, and by requiring the Spartans to leave
Messenia undisturbed.' Demosthenes and the
other envoys now attempted to persuade them
that Philip's friendship was untrustworthy, and
was only offered in order that he might the more
easily rob them of their freedom. Demosthenes
reminded them of the final issue of Philip's alliance
with Olynthus, and of the steps by which he had
acquired his complete dominion over Thessaly.*
But in spite of the applause which his eloquence
called forth, Demosthenes had to confess that he
had failed to make any impression^; the Arcadians
soon afterwards passed various complimentary
decrees in honour of Philip, resolving to erect his
statue in bronze, and to welcome him within their
walls, if he came to the Peloponnese; the Argives
did likewise*; and before long envoys came to
Athens from Argos and Messene (doubtless with
Philip's approval) to make a formal complaint
against the interference of the Athenians with
' their efforts to maintain their independence of
Sparta.
About the same time Philip himself sent to
' Dem., PhU. II, § 15.
'Ibid., §§ 20-25. He misrepresented, however, the attitude
of the Thessalians to Philip; they were probably quite contented
under hissway. ^ Ibid., §27. ■< Dem., de i^. L., §§ 261, 262.
\
3^5 Demosthenes
Ati.fjis a formal remonstrance against the asser-
tions of the Athenian orators that he had broken
the Peace and had been false to his promises. He
had, he declared, made no promises; and he de-
manded that the charges should be proved or
withdrawn. ' It is with this situation that Demos-
thenes dealt in the Second Philippic, a speech of
which the first object was to convince the Athen-
ians that Philip's plans were all being organised
for the one purpose of subduing Athens; and that
it was with this intent that he was courting the
support of the Thebans and Peloponnesians, who
were not, like Athens, prevented by any considera-
tions of righteousness from forwarding his cause.
In the latter part of the Speech he denounced the
corruption of the orators who had brought forward
the promises and predictions by which the People
had been induced to consent to the Peace; he
referred more than once to Philip's "breaches of
the Peace," and upbraided his audience for their
failure to take any steps to prevent the fulfilment
of Philip's designs. The text of the answer which
he proposed to give to Philip's envoys has not
come down to us; nor do we know whether the
Assembly adopted it.
The Speech is an eloquent one ; and it is there-
fore the greater pity that — in so far as it as-
sumed that Philip had broken faith with Athens —
it should have been based upon a false hypothesis ;
indeed Philip's own promises, as contrasted with
' Liban., Hypoih. ad Dem. Phil. II.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 309
the predictions of ^Eschines, seem to have been
of the vaguest possible character. But__tliat.
PhiHp was scheming for the ultimate overthrow of
Athens, and deceiving her with offers of friendship
until the convenient moment came, was a per-
fectly possible inference from the facts before the
orator, viewed in the light of Philip's past dealings
with other peoples; and a partial explanation,
though not a justification, of the stress laid in the
Speech upon Philip's "promises" may be found in
the fact that the orator was preparing to carry
out his threatened prosecution of ^schines, and
doubtless desired to take every opportunity of
impressing upon the People beforehand the main
points of his case, chief among which was the
alleged falsity of the promises conveyed and the
predictions uttered by ^schines. There is every
reason to think that the unpopularity of ^schines
and his friends was increasing; and two events,
which probably occurred soon after the delivery
of the Second Philippic, are very significant of this.
Late in 344 or early in 343 the inhabitants of
Delos laid before the Amphictyonic Council a
request that the Athenians should be deprived of
the control of the famous temple of Apollo in that
island. (Whether the Amphictyonic Council had
any traditional jurisdiction over Delos we do not
know; but to have denied the right of the Coun-
cil to decide the question might have involved
the risk of an Amphictyonic war against Athens.)
3 1 o Demosthenes
^schines was appointed by the People to present
the Athenian case — a good appointment in itself,
for ^schines was more likely than any member of
the opposite party to carry weight with a body of
whom the majority were allies of Philip. But the
Council of Areopagus, who, for some reason un-
known to us, had been given power to revise the
choice of the Assembly, cancelled the appointment
of -^schines; and Hypereides, an energetic sup-
porter of Demosthenes, was sent in his stead.*
The Amphictyonic Council, after hearing Euthy-
crates, the betrayer of Olynthus, on the one side,
and Hypereides on the other, decided in favour of
Athens, — possibly at a hint from Philip, who
clearly desired to avoid causes of offence for the
present.
An even heavier blow to Philip's friends was
the condemnation of Philocrates, in the first half
of 343, upon an indictment preferred by Hypereides
for corruption and for not having given the best
advice to the People. ^ Whether Philocrates had
really been guilty of corruption we do not know.
Demosthenes subsequently spoke as if the fact
were notorious, and had been admitted by Phi-
locrates himself, who, he said, used even to make
a parade of his guilt, "selling wheat, ^ building
* Dem.,rfe F. L., §209; Hyper, in Demadem, fr. 76 (Oxford
Text), etc.
» Hyper., pro Euxenippo, §§ 29, 30 (Oxford Text).
»7.e., wheat received from Philip, or bought with Philip's
money. Dem., de F.L., §114.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 311
houses, saying that he was going to Philip whether
you elected him or not, changing Macedonian
gold openly at the bank." Like -^schines, we
are told, he had received gifts of land from Philip ;
like Atrestidas, he had brought home women
captured in Olynthus. ^ Whether all this was true
or not, he discerned that he had no chance of
acquittal, and left Athens. He was condemned
to death in his absence. In the course of the
trial, Demosthenes, who expressed his surprise
that Philocrates alone was accused of bringing
about results of such magnitude, challenged any
of Philocrates' colleagues, who had had no share
in his misconduct and disapproved of his actions,
to come forward and say so, — offering to accept
the word of any one who made such a disclaimer.
No one responded; and Demosthenes made much
of this in the subsequent trial of ^schines, who
would not "accept acquittal even when it was
offered him," even though he had none of the
excuses which some of his colleagues might have
pleaded.^ About the same time Proxenus was
tried and condemned — we do not know on what
charge — through Demosthenes' influence.^
The reply of the Assembly, whatever it was, to
Philip's protest did not prevent him from sending
Python of Byzantium (a pupil of Isocrates and an
' Dem., de F. L., §§ 145, 309.
' Ibid., §§ 116-118; comp. ^Esch., in Ctes., §§ 79-81.
3 Dem., de F. L., § 280; Deinarch. in Dem., § 63. See Schafer,
H., p. 369.
312 Demosthenes
able speaker) to Athens early in 343, accompanied
by envoys from his allies, to convey an offer to
consider the amendment of anything that might
be amiss in the terms of the Peace, and to express
his regret that, when he was desirous of making
the Athenians his friends, more than all the other
Greeks, they were induced by self-interested ora-
tors to repel his overtures.^ -^schines supported
the representations of Python, while Demosthe-
nes (as he tells us) *
would not give way before the torrent of insolent
rhetoric which Python poured out upon the Assembly,
but rose and contradicted him, and would not betray
the city's rights, but proved the iniquity of Philip's
actions so manifestly that even his own allies rose up
and admitted it.
It was, however, decided to send Hegesippus as
ambassador to Philip, to propose certain altera-
tions in the terms of the Peace. Of these the
most important was that the clause which or-
dained that "each party should retain what they
possessed'' at the time of making the Peace, should
now be made to ordain that "each party should
retain what was their own,'' an alteration which
was intended, beyond all doubt, to reopen the
question of the right to Amphipolis and Poteidasa.
It was also resolved to propose the inclusion of all
' The mission of Python may have been in part the outcome of
Isocrates' letter to Philip (see above, p. 290).
* De Cor., § 136.
I
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 313
the Greek Peoples in the treaty, as well as the allies
of the two contracting parties; to guarantee their
autonomy and promise them aid against any ag-
gressors; and to ask Philip once more to surrender
the places taken from Cersobleptes in April, 346.
It appears that the Athenians also laid claim to
Cardia.
It is probable that the question of Halonnesus,
which continued to be a matter of controversy in
the next year, was already included among the
subjects of negotiation between Philip and Athens. *
Halonnesus was a small island near Sciathus. It
was the stronghold of a pirate named Sostratus,
who had probably been doing damage to Philip's
ships. Philip had driven him out and taken pos-
session of the island, and the Athenians, who
claimed the ownership of the island, now requested
Philip to restore it to them.
Hegesippus was a person devoid of tact and
violent in speech, and gave great offence to Philip,
who even went so far as to banish the poet
Xenocleides, Hegesippus' host during his visit to
IVIacedonia. ^ With regard to the proposals of the
Athenians, Philip rejected at once the suggested
alteration of the clause v^4th regard to the posses-
sions of the two parties, declaring that he had not
'The chief authority on this matter is the Speech of Hegesippus
de Halonneso, which has descended to us among the speeches of
Demosthenes. Hegesippus' authorship is denied by Beloch,
Gr. Gesch., ii., 539, but defended, more or less convincingly, by
E. Meyer, Isokrates' zweiter Brief, p. 776.
»Dem.,de F.L., §331.
314 Demosthenes
offered, or authorised his envoys to offer, any such
change. He was ready to include the other Greek
peoples in the Peace ; and to submit to arbitration
both the question of the Thracian towns and the
Athenian claim to Cardia — as he well might, his
case being apparently a very strong one. He was
also ready to go to arbitration in regard to Halon-
nesus, or to give the island to Athens as a free gift.
On the advice of Demosthenes and Hegesippus,
arbitration was refused, upon the ground that no
impartial arbitrator could be foimd; and Philip
was informed that the Athenians did not wish him
to give them the island, but to give it hack — a mere
matter of syllables, at which ^schines and the
comic poets of the time scoffed, ^ but one involving
the whole question in dispute as to the ownership
of the island. Philip naturally refused to do as
he was bidden.
The Speech of Hegesippus which has come down
to us was made in one of the debates about
Halonnesus early in 342. It is thoroughly un-
reasonable in tone and argument, and in expression
is sarcastic and violent; though the contention
that it was beneath the dignity of the Athenians,
to whom belonged the empire of the sea, to accept
islands from Philip, or to go to arbitration with
him, was calculated to win applause. On nearly
every point raised in the Speech Philip could give
a fair reply; and though it is uncertain whether
modem international law would have admitted
' iEsch., in Oes., § 83; Antiphanes, fr. 169 (Kock).
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 315
Philip's right to the island (assuming that it had
belonged to Athens before it was occupied by the
pirate captain), it may also be doubted whether,
seeing that the pirate had been siiffered by Athens
to remain undisturbed and to molest the traffic
at his pleasure, the power who expelled him might
not equitably claim to have taken the island from
him and not from Athens.^ At least Philip's of- Z'
fer to "give" it to Athens was a fair compromisef ^ ^ !' '
and the statement of Demosthenes, that no impar- "^
tial arbitrator could be found, was little more than/^''^,;,*^'^''
an intimation that he was working for a renewal, ^"^^
of hostilities. Still Philip's patience was not ex-
hausted; and though he retained Halonnesus, he
as yet took no step which could give the Athen-
ians an excuse for war.
At the same time as the mission of Python to
Athens, early in 343, there arrived also an embassy
from the King of Persia, asking for a renewal of
ancient friendship between the Great King and the
people of Athens. ^ The circiimstances which led
the King to send messages at this time to several
of the Greek States are not precisely known, but
it may be taken as certain that he was appre-
hensive of Philip's intentions with regard to Asia
Minor. His viceroys in that region had displayed
great independence while he was engaged in the
reconquest of Egypt; and he may have been
' See Phillipson, International Law of Greece and Rome, vol.
ii.,pp. 132-151.
" Didym., schol. in Dem., Col. 8. See Note 2.
3i6 Demosthenes
desirous to obtain an alliance with some of the
Greek States which would act as a counterpoise
to the influence which Philip was likely to exert
in favour of the viceroys in Asia Minor, as his
intimacy with one of them, Hermeias of Atameus,
had shown. But the Athenians were in no mood
at present to abandon their traditional enmity
towards the King. It is highly probable, in view
lof his later policy,^ that Demosthenes may have
' urged them to do so, in the hope of obtaining a
powerful ally against Philip. But if so, he failed.
The Athenians replied that their friendship would
remain, so long as the King abstained from attack-
ing the Greek cities in Asia Minor. This was of
course tantamount to a refusal of the King's pro-
position. The Thebans and Argives, on the other
hand, sent him substantial aid against Egypt,
and it was largely this that enabled him to re-
conquer the rebellious province.
It was, in all probability, shortly after midsum-
mer, 343, that the accusations of Demosthenes
against -^schines came before a court of law,
consisting of 1501 jurors, under the presidency of
the Logistae. The speeches of Demosthenes and
^schines have both come down to us, not indeed
in the exact form in which they were delivered,
but in that in which they were afterwards pub-
lished, some alterations of the original text having
been made, and some arguments inserted in each,
' Note 3.
7j:frfi y4:>J -rhV'
PAPYRUS FRAGMENT OF DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON THE EMBASSY
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 317
in order to meet the adversary's points, or to
correct the unfavourable impression which certain
passages had made upon the jury.
The Speech of Demosthenes opened with a brief
statement of the duties of an ambassador, and an
outline of his proof, to be given fully afterwards,
that -^schines had failed to fulfil those duties in
any particular. The first half of the Speech con-
sists mainly of a narrative of the events upon
which the case turned; and we have already seen
reason to conclude that the version which Demos-
thenes gave of the facts was in many ways a dis-
torted one. The ruin of the Phocians and the
capture of the Thracian towns by Philip were
represented as entirely due to the corruption of
iEschines and his colleagues. The second part
of the Speech lays especial stress on the mischief
wrought in Greece by traitors, and upon the de-
ceptive and ingenious character of Philip's policy,
which ^schines — so Demosthenes argued — had
furthered. It also contains passages of self-
defence against the charge of participation in the
peace-negotiations, and of vehement personal
attack upon ^schines, his relations and support-
ers. The reply of ^schines was largely composed
of narrative. It was a businesslike and detailed
answer to the charges made against him, and
although it does not show the same oratorical
force and emotional power as the speech of Demos-
thenes, it remains one of the most striking orations
of antiquity, -^schines was supported by Eubu-
3 1 8 Demosthenes
lus, whom we now see for the last time taking a
conspicuous part in political controversy, and by
Phocion, whose blunt honesty and courage always
carried great weight. He was acquitted by
thirty votes. ''
To what causes is the acqtiittal of ^schines to
be attributed? The support given to him by
Eubulus and Phocion doubtless counted for some-
thing; for in spite of the growing popularity of
Demosthenes and the feeling of irritation against
the authors of the Peace, the People strongly
sympathised with Eubulus in his desire to avoid
war and to defend the theoric fund against possible
encroachments; and there was in all probability
some fear (since Demosthenes is at pains to dispel
it),* that the condemnation of ^schines wotdd
lead to a renewal of war with Phihp. Again, the
part played by Demosthenes himself in the earlier
negotiations for peace could not really be disguised
or explained away ; and ^schines pressed strongly
the point that Demosthenes was accusing him on
the ground of transactions for which he himself
shared the responsibility. That Demosthenes
was conscious of this weakness in his position is
shown by the great care which he took to define
the issue. 3 ^schines, he declared, was not being
'This was known to Plutarch {Dent., xv) from Idomeneus of
Lampsacus, a friend of Epicurus, and therefore almost a con-
temporary witness: comp. Vit. X Oral., 840b, c; and see Note 4.
^Ibid., §§ 134 ff., 341, 342.
3 Dem., de F. L., §§ 91-97, and 202 ff.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 319
tried because the city made peace, but because
she made peace on dishonourable terms and with
disastrous results.
But, after all, the true reason for ^schines'
acquittal was probably that Demosthenes could
not prove him to be guilty. We have already
seen that upon the most important points, -^s-
chines had a good reply to the allegations brought
against him; and more than once he turned the
tables upon Demosthenes very effectively, and
not only contrived to place his assailant's own
conduct during the two embassies in a very
unfavourable light, but also showed that Demos-
thenes had done less than he himself had done to
help the Phocians, whose calamities, alleged to
have been due to ^schines and Philocrates, were
the starting-point of Demosthenes' most impres-
sive argument. The fact that -^schines was ac-
tually supported by the testimony of some of
the Phocian exiles must have told heavily in his
favour. It is also probable that Demosthenes
overshot the mark, even for the taste of an Athen-
ian jury, in the grossness of the stories and sug-
gestions which he produced in regard to -^schines
and his friends. One story the jury actually
refused to allow him to complete^ — the story of
the ill-treatment of an Olynthian woman by ^s-
chines, which ^schines declared to have been
invented by Demosthenes.*
» Dem., de F. L., §196 ff.; cf. JEsch., de F. L., §§ 4, 154-158.
•-/Eschines brought forward Aristophanes of Olynthus to
320 Demosthenes
The Speech of Demosthenes contained indeed
passages of magnificent oratory, such as might
well prove irresistible; the general principles to
which he appealed were sound and nobly enun-
ciated, however unjustified his application of them
in this particular case; his unique power of con-
vincing narration was never more impressively
exercised, however untrue some parts of the nar-
rative may have been; the wide prevalence of
treachery and corruption in the Greek States was
beyond question; and these causes, coupled with
the strong dislike which prevailed for the Peace of
Philocrates and its real or supposed consequences,
perhaps account for the smallness of the majority
by which -^schines was acquitted. It must also
be remembered that though ^schines could not
be shown to be guilty of corruption, and though
no modem jury could possibly have condemned
him, he had almost certainly profited to a con-
siderable extent by Philip's friendship; and that
though he was probably as sincerely convinced of
the advantages to be gained by Athens through
alliance with Philip, as Demosthenes was convinced
of the opposite, his increased prosperity might
well make others suspicious. But we cannot
doubt that he was rightly acquitted, and that
Demosthenes, though passionately sure that the
only sound or worthy policy for Athens was one
testify that Demosthenes had offered him money to vouch for
the story, and to declare that the woman was his wife. (There
were probably lies on both sides.)
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 321
of strenuous antagonism to Philip, was not justi-\
fied in the construction which he placed on the \
part taken by ^schines in opposition to that policy.
Indeed, an impartial historian can hardly avoid I
going further than this: for Demosthenes' distor- /
tion of the truth at many points in his argument /
(intended, as it was, to conceal his own part in
making the Peace), and above all the shameless
use which he made of the calamities of the Phocians
— calamities which he had done nothing to prevent,
whereas his opponent had at least attempted to ,
mitigate them; but which he nevertheless set \
forth in tones of the deepest pathos and indigna-
tion— must remain a blot upon his character as
a man and an orator, which the worthiness of his
political aims and the nobility of much of his
subsequent career cannot wholly wipe out.
The effect of the verdict upon the current of
political life at the time is hard to estimate.
Probably in view of the narrowness of the majority,
it was that of a drawn battle, damaging to both
parties; but it is impossible, upon the evidence
before us, to judge whether the party of y^schines
benefited more by his acquittal than Demosthenes
gained by having so nearly secured a victory. It
is certain that from this time onwards Demos-
thenes' influence grew steadily: it was he and his
supporters who practically guided the action of
the city for the next five years; and this can only
mean that, whatever reasons the jury had for
acquitting iEschines of corruption, the sympathies
322 Demosthenes
of the People were with the main principles of
Demosthenes' policy.
An incident which probably occurred soon after
the trial ^ of ^schines illustrates the exacerbation
of feeling between the two orators. A certain
Antiphon, who had been struck off the roll of
citizens in a revision of the list which had taken
place in 346, was found by Demosthenes concealed
in the Peiraeus, whither Demosthenes said he had
come under a promise to Philip that he would bum
the dockyards. (We do not know what evidence
Demosthenes had of this; but, in view of Philip's
evident desire to avoid a quarrel with Athens at
this time, the story seems most unlikely.) Dem-
osthenes arrested him and brought him before
the Assembly; ^Eschines protested that the con-
duct of Demosthenes in arresting the man without
authority was unconstitutional, and induced the
Assembly to let him go. Demosthenes, however,
informed the Council of Areopagus; and through
their action, Antiphon was re-arrested, tried,
tortured, and executed. "And so," adds Demos-
thenes, "ought you to have treated ^schines."
Plutarch, who alludes to the story, speaks of
Demosthenes' action as "very aristocratic"; and
it can hardly be defended.
In the latter half of the year 343, Philip, while
* The date is not stated; but the incident is not mentioned in
either of the speeches at the trial of -^schines. The only account
of it is in Dem., de Cor., §§ 132-134.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 323
studiously avoiding any breach of the Peace with
Athens, was extending his influence in many
directions; and the Athenians took some steps to
neutraHse, if possible, the effect of his movements.
In Epirus Philip took up the cause of Alexander,
brother of his wife Olympias, against Arybbas
(Alexander's uncle and former guardian), whom he
compelled to surrender the Molossian kingdom to
Alexander. He also increased the extent of that
kingdom by bringing within it the district of
Cassopia (in the south-west comer of Epirus),
with its three towns, Pandosia, Boucheta, and
Elateia^; and he proposed further to add to it
Ambracia, and the island of Leucas, both colonies
of Corinth. The Athenians thereupon sent em-
bassies, in which Demosthenes, Hegesippus, and
Polyeuctus* took part, to the Peloponnesian
States, with the object of arousing feeling against
Philip. It was perhaps in consequence of this
that the Corinthians, whose colonies were menaced,
applied to Athens for aid. The appeal was favour-
ably received. The Athenians sent troops to
Acamania to defend Ambracia, and resolved, if
an opportunity offered, to take up the cause of
Arybbas, who, on seeking refuge in Athens, had
been welcomed with honour and granted the
citizenship.^ The alliance of Athens was also
' Or Elatreia.
» And perhaps also Cleitomachus and Lycurgus. -
Jjustin, VIII, vi.; Diod., XVI, Ixxii.; Dem., in Olympiad.,
§ § 24-6; Phil. Ill, § §34, 72; C. I. A., ii., 115. On the date see
Beloch, Gr. Gesch., ii., p. 543 n.
324 Demosthenes
sought by the Achaeans, whose colony at Naupactus
on the -(Etolian coast had been promised by Philip
to the ^tolians, in order to gain the good-will of
the latter. But, being still desirous of avoid-
ing hostilities with Athens, Philip did not at pre-
sent proceed further against either Ambracia or
Naupactus, but returned to Macedonia through
Thessaly. Here also the emissaries of Athens
had been busy, attempting to undermine the
loyalty of Philip's Thessalian and Magnesian
subjects'; and it was perhaps for this reason that
he now left Macedonian garrisons in Nicaea (which
in 346 had been entrusted to Thessalian soldiers),
and in Echinus, a Theban colony, but situated
on the borders of the Thessalian territory on the
north coast of the Maliac Gulf. ^
At about the same time PhiHp's troops were
engaged in Euboea, and his agents in the Pelopon-
nese. His adherents in Eretria had brought
about the overthrow of the democracy in that
town, and the establishment of an oligarchy, at
the head of which stood Cleitarchus. The demo-
crats took refuge in Porthmus, the port of Eretria,
and were there besieged by Philip's soldiers.
Shortly afterwards (perhaps early in 342) we find
the Macedonian general Parmenio supporting
Philistides, who headed a similar revolution in
Oreus, and was similarly established as "tyrant."
These events, though in no way a breach of the
» Schol. on ^sch., in Ctes., § 83.
' Dem., Phil. Ill, § 34 and "Reply to Philip's Letter," § 4.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 325
Peace, were undoubtedly grave disasters for
Athens. Oreus would be a valuable base of
operations for Philip against Sciathus, Peparethus,
and the other islands of that group. Eretria
became, by the change, a "fortress overlooking
Attica." Moreover, the revolutions had been
carried out with some cruelty, and Demosthenes
describes in eloquent and pathetic language the
fate of Euphraeus, the democratic leader in Oreus,
who had dared to expose and denounce the in-
trigues of Philistides and his friends." The gov-
ernment of the "tyrants" thus established was,
according to Demosthenes, cruel and despotic.
A noble recompense did the people in Oreus receive,
for entrusting themselves to Philip's friends, and
thrusting Euphrasus aside! and a noble recompense
the democracy of Eretria, for driving away your
envoys and surrendering to Cleitarchus! They are
slaves, scourged and butchered !^
Philip appears to have attempted to effect a
similar revolution in Geraestus.^ The people of
Chalcis, however, under the leadership of Callias
and Taurosthenes, made overtures to Athens.
Callias had formerly been on good terms with
Philip and had spent some time in his company,
but had in some way offended him; he had
also been friendly with the Thebans, but now (in
order to protect himself against Philip's friends,
' Dem., Phil. Ill, § § 59 flF.; comp. de Chers., § § 18, 36.
» Dem., Phil. Ill, § § 65, 66. 3 Dem., de F. L., § 326.
326 Demosthenes
Cleitarchus and Philistides) came over to the
Athenian side.^ It was probably about this time
that Demosthenes and CaUias began those com-
mimications which ended in the aUiance of 341 ;
and that (on Demosthenes' advice) a corps of
soldiers imder Chares was stationed in Thasos,
to protect the islands.^
In the Peloponnesian States also Philip's
friends were active. In 343 (before the trial of
-^schines) two of Philip's adherents in Megara,
Perillus and Ptoeodorus, attempted a coup d'etat
with the aid of a mercenary force sent by Philip:
but Phocion marched rapidly to the aid of the
Athenian party with a force of Athenian soldiers,
fortified Nisasa, the harbour of Megara, and con-
nected it by long walls with the town^; while
Demosthenes negotiated an alliance between
Athens and Megara.'' In Elis Philip's party got
the upper hand, and terrible massacres occurred.
Among those slain were the remnant of Phalaecus'
mercenary force, which (after taking part in some
fighting in Crete) had been hired by exiles from
Elis to assist them against the Macedonian party
and its allies, the Arcadians. ^ These movements
in the Peloponnese could not fail to make a great
impression upon the Athenian People, as they did
' See ^sch., in Ctes., § 86 flf. » VU. X Oral., 845 e.
i'Dem.,deF.L., § § 204, 295 ff., 326; de Cor., §71; Phil. Ill,
§ 27; Plut., Phoc, XV. (Plutarch gives no date for Phocion's
expedition, but this must almost certainly be the occasion).
4Dem., do Cor., §§ 234, 237; Phil. Ill, §74.
s Diod., XVI, Ixiii.; Dem., de F. L., § 260, etc.'
Nominal Peace and Renewal oj War 327
upon Demosthenes; it appears that in the year
343-2 the alliance between Athens and the Mes-
senians was renewed ' ; and these events doubtless
prepared the way by their effect upon Athenian
public opinion for the alliance against Philip in
341, in which many Peloponnesian peoples joined.*
Early in 342 Philip went once more to Thrace,
leaving the young Alexander to govern in Mace-
donia in his absence. His object was, in all prob-
ability, not merely to complete his conquest of
Thrace itself, where Cersobleptes was once more
active, but also to obtain control over the route
by which the Athenian corn-supply passed, and
therewith the power to force Athens to come to
terms, if force proved necessary. If, as is likely,
the design of the conquest of Asia Minor was
already present to his mind, it would be essential
to make sure of his ground on the nearer side of
the Hellespont, before embarking upon an eastern
campaign.
It was as important for Athens, if she desired
to retain her independence, to keep the great
corn-route open, as it was to Philip to obtain the
power to close it. Athens had, in fact, only two
alternatives. She might make an agreement with
Philip, to be sincerely kept by her as well as by him,
and arrange a precise delimitation of territories
and spheres of influence. If she chose that alter-
' C. I. A., iv., 2, 114 b; comp. Vit. X Oral., 851a,
" Note 5.
328 Demosthenes
native, the two powers could live in peace side by
side (Athens retaining the Chersonese) and could
fight side by side in the great campaign in the
East which Isocrates had advocated. Or, if she
would not do this, she might go to war with him,
at the head of as many of the Greek States as
would follow her lead. There were difficulties in
connection with both alternatives. A power .in_.
alliance with Philip could never hope to be the pre-
dominant partner, and Athenian pride was not
ready to take the second place. Besides this,
there was a natural and genuine disbelief in the
likelihood of the honest observance of any treaty
by Philip ; for though his attitude towards Athens
throughout the last few years had not only been
formally correct, but even forbearing, his past
history had not been such as to inspire confidence,
and even now he was spreading his net all round
Attica, so that it seemed likely that before long
she would be entirely isolated. Nor was there
any sure guarantee, whatever agreement might
be made with Philip, that the hostile neighbours
of Athens would remain at peace with her. On
the other hand, the disunion of the Greek States
made it uncertain whether Athens would find any
following against Philip that would be of much
real advantage to her; and although Philip was
not likely to be able to cut her off from the sea,
there was no land-force which could be relied upon
to hold him in check and prevent the ravaging of
Attica. Moreover, the disinclination of the People
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 329
for the sacrifices entailed by war was as great as
ever, however much their pride might rebel at the
idea of Philip's ascendancy.
But Demosthenes' choice had long been made:
and the People, though not yet brought to the
point at which they would take strong measures
at any sacrifice, were disposed to follow his lead;
and though he could not yet propose the one
measure in which hope lay, an alliance with
Thebes (since neither they nor the Thebans were
yet ready for this), he took steps during the next
few years to drive PhiUp to such hostile action as
would convince the People that they must fight,
if they were to remain true to that passion for
autonomy and leadership which was one of the
dominant elements in their national character.
There can be little doubt that Demosthenes
interpreted the collective feeling of the mass of his
fellow-countrymen rightly; and his efforts were
now all directed to forcing them to translate their
feeling, which was apt to show itself only in
spasmodic outbursts, into steady action, under-
taken after thorough preparation. ,_y
Philip's campaign in Thrace was completely
successful, though few details are known to us.
He conquered the whole territory of the princes
Cersobleptes and Teres. The latter, who died
in the course of the war, had been given the citizen-
ship of Athens (though he had joined Philip in his
earlier campaign) ; and the Athenians had vainly
sent protests to Philip, requesting him to allow
330 Demosthenes
these princes to retain their kingdom, as allies of
Athens. Philip made the perfectly correct reply-
that these princes had not participated in the
Peace of 346, and that he was under no obligation
to recognise them as allies. ^ The dominions thus
definitely added to his kingdom Philip proceeded
to secure by the foundation of military colonies,
of which the chief were Calybe (or Cabyle) and
Philippopolis (on the upper waters of the He-
brus), the former being nicknamed Poneropolis
— " Rogueborough " — on account of the alleged
character of the settlers planted there. ^ He
strengthened his position on the northern frontier
of Thrace by his friendly reception of Cothelas,
King of the Getae, who lived between the Hebrus
and the Danube ; and (since his principles did not
force monogamy upon him) he married Cothelas*
daughter. ^ He also made alliance with the Greek
colony of Apollonia on the Black Sea, and prob-
ably with Odessus (Varna) and other smaller Greek
settlements on the same coast. "* -^nos at the
mouth of the Hebrus, the last ally of Athens in
Thrace, deserted her for Philip in 341. ^ In the
course of his campaign Philip captured a number
» Ep. Phil., §§8,9. See Note 6.
*Dem., de Chers., §44; Steph. Byz., s. v. ^iXlirirov 7r6Xts;
Theopomp., fr. 107 (Oxford Text), etc.
3 Satyr, fr. 5; ap. Athen., xii., p. 557 d; Steph. Byz., s.v. TSrai.
The permission of polygamy sharply distinguishes the Mace-
donians from the Greeks.
* Justin, IX, ii.; Arr., VII, ix., 3, etc. (for full refs, see Schafer,
vol. ii., pp. 446-450). s Dem., in Theocr., § 37.
I
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 33 1
of strongholds, of which Drongilus and Masteira
are particularly named, though their positions are
not certainly known'; and he passed the winter
of 342-1 in Thrace, enduring great hardships with
his army.
The Athenian commander in the Chersonese
in 342 was Diopeithes of Sunium. Either in that
year, or shortly before, the Athenians had sent a
fresh body of settlers to the Chersonese, and these
were generally well received by the towns in the
peninsula. But Cardia, which claimed to be the
ally, not of Athens, but of Philip, naturally refused
to admit them. Diopeithes was instructed to
look after the interests of the settlers, and raised
a body of mercenaries, for whom he provided pay
by acts of piracy against the trading ships of
smaller islands and maritime towns, or by exact-
ing contributions from them, under the name of
"benevolences," in return for which their ships
were safely escorted by his squadron. (In acting
thus, Demosthenes says, Diopeithes was following
the regular practice of Athenian commanders.*)
When he began to threaten the Cardians, the
latter appealed to Philip for support, and a Mace-
donian garrison was sent to protect the town.
Diopeithes now went further, and committed a
direct act of hostility against Philip's dominions.
For, while Philip was fighting in the interior of \
Thrace, Diopeithes made a raid into Thracian
' Dem., de Chers., § 44, etc. » De Chers., §§ 24 flE.
332 Demosthenes
territory and plundered the country about Crobyle
and Tiristasis, which lay near the entrance to the
Chersonese from the side of the Propontis; and
when Philip sent an envoy named Amphilochus
to negotiate for the return of prisoners, Diopeithes
seized him, and would not let him go imtil he had
paid a ransom of nine talents. ^
Philip had already offered to submit to arbitra-
tion in regard to Cardia, and he now (early in 341)
despatched a strong protest to Athens, declaring
that he would take active measures to protect the
Cardians.^ The matter was discussed at a meet-
ing of the Assembly, and we learn from Demos-
thenes' speech on that occasion all that we know
of the debate. The peace-party attacked Dio-
peithes on account of his irregular and piratical
actions, which, they declared, were bound to end
in war with Philip; and they evidently succeeded
in rousing considerable feeling against the com-
mander. They laid great stress on the blessings
of peace, and accused the anti- Macedonian poli-
ticians of designs upon the public funds — ^in other
words, upon the festival-money. Demosthenes
admitted (for the sake of argument) the unjusti-
fiability of Diopeithes' actions, though he spoke
of them under the name of "assistance to the
Thracians"; but he insisted that when Philip was
advancing his dominion in a manner most perilous
to Athenian interests, it was not the time to recall
or to attack the commander who was at least do-
' Ep. Phil., § 3. 'De Chers., § 16.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 333
ing something to maintain the Athenian cause
— still less to send another commander and fleet
to bring him back, or keep guard over him, as his
opponents had proposed. To interfere with him
now would be to do the very thing that Philip
would wish. He further iu*ged the seriousness of
the danger lest Philip should advance to Byzan-
tium while the Etesian winds were blowing; for
then Athens could do nothing to hinder him,
imless she had a strong force in the Chersonese.
As to the risk of war with Philip, he replied that
it was only the misleading influence of Philip's
party that prevented the Athenians from seeing
that Philip, whatever professions he might make,
was already at war with them. In an impressive
passage' he imagines the other Hellenes interro-
gating the Athenians as to their policy:
"Is it true, men of Athens, that you send envoys
on every possible occasion, to tell us of Philip's designs
against ourselves and all the Hellenes, and of the duty
of keeping guard against the man, and to warn us in
every way?" We should have to confess that it was
true. "Then," they would proceed, "is it true, you
most contemptible of all men, that though the man
has been away for ten months, and has been cut off
from every possibility of returning home, by illness
and by winter and by wars, you have neither liberated
Euboea nor recovered any of your own possessions?
Is it true that you have remained at home, unoccupied
and healthy — if such a word can be used of men who
* §§ 35-7-
334 Demosthenes
behave thus — and have seen him set up two tyrants
in Euboea, one to serve as a fortress directly menacing
Attica, the other to watch Sciathus ; and that you have
not even rid yourselves of these dangers — granted that
you did not want to do anything more — but have let
them be? Obviously you have retired in his favour,
and have made it evident that if he dies ten times over,
you will not make any move the more. Why trouble
us then with your embassies and your accusations?"
If they speak thus to us, what will be our answer? I
do not see what we can say.
He then defines what he regards as the proper at-
titude for Athens to adopt ^ :
First, men of Athens, you must thoroughly make up
your minds to the fact that Philip is at war with
Athens, and has broken the Peace — you must cease
to lay the blame at one another's doors — and that he
is evilly-disposed and hostile to the whole city, down
to the very ground on which it is built. ... But
his hostilities and intrigues are aimed at nothing so
much as at our constitution. . . . For he knows very
well that even if he becomes master of all the world,
he can retain nothing securely, so long as you are a
democracy; and that if he chances to stumble any-
where, as may often happen to a man, all the elements
which are now forced into union with him will come
and take refuge with you. . . . And so he would
not have Freedom, from her home in Athens, watch-
ing for every opportunity he may offer. . . . Sec-
ondly, you must realise clearly that all the plans
which he is now so busily contriving are in the nature
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 335
of preparations against this country; and wherever
any one resists him, there he resists him on our behalf.
For surely no one is so simple as to imagine that when
Philip is so covetous of the wretched hamlets of
Thrace, and when to get these places he is endur-
ing heavy labours, and the extremity of danger, the
harbours and the dockyards and the ships of the
Athenians, the produce of their silver-mines, and their
huge revenue have no attraction for him; or that he
will leave you in possession of these, while he winters
in the very pit of destruction for the sake of the millet
and the spelt in the silos of Thrace. No indeed! It
is to get these into his power that he pursues both his
operations in Thrace and all his other designs.
The only remedy, Demosthenes insisted, lay in the
organisation and efficient maintenance of a stand-
ing force, to defend the liberties of the Hellenes.
He then turned to attack his opponents, and their
anxiety to prosecute the orators and generals of
the war party, and upbraided the People vehe-
mently for their readiness to listen to them:
Yours is the one city in the world where men are
permitted to speak on behalf of the enemy without
fear; a man may take bribes, and still address you
with impunity, even when you have been robbed of
your own. . . . Aye, and you know that of such
speakers, some who were poor are rapidly growing
rich; and some who were without name or fame are
becoming famous and distinguished, while you, on
the other hand, are becoming inglorious instead of
famous, bankrupt instead of wealthy. For a city's
33^ Demosthenes
wealth consists, I imagine, in allies, confidence, loy-
alty— and of all these you are bankrupt.'
After defending himself against the charge, which
his opponents had brought against him, of lack-
ing the courage of his opinions, and of abstaining
from formally moving the measures which he re-
commended, he concluded with a proposal that
Diopeithes' force should be maintained, and envoys
sent in all directions to organise the movement
against Philip.
Above all [he added], we must punish those who
take bribes in connection with public affairs, and must
everywhere display our abhorrence of them; in order
that reasonable men, who offer their honest services,
may find their policy justified in their own eyes and
in those of others. If you treat the situation thus,
and cease to ignore it altogether, there is a chance — a
chance, I say, even now — that it may improve. If,
however, you sit idle, with an interest that stops
short at applause and acclamation, and retires into
the background when any action is required, I can
imagine no oratory, which, without action on your
part, will be able to save your country.
r The Speech glows with an enthusiasm which is
V obviously genuine, and was in every way calculated
to commend to the People the policy which the
speaker believed to be the only one consistent with
the interest and honour of Athens. In fact, mat-
ters had now gone so far that war was practi-
§ 64 ff .
i
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 337
cally inevitable, and whether or not Demosthenes
was to be blamed for having done his best to
produce such a state of things, there could be no
doubt of his duty when once it was brought about.
Accordingly in this Speech and in the Third Philip-
pic the tone of authority is more strongly marked
than in most of his earlier orations; though he is
still conscious of the strength of the opposition, \
and of the danger to himself which his policy /
involved.
We do not know whether the Speech on the
Chersonese had any immediate result, beyond its
effect on public opinion, though it is certain that
Diopeithes was not recalled. It is also certain
that within two or three months of the date of the
Speech, the feeling of the Athenians had become
much more positively militant, and the outbreak
of war in Thrace much more imminent. It was
in a debate upon a renewed application for sup-
plies from the army in the Chersonese that the
Third Philippic was delivered. In this Demosthe-
nes' policy is even more fully declared. It was not
now, he insisted, in any selfish interest of her own, _-'
but as the champion of the Hellenes against the en-
emy of their freedom, that the Athenians must take
the field- He again declared that Philip was not
only at war with Athens, but was obtaining all y
the advantages of an unopposed conqueror at her
expense: and Philip could not be expected to make _
a formal declaration of war, when it was much -<7
more to his purpose to cause the Athenians to take- ^-
338 Demosthenes
no steps against him, on the ground of the exist-
ence of the Peace. He next traced rapidly and
forcibly the growth of Philip's power until his in-
fluence had extended itself not only over Thessaly,
but over Euboea, Megara, Elis, and western Greece.
But [he continued'], though all of us, the Hellenes,
see and hear these things, we send no representatives
to one another to rlkriiRS tlip mattfr; wp. pTinw Tin
indignation ; weare in so evil a mood, so deep have the
lines been^ cut that sever city from citVr that up to
this day we are unable to act as either our interest or
our_duty^require. We cannot _unite; we can form
no combination for mutual support or friendship, but
we look on while the man grows greater, because
every oije^as_made up hismind (as it seems to me) to
profit by the time during which his neighbour is being
ruined, and no one cares or acts for the safety of the
Hellenes. For we all know that Philip is like the
recurrence or the attack of a fever or other illness, in
his descent upon those who fancy themselves for the
present well out of his reach. . . . What [he asks'] is
the cause of these things? FoivasJtj^a§_jiQJiJBdthDut
reason and just cause, that the Hellenes in old davs
were , so pronipt for^freedom, so it is not without
reason or causeJJiat they are now so prompt to be
slaves. There was a spirit, men of Athens, a spirit
in the minds of the PeopleJn^jthose-daySy-which is
absent ta-day — the spirit which vanquished the wealth
of Persia, which led Hellas in the path of freedoni, and
never gave way in face of battle- by sea or land; a
spirit whose extinction to-day has brought universal
» §§ 28, 29. » § 36 ff.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 339
ruin and turned Hellas upside down. What was this
s^!nt? It was nothing subtle or clever. It meant
that men who took monej_from tho£eL_Hdio^imed at
dnirirrrujn. nr-flt thfi tuin of Hellas were execrated by
all; that it was then a very grave thing to be con-
victed of bribery; that the punishment of the guilty
man was the heaviest that could be inflicted, that for
him there could be no plea for mercy, nor hope of
pardon. No orator, no general, would then sell the
critical opportunity whenever it arose — the oppor-
tunity so often offered to men by fortune, even when
they are careless and their foes are on their guard.
They did not barter away the harmony between
people and people, nor their own mistrust of the ty-
rant and the foreigner, nor any of these high senti-
ments. Wb^TP. P^^ ^^^c^^ gpnf.itnpn^'^ nnw? Tliey_have
been sn1d_jrij-,hf>. marVp.t and are gone; and thogg_have
been imported_in their stead through which the
natioiLJiea_ruiaed_and_plaguerSlricken — the envy of
the man who has received his hire; the amusement
which accompanies his avowal ; the pardon granted to
those whose guilt is proved; the hatred of one who
censures the crime; and all the appurtenances of cor-
ruption. For as to ships, numerical strength, un-
stinting abundance of funds and all other material
of war, and all the things by which the strength of
cities is estimated, every people can command those
in greater plenty and on a larger scale by far than
in old days. But all those resources are rendered
unserviceable, ineffectual, unprofitable, by those who
traffic in them.
At the same time, Demosthenes was under no
delusion as to Philip's power. Athens, in spite
340 Demosthenes
of her recovery from the impoverished condition
in which she found herself some years before, was
not yet strong enough to risk a pitched battle
on land against Philip's modernised army. Her
policy was rather to hold him in check by per-
petual operations, forming part of a lengthy carn-
paign, and so to conduct operations at a distance
that he might be unable to draw nearer to Attica.
In the latter part of the Speech, he returned to
the attack upon his opponents, and upon the
People for their apathy in regard to his opponents'
disloyalty^; and cited instance after instance to
show the disasters brought about by Philip's
friends — in Olynthus, in Oreus, in Eretria. Fi-
nally he moved that preparations for war should
at once be begun, and that envoys should be sent
to the Peloponnesian States, to Chios and Rhodes,
and to the King of Persia himself (whose interests
in regard to Philip were the same as those of
Athens), to organise the world against Philip.
No one would do this, he declared, if Athens did
not. "The task is yours. It is the prerogative
that your fathers won, and through many a great
peril bequeathed to you."
V A mere summary of this great Speech, and a few
quotations, can give but a poor impression of its
power. It is a stronger proof of it, that the policy
\advocated in it was instantly adopted. Rein-
Tforcements and money were sent to Diopeithes;
within a month or two at most Chares also was
I ' See Ch. III., p. 82.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 341
in the Chersonese, ^ and Athenian garrisons were
placed in Proconnesus and Tenedos.^ The exer-
tions made by Athens were such as, a short time
before, no one would have believed her capable
of making. Her envoys went in all directions.
Demosthenes himself travelled to Byzantium: by
his efforts the old alliance between Byzantium
and Athens was renewed; grudges on both sides
were forgotten; and the key of the Black Sea was
thus once more in friendly hands. (At a later
date Demosthenes recalled^ with some pride that,
in consequence of this, Athens was kept supplied
during the war which followed with the necessaries
of life in greater plenty than during the years of
peace in Alexander's reign.) From Byzantium he
passed to Abydos, and succeeded in transform-
ing its long-standing ill-feeling against Athens into
friendship.'' He also renewed friendly relations
with the Thracian princes, though whether with
those who had already been conquered by Philip,
or with others, who may have retained a nominal
independence, we do not know. ^ It may have
been on the same tour that he went to Illyria,
since he couples the Illyrians with the Thracian
princes in the enumeration of those with whom he
had negotiated. Hypereides travelled to Rhodes,
and probably to Chios also, and secured their
alliance.^ Messengers were also perhaps sent to
' C. I. A., ii., 116. * Dem., de Cor., §302.
^ Ibid., § 89. ^Ibid., §302.
s lUd., § 244. « Vit. X Oral., 850a.
342 Demosthenes
the King of Persia; and he certainly sent money
to Diopeithes.^
It is, however, possible that the embassy to Per-
sia was not sent at once. We hear,^ it is true,
of a certain Ephialtes who was sent to the King
when Philip was besieging Byzantium, and who
secretly brought back large sums of money from
the King to induce the popular leaders in Athens
to commence war. Demosthenes, it is said, re-
ceived three thousand darics, and Hypereides
also shared in the distribution. It is impossible
to test the truth of this story, or to decide whether
Ephialtes was sent as the result of Demosthenes*
advice. But it is at least probable that the People
did not immediately overcome their repugnance
to a step so contrary to their traditions and in-
clinations as the appeal for help to the King;
and if the Fourth Philippic is (as some suppose) a
pamphlet issued by Demosthenes himself some-
what later than the delivery of the Third Philippic,
it shows that the suggestion of an embassy to the
King needed to be reinforced by further argument
than he had given to the point in that Speech.
There is, however, no evidence to show that (as
some modem critics surmise) the action of the
Athenians in seeking alligj^ce w;ith the King alien-
* Ar., Rhet., II, viii., p. 1386a 13. The reply of the King to the
Athenians quoted by ^sch., in Ctes., § 235, cannot, as is generally
stated, refer to this occasion, but must belong to the year 335,
since it was given "shortly before Alexander crossed into Asia."
^ Vit. X Oral, ?>\^i., 848c. The authority is not very reliable.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 343
ated from_JJieirL__:^ie___syTripa.t.bies of the other
Greeks. Thebes and Sparta at any rate could
not throw stones at them, and many of the other
States shortly afterwards joined in league with
Athens. And though there is no doubt a formal
inconsistency hRt-^p.p.ri Dp.mn<;t>ipnpc;' gtmng ex-
pressions in reference to the great traditions of
Athens as the champion of the Greeks against
Persia, and his advocacy of a Persian alliance
against Philip, the latter policy was dictated by
higher reasons than considerations of mere con-
sistency. Indeed, to use the help of Persia to
secure the freedom of Greece was scarcely even
inconsistent with the principle underlying the
traditional attitude of Athens, and was certainly
no treason. The assertion that Demosthenes
himself received money from the King occurs first
in a very late and not always reliable authority,
and may be false ; but even if it is true, it is a gross
exaggeration to state, as some modem historians
do, ' that from this time onwards Demosthenes was
the chief agent of Persia in Greece. His later re-
lations with Persia will be considered in their place.
It was not only by embassies that Demosthenes
prepared for the struggle. On his proposal a
definite alliance was made in the summer of 341
with Chalcis in Eubcea; and the envoys sent
to deprecate this by Cleitarchus and Philistides
failed to obtain a favourable hearing at Athens.*
' Ed. Meyer, Isokrates' zweiter Brief, p. 778.
» Dem., de Cor., § 82.
344 Demosthenes
Before July was over the Athenian general Ce-
phisophon had expelled Philistides from Oreus,
and in the following month Cephisophon was suc-
ceeded by Phocion, who besieged Eretria, drove
out Cleitarchus, and (as had been done in Oreus)
restored the democracy.^ In conjunction with
Callias of Chalcis Demosthenes now proceeded
to organise a league against Philip, and the Athen-
ians about the same time conferred the citizenship
of Athens upon Callias and his brother Tauro-
sthenes. Callias and Demosthenes went to the
Peloponnese and obtained promises of large sums
of money and considerable contingents of soldiers
from Corinth and Megara, and from the Achasans.
(The Spartans, and, as was natural, the Pelopon-
nesian States in which Philip had influence, stood
aloof.) Demosthenes also travelled to Acamania,
and received the adhesion, not only of the Acar-
nanians, but of Ambracia, Leucas, and Corcyra
as well. Callias appeared before the Assembly
in person, probably in January or February, 340,
and reported the results of his tour; and (according
to ^schines' account) spoke of further advantages
gained, which must at present be kept secret.
Demosthenes confirmed this hint, and reported
the promises which he had himself received. He
further stated that arrangements had been made
for a congress at Athens, to be held in a very
short time, on the 14th of Anthesterion (March
7th) , 340. The congress was probably held, since
' Didym., scliol. in Dem., Col. i.; Diod., XVI, Ixxiv.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 345
Plutarch^ records the reply made by Hegesippus
to the new aUies, who desired their rates of con-
tribution to be settled, that "war cannot be put
upon rations"; and although ^schines^ describes
the announcements made by Demosthenes as a
conspicuous illustration of Demosthenes' skill in
making his falsehoods detailed and circumstantial,
there is no reason to doubt that the promises were
really given; for most of the States named did in
fact give help to Athens in the campaigns of 339
and 338. Demosthenes claimed ^ that from these
sources there came, besides citizen-troops, fifteen
thousand mercenaries and two thousand cavalry.
In dealing with_the Euboeans, as afterwards
in making alliance with Thebes, Demosthenes
sought to render the friendship stable by offering
generous terms to the new allies. Instead of re-
quiring the Euboean States to contribute to the
Athenian League, he persuaded the Assembly to
permit — by a decree, ^schines says, "longer than
the Iliad'' — the formation of a separate Euboean
confederacy, and to authorise the peoples of Oreus
and Eretria to contribute their funds to Callias
instead of to the treasury of the Athenian allies.
There can be little doubt that this was a wise as
well as a generous step. It was well worth some
sacrifice to establish a united Euboea, and to
convert the island, which Philip might have made
his base of operations against Athens, into a
' Plut., Dem., xvii. * In C/es., § 99.
3 De Cor., § 237.
34^ Demosthenes
barrier against him.' ^schines, however, eleven
years later, ^ attacked Demosthenes fiercely, for
thus depriving the Athenians of the contributions
from Euboea, and rendering Euboea independent
of Athens, except for the futile provision that the
citizens of Chalcis should come to the aid of Athens
if she were attacked. He further alleged that
Demosthenes had been bribed to do this by the
gift of a talent apiece from Chalcis, Eretria, and
Oreus; and described how the people of Oreus
vainly tried to persuade Demosthenes to let them
off this payment, promising to erect a statue to
him; and how in the end they were obliged to
mortgage their public revenues to him, until the
talent was repaid with interest. In the story as
told by ^schines there are some very improbable
statements, ^ and the whole tale may be fictitious,
even though Hypereides and Deinarchus also al-
lege that Demosthenes made money out of the
negotiations with Callias; for when the morality
of Greek statesmen generally was such as it ap-
pears to have been at this period, it was a matter
of course that any statesman who gave advan-
tageous terms to another State would be accused
of having done so for a bribe. '
However this may be, Callias proved himself
' De Cor., § 301 ; cf. § 237 fl. ' In Ctes., §§ 103-105.
J Such as that Cleitarchus, the expelled tyrant of Eretria, as
well as the son of a former tyrant of Oreus, took part in the
transaction.
1 On the date of the Euboean alliance, see Reichenbacher,
Dte Gesch. der athenischen u. makedonischen Politik, pp. 30-34.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 347
an active partner; for, with ships lent to him by-
Athens, he attacked the towns on the Gulf of
Pagasae and took them all; and seizing any mer-
chant-vessels that were sailing to Macedonia, sold
those on board as slaves. The Athenians passed
a vote of thanks to him for these achievements,
which, in the spirit if not in the letter, involved
a distinct breach of the Peace of Philocrates. ^
About the same time (probably late in 341 or early
in 340) acts of direct hostility were committed.
The islanders of Peparethus (who belonged to
the Athenian alliance) seized Halonnesus and
expelled Philip's soldiers, who had occupied it
since the expulsion of the pirates; and when in
return Philip's ships made a raid upon Peparethus,
the Athenian admirals were ordered to make
reprisals.^ Besides this, a Macedonian herald
named Nicias, carrying despatches, was seized on
Macedonian territory by the Athenians, and kept
in prison for ten months ; and the despatches were
publicly read in the Assembly.^ The Athenian
forces stationed in Thasos offered a refuge to
pirate ships, despite the clause in the treaty with
Philip by which both parties bound themselves to
suppress piracy.'' At Athens itself, Demosthenes
caused the arrest of Anaxinus of Oreus, whom he
alleged to be a spy in Philip's interest, though
^ Ep. Phil., §5. It may be that technically the acts of Callias,
even when he had borrowed ships from Athens, could not con-
stitute a breach of the Peace by Athens.
'Ibid., §§12-15. i Ibid., ^2. * Ibid.
348 Demosthenes
iEschines declares that he had come to Athens to
make purchases for Philip's wife, Olympias; and,
on Demosthenes' motion, Anaxinus was tortured
and executed, despite the fact that he had once
been Demosthenes' host at Oreus^ — an unpleas-
ant incident, but very significant of the strength
of the prevalent feeling against Philip, At the
Dionysia in March, 340, on the proposal of Aris-
tonicus, Demosthenes was crowned with a wreath
of gold before the assembled People, for his services
to the city. ^
In the meanwhile Philip had not been idle in
Thrace. Before the end of 341 the whole country
was in his power; and it became plain that (as
Demosthenes had foreseen) the turn of his former
allies, Byzantium and Perinthus, must shortly
come. The Byzantines, as has already been
narrated, had now made alliance with Athens,
and when Philip called upon them to join in resist-
ing the Athenians in the Chersonese, they replied
that such action could not be required of them
under the terms of their treaty with him. ^ About
the end of July, 340, " his ships sailed up the Hel-
' Perhaps during the delay at Oreus on the Second Embassy.
Demosthenes taunts ^schines with receiving Anaxinus, as well as
the envoys of Cleitarchus and Philistides on a former occasion;
but ^schines as Consul of Oreus at Athens would be bound to do
this; see Dem.,ci«^ Cor., §§ 82, i37;^sch.,t»C/e5., §224.
' Dem., de Cor., § 83. 3 Ibid., § 8.7
< Philochorus, fr. 135; for the date see Kromayer, Antike
Schlachff elder, i., p. 178.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 349
lespont; but the Athenian commander in the
Chersonese showed such hostiHty, that PhiHp,
to protect his ships, marched his army alongside
of them through the Chersonese, while the Athen-
ian commanders invoked the assistance of the
Byzantines. (The opposition of the Athenians
to the passage of Philip's ships had been enjoined
upon them by a decree proposed in the Assembly
by Poly crates, and was thus an act of open
war. 0
Philip now laid siege to Perinthus with the aid
of all the devices that he and his engineer Poly-
eidus could contrive. The inhabitants made a
magnificent resistance, but would probably have
been forced to surrender, had not the Persian King
ordered his satraps to render them all possible
assistance. In consequence of this order, a large
body of mercenaries crossed from Asia Minor,
imder the command of the Athenian Apollodorus
and Aristomedes of Pherae.* The Byzantines also
helped the Perinthians both with men and supplies ;
and the resistance was so successful that Philip
suddenly departed, leaving only part of his forces
before the walls, and laid siege to Byzantium itself.
It was about this time (in the autumn of 340)
that there occurred the event which led to the
actual declaration of war between Athens and
Philip. The Athenian merchant fleet had collected
^Ep. Phil., § 16.
»Diod., XVI, Ixxv.; Paus., I, xxix., §7; "Reply to Philip's
Letter," § 5.
350 Demosthenes
at Hieron ^ (an island belonging to Chalcedon and
situated near the Asiatic coast, at the entry of the
Bosporus), in order that Chares might thence
escort them safely homewards with his war-ships.
But during the temporary absence of Chares at a
conference with the commanders of the Persian
force, Philip succeeded in getting possession of the
merchant-ships, to the number of 230, and not
only took from them seven hundred talents in
money and the cargoes of com and hides which he
found there, but also used the timber of the vessels
themselves for his siege- works. ^ The Athenians
appear to have sent a protest to Philip, and in reply
he despatched a letter (of which the substance is
probably contained in the ' 'Letter of Philip" includ-
ed among the orations of Demosthenes) enumerat-
ing the acts of hostility which the Athenians had
committed against him since 346, denoimcing the
orators of the war-party, and declaring his inten-
tion of retaliating.^ In reply, on the advice of
Demosthenes (though possibly the formal motion
was not moved by him) '', it was resolved to remove
the column on which the treaty of peace and
' Its name was due to its containing a temple of Zeus Ourios
See Arrian, Peripl., §§ 12, 25; Boeckh. on C. I. G., ii., 3797;
WeilonDem. in Lept., § 36.
' Didymus, schol. in Dem., Col., x., xi. (quoting Philochorus).
The sum of seven hundred talents seems enormous; and it may at
least be questioned whether the numeral is not corrupt. See
Note 7.
3 See Foucart, Les Atheniens dans la Chersonhe, p. 38.
4 Dem., de Cor., § 76; comp. Didymus, I.e., and ^sch.,tn Ctes.,
§55.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 35 1
alliance with Philip was engraved, to man a fresh
fleet, and to carry on the war by all possible means. ^
In order to facilitate the execution of this deter-
mination, Demosthenes propounded a reform of
the trierarchic system, somewhat different in
detail from that which he had put forward in 354,
but with the same object — that of preventing the
rich from evading their responsibilities. Whereas
imder the existing system rich men had contributed
only a fraction of the cost of a single trireme, con-
tributions were now to be graduated in strict pro-
portion to property; and so "a man came to be
charged with two warships, who had previously
been one of sixteen subscribers to a single one."''
It is for this strict apportionment of liability to
property that Demosthenes afterwards claimed
special credit. The wealthier citizens vainly at-
tempted, he tells us, to divert him from his pur-
pose by the offer of huge bribes, and to hinder
the passage of the law by prosecuting him for its
alleged illegality; the prosecutor did not obtain a
fifth part of the votes of the jury, and so himself
incurred a fine, -^schines of course opposed the
law vigorously, but it was carried, and so success-
ful was its operation that throughout the war with
Philip not a complaint was raised against it ; there
were no cases of default; the work of equipment
was properly done; and no ship was left at home
as unsea worthy, or abandoned at sea.^ Demos-
^ Philochorus, ap. Dion. Hal., ad Amm., i., x.
=" Dem., de Cor., § 104. 3 Ibid., §§ 102-109.
352 Demosthenes
thenes himself was appointed overseer of the fleet, ^
and thus himself supervised the execution of his
law. At some time or other after the passage of
the law, modifications appear to have been intro-
duced into it, probably in consequence of a renewed
attack by ^schines; but there can be little doubt
that, for the time, Demosthenes had his own
way.^
Philip had doubtless expected to surprise Byzan-
tium while its defenders were assisting the Perin-
thians. In this he failed; but he laid siege to the
city with vigour, and did not relax his efforts
throughout the winter. The Athenians ordered
Chares, with forty ships, to attempt to relieve
the beleaguered city; but the inhabitants mis-
trusted him (perhaps with good reason) and would
not admit him to the city. ^ At first the Athenians
were inclined to resent this; but Phocion declared
that the fault lay more with the general than with
the Byzantines; and he was thereupon himself
sent out (with Cephisophon) in place of Chares,
late in 340 or early in 339.'' Demosthenes and
Hypereides were among those who voltmtarily
furnished ships for the war. ^ Phocion was warmly
welcomed by the besieged, and conducted the
defence of the city in conjunction with Leon, a
Byzantine who had been his friend when both
were pupils of Plato in the Academy. His ships
' This was probably an extraordinary office, created for the
occasion. » Note 8. J Note 9. < C. /. A., ii., 809.
s C. I. A., ii., 808, 809; Vii. X Oral., 848f, 851a.
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 353
also protected the Athenian com-convoy.^ The
peoples of Perinthus and Byzantium passed reso-
lutions of gratitude to Athens in glowing terms,
and sent crowns to her, as did also the colonists
in the Chersonese; and Demosthenes afterwards
claimed to be the only statesman for whose deserts
the city had received a crown. ^ The Byzantines
were also assisted by ships from Chios, Rhodes,
and Cos — once their allies against Athens, and
now (perhaps owing to anxiety for the safety of
their own commerce) allies of Athens itself once
more; a Persian force crossed once more from Asia
to help them 3; and in spite of persistent attacks,
Philip could not take the town. At last, after a
well-planned attempt on a moonlight night, which
might have succeeded had not the defenders been
roused by the barking of dogs, he resolved to depart
(early in the spring of 339). "* By concocting a
carefully devised letter to Antipater, and contriv-
ing that it should fall into the hands of the Athen-
ian commanders, he caused the latter to leave the
passage of the Bosporus open, and so got his ships
away from the Black Sea, where they appear to
have been confined. ^ On his way he perhaps
plundered the Athenian colonies in the Chersonese,
and apparently his fleet passed through the Hel-
lespont without difficulty, probably because, as
' Dem., de Cor., § 89. » 7Ji<f., § 90 ff.
J Arrian, Anab., II, xiv., § 5.
< For the date, see Kromayer, Antike Schlachff elder, pp. 181,
184. 5 Front., I, iv., § 13.
33
354 Demosthenes
before, he kept the colonists employed on shore;
but Phocion afterwards overtook some of his ships,
and recovered some of the Thracian coast towns
which Philip had taken, making descents upon
various points until he was wounded and forced
to return home.^
Philip now took his army off upon a distant
expedition against the warlike Scythian King
Ateas, who had insulted him in the previous year. *
From this raid, which took him as far as the
Danube, he carried off a vast number of captives,
as well as horses, flocks, and herds ^ ; and his success
no doubt refreshed the spirits of his men. But on
his way homewards, he passed through the country
of the Triballi, a fierce tribe living on Motmt
Hasmus, and in a sudden attack by the tribesmen
he not only lost the booty taken from the Scythians
but was himself severely wounded in the thigh.'*
He succeeded, however, in fighting his way through
into Macedonia, where he must have arrived in
the spring of 339.
Up to this point the result of the struggle had
been favourable to Athens, and Philip's failure to
take Byzantium, and his subsequent misfortunes,
must have given great encouragement to the
Athenians. But some months before Philip's
* Justin, IX, [i.; Syncellus III, 692; Plut., Phoc, xiv. See
Note 10.
» For anecdotes about this King, see Schafer, ii., p. 519.
3 Justin, IX, ii.; Strabo, p. 307; ^sch., in Ctes., § 128.
4 Justin, IX, iii.; Didym., schol. in Dent., Col. 13.
I
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 355
return to Macedonia there had been sown the
seeds of new troubles for Athens, and new oppor-
tunities for PhiHp. The nature of these, and the
issue of the struggle, will be the subject of the next
chapter.
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX
1. On the difficulty in the evidence as to the Thessalian
tetrarchies (Dem., Phil. II, § 22, de Chers., § 26, and Harpocr.,
s. V. SexaSapxia) see the note in my translation of Demosthenes'
Public Orations, vol. ii., pp. 166, 167. It is disputed whether the
tetrarchies were actually created in 344, or whether Philip at first
established a decadarchy or Council of Ten, and replaced it by
tetrarchies in 343. But I am now inclined to think that the
decadarchy is a myth, and that there was only one constitutional
change.
2. It is not certain whether Artaxerxes had or had not yet
effected the reconquest of Egypt at the time of this mission to
Athens in 343. See Meyer, Isokr. zweiter Brief, p. 777 ; Kahrstedt,
Forschungen, pp. 15 flf.,and Klio, vol. x., p. 508; Lehmann-Haupt
in Klio, vol. x., pp. 391 fif., and in Gercke and Norden's Einleit-
ung in die Alteriumswissenschaft, in., pp. 61, 119; and Cavaignac,
Hist, de VAntiquite, p. 401. Kahrstedt gives strong reasons for
thinking that Egypt was not subdued until the following winter —
that of 343-2. The King may have wanted the Greek States to
give him help against Egypt, or at least to facilitate his obtaining
Greek soldiers as mercenaries. But he probably had Philip also
in his mind. Some think that he first tried to negotiate with
Philip himself and obtained a nominal and short-lived alliance;
but the passage of Arrian, II, xiv., on which this conjecture is
based, probably refers to an earlier period. See above. Chap.
VI., p. 191.
3. Comp. Phil. Ill, § 71, where Demosthenes recommends an
embassy to the King (in 341 ). The proposal is still more strongly
argued in Phil. IV, §§ 31-34, where the writer urges that the
fact that the King had seized Philip's confidant Hermeias proved
his interest in the war with Philip, and protests against the appli-
cation of the names "barbarian" and "public enemy" to the
35^ Demosthenes
Great King. Whether the Fourth Philippic was issued by Dem-
osthenes as a pamphlet in the early summer of 341 (as Korte,
Rhein. Mus., Ix., p. 3, believes), or was compiled from Demosthenic
material by Anaximenes for insertion in his history (as Nitsche
and Wendland think), it was certainly the work of some one
intimately acquainted with the events and position of afifairsinthe
early part of 341 (just after Phil. III.), and can safely be used as
an authority.
4. Plutarch himself doubts whether the trial really took
place, and whether the speeches were ever delivered, on the in-
adequate ground that neither orator distinctly refers to the trial
in his speech at the trial of Ctesiphon in 330. Why should they?
It was not an occasion of which either could be proud; it was a
defeat for one, and a very narrow escape for the other, and
yEschines, the victor in the contest, had least reason of all to
mention it, since he desired his connection with the Peace to be
forgotten. The expression used by Dion. Hal. (ad Amm., i.,
10) when he says that Demosthenes " composed " this speech,
while in other cases he used words distinctly implying deliv-
ery, may be purely accidental. That there were some dif-
ferences between the spoken and the published speech of
Demosthenes is certain, and some of the replies to "anticipated
objections" of the adversary were probably not written until
after the trial.
5. Beloch believes that an alliance against Philip was made in
343-2; but the arguments urged against this view by Reichen-
bacher, Die Geschichte der athenischen u. makedonischen Politik,
pp. 30, 31, are very strong.
6. The Letter of Philip, included among the works of Demos-
thenes, is probably extracted from the History of Anaximenes
{see'WenAla.ndtAnaxiinenesvonLampsakos,^. 13); but there is no
reason to doubt that itaccurately represents Philip's point of view,
though it cannot be assumed that all the arguments contained in
it were embodied in one letter; and it seems safe to use it as an
authority. The so-called "Reply to Philip's Letter" is mainly a
compilation of passages from works of Demosthenes, probably
derived from the same source; but there is no reason to regard it
as unreliable as to facts.
7. There is great difiBculty as to the ships taken by Philip.
The account given in the text is taken from the Scholia of Didymus;
Nominal Peace and Renewal of War 357
comp. Dem., de Cor., §§ 73 and 139. A quite diflFerent account
is given in the two decrees and the letter of Philip quoted in Dem.,
de Cor., §§ T2>~n- According to these, twenty Athenian ships,
sent under Leodamas to the Hellespont as an escort for corn-ships
sailing from the Hellespont to Lemnos, were seized by Philip's
admiral Amyntas, and detained, in the belief that they were
really going to help Selymbria, which was being besieged by
Philip; but upon the representations of envoys sent from Athens,
they were restored. The same story is cited (evidently from the
documents in the de Cor., I.e.) by the scholiast on the "Reply to
Philip's Letter. " But (i ) there is nowhere else any reference to a
siege of Selymbria by Philip (Nitsche, Demosthenes und Anaxi-
menes, pp. 82 ff., is not at all convincing); and (2) the documents
quoted in the text of the de Cor. are certainly spurious (see
Goodwin's edition, App. VIII.). They do not even go to prove the
point which Demosthenes wishes to prove; for the capture of
ships immediately afterwards restored can hardly have been the
cause of war; and there are sundry mistakes in them. We are
therefore probably justified in rejecting the whole story, as Grote
does. But if Selymbria really was attacked by Philip, it was
doubtless on his way from Perinthus to Byzantium; and if the
seizure of Leodamas' ships really took place, it may have been
neglected by the Greek historians through a confusion of it with
the later seizure of the 230 ships at Hieron.
8. We do not know to what .(Eschines refers {in Ctes., § 222),
when he says that he "convicted Demosthenes of stealing from
the State the trierarchs of sixty-five swift ships"; but the refer-
ence is doubtless to his criticism of some detail of the scheme. It
is probable that the criticisms of others led Demosthenes after-
wards to modify the details; and Deinarchus states, as a mat-
ter of course, that he did so for money (Dein., in Dem., § 42).
Demosthenes (de Cor., § 312) speaks of a damaging attack upon
his law by ^schines, acting as the hireling of the wealthy mem-
bers of the Naval Boards. We do not know when this took place ;
but it was probably some time after the law had come into work-
ing; since we gather from ^schines, I.e., that the attack was based
on the effects of the law.
9. Plutarch (Phoc., xiv.) says that Chares was obliged to
wander about, getting money from allied cities and despised by
the enemy. It is, however, possible that the real reason for his
358 Demosthenes
withdrawal was the death of his wife, and there is some evidence
that he contrived to operate effectively against Philip at sea.
See Schafer, ii., pp. 508, 509, and references there given.
ID. Some writers believe (on the evidence of a statement in
Diod., XVI, Ixxvii., which in any case is far too sweeping) that
Philip now made peace with the Byzantines and their Greek
allies, with the exception of Athens; but the evidence is not suffi-
cient to show whether any arrangement was really made. See
Grote, pt. ii., ch. 90.
I
CHAPTER X
CELERONEIA
WE must now go back a few months, to the
meeting of the Amphictyonic Council
which took place in October or November, 340.^
At this meeting, the representatives of the Locrians
of Amphissa, who in the Sacred War against the
Phocians had been on the same side as the Thebans
and Philip, proposed that a fine of fifty talents
should be inflicted upon Athens, because the
Athenians had hung in a new chapel or "treasury"
in the precincts of Apollo at Delphi certain shields
which they had taken in the Persian wars, without
waiting for the dedication of the chapel, and in
regilding the shields had inscribed upon them the
words, "The spoil of the Athenians, taken from
the Persians and the Thebans, when they fought
against the Greeks." (The words had doubtless
been inscribed upon them originally, but they
may have become obscure through age.)
The Athenian " Hieromnemon ' ' or representative
on the Council was Diognetus; while the official
delegates, or Pylagori, sent by Athens were ^sch-
' Note I at the end of the Chapter.
359
36o Demosthenes
ines, Meidias, and Thrasycles. ^ When the Locrian
representative had spoken, Diognetus sent for ^s-
chines, and asked him to reply on behalf of Athens.
But when he had entered the Council-meeting and
was beginning to speak, one of the Locrians present
— an ill-mannered fellow, ^schines declared, and
perhaps prompted by some evil power — roseand told
the meeting that they ought not to have allowed the
name of the Athenians to be mentioned during that
holy season, but should have excluded them from
the temple as accursed, on account of their al-
liance with the sacrilegious Phocians. ^schines
tells us that at this he became more angry than
he had ever been in his life, and retaliated upon
the Amphisseans by denouncing their impiety in
cultivating the plain of Cirrha, which had been
devoted to Apollo for ever in the time of Solon,
and in making money out of the sacred harbour.
Pointing to the plain, which lay spread out below
them, and recalling its history, he declared that he
himself and the People of Athens were ready to
defend the consecrated land "with hand and foot
and voice," and by every possible means.
And so [he continued], do you take counsel for
yourselves. The sacrifices stand ready to be offered,
and you are about to ask the gods for their blessing
upon yourselves and your country. With what words,
with what conscience, with what faces, with what
' Note 2. We have only Demosthenes' word for the statement
that ^schines was elected by the Assembly when hardly any one
was present.
Cheer oneia 361
confidence, can you dare to make your supplications,
if you have left this accursed people unpunished? In
plain and unambiguous words the curse stands in-
scribed against those who have committed such mis-
deeds, and those who have condoned them; and in it
is the prayer that those who have not come to the
help of Apollo and the other gods of Delphi may not
sacrifice aright, and that the gods may not receive
their offerings.
Such was the impression made by the fiery
eloquence of ^schines upon men who (as Demos-
thenes says') were imused to oratory, that their
anger was now turned against the Amphisseans;
and the Council bade their herald summon the
whole adult population of Delphi to meet the
Council and the delegates at day-break with pick-
axes and spades, on pain of falling under a curse.
The crowd thus collected descended next morning
to Cirrha, destroyed the harbour, and set fire to
some of the houses. But the people of Amphissa,
hearing what had been done, came down in force
from their own town, attacked the Delphians, and
did some violence to the sacred persons of the
Amphictyonic Councillors, who with difficulty
made their way back to Delphi. Next morning
the president of the Council, Cottyphus of Phar-
salus, convoked an assembly of all the worshippers
of the god who were present in Delphi. The con-
' No doubt truly; for they were mostly representative of the
northern Greek tribes, who were not nearly so civilised as the
Athenians.
362 Demosthenes
duct of the Amphisseans was censured in strong
terms ; and it was resolved that the Council should
hold an extraordinary meeting at Thermopylae,
before their next regular meeting, and shoiild pre-
pare a decree inflicting proper punishment upon
the Amphisseans for their impiety in encroaching
on the sacred ground, and doing violence to the
Amphictyons.
When ^schines made his report at Athens, the
Assembly at first strongly commended his action,
though Demosthenes declared that it must lead to
an Amphictyonic war against Athens — a. prophecy
which many supposed to have been prompted
merely by personal ill-will against ^schines.^ When
however the decision came to be taken whether the
Athenian representatives should attend the special
meeting which had been ordered, Demosthenes,
having first persuaded the Council, carried a reso-
lution in the Assembly forbidding them to do so.
(iEschines alleged that this was only done by a
snatch-vote taken in his own absence.) The ex-
traordinary meeting took place early in 339,^
when Philip was far ojff in Scj'-thia. No repre-
sentatives of Athens or Thebes were present.
War was declared by the Amphictyonic Council
against the Amphisseans, and Cottyphus was ap-
pointed to command the Amphictyonic troops.
* The prophecy was fulfilled, not indeed immediately or
literally (for ^schines had in fact averted this), but in all prac-
tical effect, a few months afterwards.
' Probably in January or early in February. See Note 3.
ChcBToneia 363
At this point there is a discrepancy between
our two authorities, -^schines states that, as the
result of the first campaign, the Locrians were or-
dered to pay a fine by a specified date, to banish
those who were responsible for their impious acts,
and to recall those who had opposed them. Dem-
osthenes, on the other hand, says that Cottyphus
could only obtain troops from the Amphictyonic
powers, and these (in the absence of support from
Athens, Thebes, Sparta, and Philip) were ineffec-
tive ; some did not even answer his summons, and
the campaign was a failure. Whether on this ac-
count, or on account of the failure of the Locrians
to pay the fine and carry out the other require-
ments of the Amphictyons, the question of the
conduct of the war was reconsidered at the regular
meeting of the Council in May or June, at which
Cottyphus declared that unless the Amphictyonic
peoples would take the field, and contribute suffi-
cient funds, and fine those who would not serve,
the only chance of success was to appoint Philip
their general. The Councillors (mostly represen-
tatives of tribes which were in alliance with Philip)
took the easier coiu-se, and elected Philip. His
wound had healed ; he accepted the invitation, and
marched southward.
Such was the course of the events which led to
a struggle more momentous, perhaps, than any
since the Persian wars. What was the meaning
of them? Demosthenes asserts that ^schines
364 Demosthenes
had been bribed by Philip to attack the Amphis-
seans, and so create a situation in which Philip
could again intervene. He denies that the Amph-
isseans had made any complaint against Athens,
since they could not have done so without giv-
ing the Athenians formal notice, and such notice
had never been given. But an argument based
upon such a technicality is inconclusive. The
speech of the Locrian representative may not have
been in order, and may yet have provoked a reply ;
or it may rather have been a notice of motion than
a formal motion, ^schines cannot at least be
denied the excuse of having acted under provoca-
tion. But was his action in itself justifiable?
This too it is difficvdt to deny; it seems extremely
likely that he really prevented the declaration of
an Amphictyonic war against Athens; there is
not the least evidence that his action was prompted
by Philip; and he probably acted in good faith,
when confronted by a critical situation.
What then was the explanation of Demosthenes
action? ^schines asserts that Demosthenes was
in the pay of the Locrians of Amphissa, and had
not only been bribed by them, when he was
Pylagorus in 343, to say nothing of their impious
acts to the Amphictyonic Council, but was actually
receiving twenty minae a year from them, on the
understanding that he would forward their inter-
ests at Athens in every way. But it is possible
to place a more honourable construction upon his
action. The attack upon Athens in the Amphic-
Chceroneia 365
tyonic Council had been made by the Amphisseans
as friends of the Thebans, whose feelings had been
hurt (probably through pure thoughtlessness) by
the restoration of an inscription which might more
happily have been suffered to remain obsolete,
and the revival thereby of the record of an old
stain upon their history, — their abandonment of
the Hellenic cause at the time of the Persian
invasion of 480. Demosthenes saw that, if Athens
was to. hold out against Philip, she must not quarrel
with Thebes, and therefore must not join in action
against the Amphisseans. He must alsD"'fiaye
Imown that the Thebans were growing discon-
tented with their condition as allies of Philip, as
they came to realise that they could only occupy
a position of secondary importance. Indeed they
had committed at least one definitely unfriendly
act against Philip: for while he was in Scythia,
they had expelled the Macedonian garrison which
he had placed in Nicaea, and had occupied the
place themselves'; his garrisoning of their colony
at Echinus had probably offended them; and it
could hardly please them that those Peloponnesian
peoples who had once relied upon them now looked
to him as their protector. The feelings of the
Thebans would naturally have been made known
to Demosthenes by visitors from that city, since
he was Proxenus or Consul of Thebes in Athens.
Further, though it was true that ^^schines had
diverted the immediate attention of the Amphic-
' Philochorus, ap. Didym., schol. in Dent., Col., xi.
/
/
366 Demosthenes
tyons from Athens to the Amphisseans, it was
also true, as Demosthenes declared, that to rouse
the Amphictyons, and particularly to rouse them
against the Amphisseans, who had been Philip's
allies, was an action not unlikely to give Philip an
opening for intervention, and to render it probable
that Athens would suffer as much as Amphissa.
Demosthenes was convinced that Philip was bound
to take some action against Athens before long;
for although after Phocion's retirement the
Athenian admirals seem to have carried on hostili-
\ ties against Philip with poor success, the trade of
' the Macedonian ports suffered greatly from the
raids made by Athenian ships, ^ and he was certain
to desire to retrieve his reputation after his failure
/ before Perinthus and Byzantium. And so it was
even more necessary than before to preserve the
good-will of the Thebans, whose feelings and in-
terests were now being brought by the force of
circumstances into harmony with those of the
Athenians.
From this point of view, Demosthenes' refusal
to coimtenance the attack of the Amphictyons
\ . upon the Amphisseans, the friends of Thebes, was
.^ wise and far-sighted, and the event fully justified
it. But pubHc opinion at Athens was still too
ill-disposed towards Thebes to allow Demosthenes
to give to the Assembly, as the real reason for his
policy, his desire to make friendship with the
' Dem,, de Cor., §§ 145, 146.
Chceroneia 367
Thebans: and hence he doubtless used other
arguments. ^
Some writers indeed have reproached Demos-
thenes for not allowing Athens to join in the war
against Amphissa, in the belief that the appeal to
Philip would have been rendered unnecessary if /
the Athenians had taken part in the war with
vigour. But the struggle with Philip was bound' 7
to come soon ; and it was not a time to alienate f
the most powerful ally whom Demosthenes hoped
to gain, on the chance of postponing the struggle V)
for a little. Others have said that, by following V''
Demosthenes' poHcy, Athens lost her chance of K
joining in a great national enterprise, first in vin- /-
dication of the national god of Delphi, and then /
in a campaign with Philip against Persia, crushing ,'
Thebes if necessary on the way. But — leaving ;
aside the question whether Philip's aims were 1
national and Hellenic, or whether he was not ;
primarily interested in the enlargement of the \
Macedonian Empire — was a "national" enter- \
prise, in which Athens would probably have to
take the second place, reconcilable with the Athen-
ian ideal, as Demosthenes interpreted it, and as
it was probably viewed by his fellow-countrymen?
Was it to be expected that any alliance between
an absolute monarch and the democracy of Athens
would be secure? And how were the People to be
* iEschines probably shared the popular animosity against
Thebes, much as he afterwards lamented her overthrow by
Alexander.
368 Demosthenes
led to make an alliance which could only appear
to them a surrender of the brilliant prospect of
success opened up by the history of the last year?
It seems then that Demosthenes -took Uie-one
path^which was consistent both with prudence
and with the national honpur, as the^thenians_
generally conceived it.
To the question whether the original complaint
of the Amphisseans against Athens had been
prompted by Philip, in the hope of stirring up an
Amphictyonic war against Athens, no answer can
be given. (If it was so, ^Eschines accidentally
traversed Philip's purpose.) It is not inconceiv-
able that it was so, for Philip must have known,
^ as well as Demosthenes, that a final struggle with
Athens had to come, end that owing to the defeat
of the Macedonian party in Athens by Demosthe-
nes, the issue could not be decided by treachery
or by diplomacy, but only by arms, and an Amphic^
tyonic war would be a highly convenient method
of action. There is however no evidence which can
be brought to bear on the question. That Cotty-
phus was acting deliberately in Philip's interest is
stated by Demosthenes and others, ^ and is the more
likely, perhaps, because his native town, Pharsalus,
had greatly benefited by Philip's favours.
Philip, with an army composed of Macedonian
and Thessalian troops, marched southward, without
delay, taking, probably, the direct road from
Lamia to Cytinium in Doris, and avoiding Ther-
' E. g., Schol. on de Cor., § 151.
THE STATUE OF DEMOSTHENES IN THE VATICAN
PHOTO BY ALINARI
r^
/ ;--
o- ^ '
u. °
Chceroneia 369
mopylae. He first occupied Cytinium, which
commanded the road over the mountains (by the
Pass of Gravia) to Amphissa, the nominal goal
of his march; but instead of proceeding directly
to Amphissa, he diverged into the high-road which
led into the Phocian plain, and thence to Thebes
and Athens, and (early in September, 339) seized
Elateia, which commanded the road at a point
only a few miles north of the Boeotian frontier.
It is highly probable that he also secured the less
important routes over the mountains from Therm-
opylae into the plain, which they enter near the
modem villages of Demitsa and Turkochori.
With regard to the force in Nicsea at this moment
there is some doubt; probably it was still in the
hands of the Thebans, who had seized it in the
previous year, but soon after his occupation of
Elateia Philip requested them to hand it over to
the Locrians in whose district it stood ^; and it is
possible that he had previously been making
friends with this branch of the Locrian stock, on
finding that the Thebans were becoming disaffected
towards him.^ However that may be, by forti-
fying Elateia he placed himself in a very strong
position : the main roads in his rear were absolutely
secure, and the position also had other advantages.
' Didym., schol., Col. xi.
' So Glotz argues {Bull. Corr. Hell., 1909, pp. 526 ff.). But the
evidence which Glotz offers in support of his conjecture that
Philip had also been entering into friendship with the Phocians
and that he occupied Elateia as the friend of the Phocians, in
whose territory it lay, is far from conclusive.
24
370 Demosthenes
It may be taken as certain that the occupation of
Elateia was primarily intended by himself as a
menace to Thebes, and a warning to her to renew
her rapidly vanishing friendship towards himself;
and it was convenient to convey this without ac-
tually entering Boeotian territory, for that would
have thrown Thebes into the arms of Athens. It
seems equally certain that Philip intended now
to make an end, once for all, of the opposition to
himself in Greece. But, as usual, he wished to
have some plausible ground for his action. The
pretext for his presence in Greece was the commis-
sion given him by the Amphictyons to destroy
Amphissa; but had he executed this commission
at once, the pretext would have disappeared; his
ostensible purpose would have been fulfilled, and
he would have had no specious excuse for remain-
ing in Greece. Besides this, the Phocian plain
doubtless offered his army a better supply of food
than the mountains between Cytinium and Am-
phissa could have afforded. For all these reasons,
he occupied Elateia.
The Athenians were at first paralysed by the
news,' for not having realised (as Demosthenes
had) the growing estrangement between Philip
and the Thebans, they assumed that he had come
to join forces with the Thebans, and to march
with them upon Attica. A very famous passage
of the Speech on the Crown ^ describes the effect
of the news.
^DeCor., §§ legfiE.
ChcBroneia 37 1
It was evening, and one had come to the Prytanes '
with the news that Elateia had been taken. Upon
this they rose up from supper without delay; some of
them drove the occupants out of the booths in the
market-place and set fire to the wickerwork,^ others
sent for the generals and summoned the trumpeter,
and the city was full of commotion. On the morrow,
at break of day, the Prytanes summoned the Council
to the Council Chamber, while you made your way to
the Assembly, and before the Council had transacted
its business and passed its draft-resolution, the whole
People was seated on the hillside. ^ And now, when
the Council had arrived, and the Prytanes had re-
ported the intelligence which they had received, and
had brought forward the messenger, and he had made
his statement, the herald proceeded to ask, "Who
wishes to speak?" But no one came forward; and
though the herald repeated the question many times,
still no one rose, though all the generals were present,
and all the orators, and the voice of their country was
calling for some one to speak for her deliverance.
For the voice of the herald, uttered in accordance
with the laws, is rightly to be regarded as the common
voice of our country. And yet, if it was for those to
come forward who wished for the deliverance of the
city, all of you and all the other Athenians would have
risen, and proceeded to the platform ; for I am certain
that you all wished for her deliverance. If it was for
the wealthiest, the Three Hundred would have risen,
and if it was for those who had both these qualifica-
' The acting committee of the Council.
' Probably a bonfire was a method of summons to an extra-
ordinary meeting of the Assembly. J I.e., on the Pnyx.
3/2 Demosthenes
tions — loyalty to the city and wealth — then those
would have risen who subsequently made those large
donations ; for it was loyalty and wealth that led them
so to do. But that crisis and that day called, it seems,
not merely for a man of loyalty and wealth, but for
one who had also followed the course of events closely
from the first, and had come to a true conclusion as to
the motive and the aim with which Philip was acting
as he was. The man who was needed was found that
day in me.
Demosthenes then describes how he dispelled the
belief that Philip had a satisfactory understanding
with the Thebans, and that it was therefore too
late to prevent him from marching, with them,
into Attica. Had this been so, they would have
heard of his being, not at Elateia, but on the bor-
ders of Attica. It was because the attitude of the
Thebans was still uncertain that he had occupied
Elateia, in the hope of encouraging his friends in
Thebes, and intimidating his opponents, and so
compelling them to join him, whether they would or
no. This, Demosthenes declared, there was still
time to prevent, if the Athenians would forget their
grudges against the Thebans, and offer them an al-
liance on generous terms. At the same time they
must show that they were in earnest, by immedi-
ately arming all the citizen-troops and cavalry, and
ordering them to march to Eleusis (the first halting
place on the most convenient road to Boeotia) ;
and they must give the envoys to be sent to
Thebes, with the generals, full power to decide the
Cheer oneia 373
steps to be taken next. His eloquence carried the
Assembly with it : the levy of troops was ordered,
and he himself, with others, was immediately
despatched to Thebes. "This," he says, "was
the first step towards our new relations with
Thebes: the danger had seemed likely to descend
upon the city like a torrent in winter"'; but "this
decree caused the peril that encompassed the city
to pass away like a cloud." ^
On his arrival at Thebes, Demosthenes found
envoys from Philip and the Thessalians already
there. ^ Philip was represented by Amyntas and
Clearchus, his allies by Thrasydsus and Daochus. ■♦
Though the Thebans had been the friends and
allies of the Amphisseans, against whom he was
ostensibly marching, Philip was prepared to treat
them as neutrals, if they would either join him
in marching into Attica, or would even allow him
and his army an unopposed passage through
Boeotia. The Theban Assembly first heard the
envoys of Philip and his allies, who recalled all
the deeds which the Athenians had ever done
against Thebes, and held out the prospect of the
enrichment of the Thebans with Attic plunder,
or, if they refused Philip's overtures, of the pltm-
der of Boeotia itself by his forces. ^ Demosthenes
' Ke Cor., § 153. 'Ibid., ^188. ilbid., ^211.
^Diodorus states that Python was one of Philip's envoys, but
the quotation which he gives from de Cor., § 136, refers to another
occasion. sDem., de Cor., §§ 213, 214.
374 Demosthenes
does not record his own reply in full: but there can
be little doubt that he urged that if the Thebans
joined Philip, the only result would be that Philip
would be enabled to subdue Athens and Thebes
separately, whereas the two cities, if united, might
hope to defeat his arms entirely; he doubtless
appealed with his matchless eloquence to the sense
of Hellenic patriotism, and the terms which he
offered were extraordinarily generous, in view of
the previous relations between the two States.
Thebes was to be recognised as mistress of Boeotia,
and the Athenians undertook to assist her against
any city that refused obedience to her; the com-
mand of the forces at sea was to be shared; the
Thebans were to command on land, and the
Athenians were to pay two thirds of the cost of
the campaign.
At a later day ^schines bitterly attacked
Demosthenes for offering terms so favourable to
Thebes, and (as he declared) so humiliating to
Athens. Nor can it be denied that to abandon
the cause of Thespiae and Platsae, the independence
of which she had always championed, was to
abandon a very noble element in the traditional
policy of Athens; and it must also have touched
her pride to give up Oropus. But as regards the
division of the expenditure, it must be remembered
that, in consequence of her situation, Thebes
would have to defray the greater part of the cost of
maintaining the troops quartered in her territory ;
and, in the position in which the Athenians were
Cheer oneia 375
placed, it would have been madness to quarrel
over the precise apportionment of responsibility
and privilege between the two parties in the alli-
ance. There is no doubt that Demosthenes acted
boldly, for a member of a democracy, in offering
such terms on his own authority; but the stake
was worth the cost to Athens and the risk to
himself. There is no more characteristic passage
in his speeches than his defence against ^schines'
strictures upon this agreement with Thebes. ^
If you refer, ^schines [he says], to what was fair
as between ourselves and the Thebans or the Byzan-
tines or the Euboeans — if at this time you talk to us
of equal shares — you must be ignorant, in the first
place, of the fact that in former days also, out of those
ships of war, three hundred in all, which fought for the
Hellenes, Athens provided two hundred, and did not
think herself unfairly used, or let herself be seen
arraigning those who had counselled her action, or
taking offence at the arrangement. It would have
been shameful. No ! men saw her rendering thanks to
Heaven, because when a common peril beset the
Hellenes, she had provided double as much as all the
rest to secure the deliverance of all. Moreover, it is
but a hollow benefit that you are conferring upon your
countrymen by your dishonest charges against me.
Why do you tell them now, what course they ought
to have taken? Why did you not propose such a
course at the time (for you were in Athens and were
present) if it was possible in the midst of those critical
^DeCor., §§238ff.
376 Demosthenes
times, when we had to accept, not what we chose, but
what circumstances allowed?
What, he asks, would his opponents have said,
if he had haggled over the terms, and the Thebans
had joined Philip?
The Thebans and Athenians, in pursuance of
Demosthenes' proposals, now sent urgent em-
bassies to the other Greek States in the hope of
winning their support, while Philip himself, fully
realising the gravity of the crisis, wrote to his own
allies in the Peloponnese (who had for the most
part been hitherto on friendly terms with Thebes),
representing himself simply as the champion of the
Amphictyons against Amphissa, and (if Demos-
thenes' account is to be trusted) dissimulating his
further intentions.^ The Arcadians, in spite of
their alliance with Philip, determined to remain
neutral. The Messenians and the people of Elis
followed their example. The Spartans, though
hostile to Philip, adhered to the policy which they
had followed for some years, of eschewing all
entanglement in foreign affairs. Those who sup-
ported the Athenian and Theban cause were the
Euboeans, Achaeans, Megareans, and Acarnanians,
and the inhabitants of Corcyra and Leucas.
Those politicians in Athens who were opposed to
war attempted to find support in the evil omens
which were reported shortly after Demosthenes*
decree had been carried and acted upon. The
^ Ibid., §§ 156, 218,222.
Chceroneia S77
Delphic oracle prophesied calamity, and old orac-
ular sayings were quoted to the same effect. '
At Thebes, statues were said to have dripped with
blood.' Worse still, on September 21st, when the
candidates for initiation in to the Eleusinian mys-
teries went down to the sea to purify themselves,
some of them were killed by a shark. ^ But when
it was proposed to consult the oracle once more,
Demosthenes declared that the priestess of Delphi
had "philippized," as she had "medized," or taken
the Persian side, in the Persian wars, and he
reminded both Athenians and Thebans how the
greatest statesmen of each city, Pericles and
Epameinondas, had scorned such pretexts for
cowardice as were now put forward. '' Nor would
he permit the march of the troops from Athens to
be delayed by unfavourable omens at the sacrifices
offered on their behalf; and for the time, both in
Athens and in Thebes, his word was law.
The measures which Demosthenes proposed
could not be carried through without; funds. To
provide these, Demosthenes urged once more,
and this time with success, that the surplus re-
venues which had been spent on festivals should be
applied to military purposes. ^ He also carried a
resolution suspending for the time the work of
repairing the docks and the arsenal, and so set
' Plut., Dem., xix., xxi. * Schol., Apoll., Arg., iv., 1284.
J ^sch., in Ctes., § 130, and schol.
■• ^sch.; I.e.; Plut., Dem., xx.
s Philochorus, ap. Dion. Hal., ad Amm., I, xi. See Note 4.
378 Demosthenes
free a considerable sum. It is in this same year
that we hear first of the "treasurer of the military
fund," and it is highly probable that the office was
now constituted for the first time. The office was
held by Callias, the nephew of Lycurgus ; and Ly-
curgus himself, an able and courageous financier,
and an ardent supporter of Demosthenes, became
a member of the Theoric Commission in 338, and
for the next twelve years, either in virtue of his
own official position, or through his friends in office,
controlled the financial administration of Athens. ^
At the earliest possible moment^ the Athenian
forces joined those of Thebes, and received, on
their arrival at that city, a warm and friendly
welcome. ^ Freely received into the houses of the
Thebans, they in no way abused their privileges,
and the official friendship between the two States
was doubtless confirmed by the personal good
feelings thus generated. The allied forces now
fortified the passes'* through which Philip's route
into Boeotia would necessarily lie. The most im-
portant of these was the Pass of Parapotamii,
through which the Cephissus flowed from the
Phocian into the Boeotian plain; the minor passes
which crossed the same range (such as that leading
^ See Note 5.
' If any reliance is to be placed on ^sch., in Ctes., §140, the
troops did not even wait for the formal ratification of the alliance
by vote of the Assembly. 3 Dem., de Cor., §§215, 216.
4 1 follow closely the account of the campaign given by Kro-
mayer, Antike Schlachtfelder in Criechenland, vol. i., which has
superseded all previous work on the subject.
-i
Chceroneia 379
to Daulis, and another at the eastern end of Mt.
Hedyleium) were doubtless also occupied.^ At
the same time, at the request of the inhabitants
of Amphissa, a force of ten thousand mercenaries
imder Chares was sent to guard the approach to
that town from Cytinium (which Philip's troops
had occupied) by the Pass of Gravia ; and the chief
command at this station seems to have been held
by the Theban Proxenus. ^
In the eariiest engagements, which Demosthenes
describes as "the winter battle," and "the battle
by the river," the allies were successful. (It
seems likely that these engagements resulted from
attempts on the part of Philip to force a way
through the Pass of Parapotamii.) The allies also
fortified Ambrysus, and perhaps other Phocian
towns, which had been destroyed by Philip dur-
ing the Sacred War. ^ Their spirits rose; mutual
congratulations passed between Athens and
Thebes; sacrifices and processions were held at
Athens in gratitude to the gods, and the city,
Demosthenes tells us,'' was "full of pride and joy
and thanksgiving." Demosthenes himself, upon
the motion of Demomeles, supported by Hyper-
eides, was awarded a golden crown, which was
publicly conferred on him at the Dionysiac festival
in March, 338, and though Demomeles was pro-
secuted for the alleged illegality of the decree by
' See map.
' ^sch., in Ctes., § 146; Deinarch., in Dem., § 74.
3 Paus., IV, xxxi., §3. See Note 6. * De Cor., §216.
380 Demosthenes
Diondas, he was acquitted, and the prosecutor
failed to obtain even one fifth of the votes of the
jury — the proportion necessary to save him from
a heavy fine. PhiHp appears to have thought
it best to wait for reinforcements,^ before taking
further active measures.
It has often been argued that, in spite of these
early successes won by the allies, the purely defen-
sive tactics adopted by them, and the division of
their forces, in consequence of the despatch of
one quarter of the army to guard Amphissa —
nearly twenty miles away from the main body at
Parapotamii — were serious strategical errors. The
A latter step was strongly opposed by ^schines at
X \ the time, when it was proposed in the Assembly
by Demosthenes, and he made it a point in his
attack upon Demosthenes at a later date.^ As
regards the defensive attitude of the allies, they
should have seen, it is urged, that they would be
no better off, even if they remained in occupation
of the passes for an indefinite time: Philip would
still be undefeated and a menace to Boeotia and
Attica, and their troops would be growing im-
patient at the prolonged hardships of camp-life.
In reply it has been pointed out^ that the line of
defence chosen — the series of passes from Mount
Parnassus to Lake Copais — was a very good one,
completely protecting Boeotia and therefore Attica
' Diod., XVI, Ixxxv. » In Ctes., §§ 146, 147.
3 By Kromayer, op. cit.
Cheer oneia 381
also; that it would have been difficult or impossible
for Philip to circumvent the defenders at either
end of the line ; and that by the occupation of these
passes, as well as of the southern end of the Pass
of Gravia, Philip was cut off (as he could have been
cut off by no other method) from access to the
Gulf of Corinth and his Peloponnesian allies ; while
the Pass of Gravia was itself easy to defend from
the south, as modem no less than ancient experience
has shown, owing to the nature of the country.
Besides this it was highly probable that Philip
would not be able to remain for an indefinite time
at Elateia, but would be forced to return by the
unsettled state both of his own frontiers and of
his recently acquired dominions in Thrace. If, on
the other hand, Philip attacked and succeeded in
forcing the passes, the allies could still fall back
on the plain of Chasroneia, and choose their ground
for battle.
The fact that in the end Philip defeated the
allies was due less to defects in their general plan
of campaign than to his astuteness and knowledge
of human nature. He was well aware that a mixed
force of citizens from two large and several small
States, combined with bodies of mercenary soldiers,
was not likely to be completely under the control
of a single authority, exercising equal caution
and foresight at all points. Taking advantage,
no doubt, of a favourable moment, and having
(we may surmise) prepared the way by spreading
rumours of his feigned intentions, he arranged that
382 Demosthenes
a letter addressed to his general, Antipater, should
fall into the hands of Proxenus and Chares, the
commanders of the allied forces stationed near
Amphissa, stating that he was compelled suddenly
to return, in order to quell a revolt in Thrace.*
To give colour to this statement, he withdrew his
troops from Cytinium. Thereupon the mercenary
force guarding Amphissa naturally became slack,
and neglected to keep guard. Suddenly, by a
forced march, Philip, with a large body of troops,
swept through the Pass of Gravia by night, an-
nihilated the defending force, descended upon
Amphissa, and took it. The town was afterwards
destroyed by order of the Amphictyonic Coimcil. '
He then, by a vigorous move, pushed on to Nau-
pactus — at least two days' march — and took it,
giving it, as he had promised,^ to his allies the
^toUans, and returning to Amphissa before his
enemies could take any steps against him.'' He
had thus opened for himself a way to the Corinth-
ian gulf,s and further, by occupying Amphissa
and the surrounding territory, he had gained com-
mand of the passes leading through the outlying
ranges of Mt. Parnassus and Mt. Korphis into
the plain of the Cephissus to the south of Chaero-
neia. His troops could now, if he desired, come
round by these passes and harass the allied army
* Polyaenus, IV, ii., 8. ' Strabo, ix., p. 427.
J Dem., Phil. Ill, § 34. * See, however, Note 7.
s This is true, whether Naupactus was taken on this occasion
or not.
Cheer oneia 383
at Parapotamii from the rear. Of this possibihty
he at once took advantage, sending flying corps
which plundered the western plains of Boeotia.
He himself returned to Elateia.
It was perhaps just after this that Philip once
more attempted to achieve his ends by diplomacy,
instead of by fiu*ther fighting. He sent envoys
both to Athens and Thebes. At Athens, though
Phocion warned his countrymen to reflect upon
the consequences of defeat, and to make terms
with Philip, Demosthenes (so ^schines asserts)
threatened to drag any one to prison by the hair
who mentioned peace; and when the Boeotarchs
at Thebes showed an inclination to listen to Philip,
he denounced them in the Athenian Assembly as
traitors, and proposed to send a herald to Thebes
to ask for a free passage for the Athenian forces
marching against Philip, with the result that the
Thebans were shamed into abandoning all thought
of peace. He urged upon the Athenians the im-
portance of fighting at as great a distance as
possible from the city, and his influence both in
Athens and Thebes was sufficient to ensure the
continuance of the struggle.*
The generals at Parapotamii, finding their
communications with Thebes and Athens threat-
ened by Philip's light troops, now withdrew from
the passes into the plain of Chaeroneia, where they
could check the plundering forays, and choose
an advantageous position for the decisive battle.
» See Note 8.
384 Demosthenes
Upon this Philip recalled his light troops and re-
united them with his main army, and so with all
his forces marched through the Pass of Parapo-
tamii into the plain, and confronted the allies.
The decisive battle took place on the 7th of
Metageitnion (probably the 2nd of August, in our
reckoning^), 338. The allies' line stretched across
the plain of Chseroneia, the left wing resting against
the rocky hill of Petrachos, on which the town was
built, the right touching the Cephissus, where
it nms close beneath the steep western end of
the moimtain spur called Acontium. The total
length of their front was perhaps a little over a
mile. The allied army contained between thirty
thousand and forty thousand men, of whom
Thebes supplied twelve thousand infantry (in-
cluding the "Sacred Band," with whom it was a
point of honour to stand by one another to the
death) and eight hundred cavalry, Athens about
ten thousand infantry and six hundred cavalry,
and the smaller states perhaps nine thousand
infantry; the mercenaries employed numbered
about five thousand, and the cavalry were made
up by various contingents to two thousand in all.'
Behind the left wing lay the entrance of passes
leading to Lebadeia and Coroneia, by which, in
case of need, it would be possible to retire without
' See Kromayer, op. ciL, p. 185. The alternative date is
September ist.
2 This is Kromayer's computation, based upon calculations as
probable as our information allows.
Chceroneia 385
being harassed by cavalry in pursuit. This wing
was constituted by the Athenian army, com-
manded by Stratocles, Ly sides, and Chares;
Demosthenes himself served among the infantry,
the words " Good Luck " ^ inscribed upon his shield.
In the centre were the mercenaries and the con-
tingents of the small States. The right wing was
the post of greatest danger and responsibility.
If the enemy could force their way through the
defenders' line here, there was no means of out-
flanking them,'' the plain would be open to the
victors, and they would be able to cut off the
retreat to Coroneia. In this position the Thebans
were stationed under Theagenes. The Mace-
donian army numbered about thirty thousand in-
fantry and two thousand cavalry — a rather smaller
force than that of their opponents, but for the
most part drilled to act in unison, and all imder
the command of one master-mind.
At the Theban end of the line the battle was at
first hotly contested; but the young Alexander,
whom Philip had placed in command of the Mace-
donian left, through his personal bravery and the
encouragement given by it to his men, at last
succeeded in forcing a way through the Theban
ranks. Philip, on the contrary, on the Mace-
donian right, withdrew step by step before the
'*A7o^5 TixV.
' They might possibly, though not easily, have been outflanked,
after forcing their way through, from the side of Chasroneia on the
other wing.
«» ' ■._ -,-
386 Demosthenes
impetuous onset of the Athenians, who felt con-
fident of victory. Stratocles even bade his men
pursue the enemy to Macedonia itself.* "The
Athenians do not know how to win a victory,"
Philip is said to have remarked, as he observed
the violence of their attack, and proceeded to
draw them yet farther from the favourable posi-
tion, on somewhat higher groimd than his own,
which they had at first occupied. At length,
when he had retired about half a mile, and the
Athenians, already tired,' had behind them, not
the entrance to the passes, but only the steep
rocky hill of Petrachos, which made retreat im-
possible for them, Philip suddenly halted and
bade his men return the Athenian attack.-' His
plan was entirely successful; the Athenian line
was broken; and Alexander, having forced his
way through on the other wing, now threatened
the allies in the rear. The position was hopeless.
Some who were nearer the centre were able to
escape and make for the passes, but those on the
extreme left wing, caught between the enemy and
the rocks, could only surrender or perish.'* A
thousand Athenian citizens were killed and two
^ Polyaenus, IV, ii., 2. =» Polyaen., IV, ii., 7; Frontin., II, i., 9.
3 Some ancient writers {e. g., Diod., XVI, Ixxxv.) ascribes
Philip's sudden change of tactics to jealousy of Alexander, but it
can scarcely be doubted that military considerations were really
the determining motive.
< None of our authorities say anything about the action of
cavalry in the battle; but probably Philip completed his work by
bringing his cavalry round upon the Athenian wing.
ChcBYoneia 387
thousand taken prisoners. All who coiild fled
in headlong rout, and among them Demosthenes.
On the other wing, the Sacred Band had been cut
to pieces where they stood, and the general loss
in the Theban ranks was very heavy. No serious
pursuit was attempted; probably Philip's men
were too much exhausted; and the fugitives col-
lected at Lebadeia.
Demosthenes was perfectly justified in hinting*
that bad generalship was the cause of the defeat.
There was no one commander, directing the opera-
tions of the allies as a whole. Phocion, the
greatest Athenian general then living, had perhaps
been away with the fleet in the ^gean when the
commanders were being elected,^ or else was not
appointed owing to his known disapproval of the
campaign; and the Greek commanders were
entirely outgeneralled by Philip, who had already
proved in previous contests the effectiveness of a
feigned retreat, and of tiring out the enemy before
attacking them. Lysicles, who, like Chares, was
among the fugitives, was condemned to death by
a jiuy at Athens; Lycurgus, who prosecuted,
demanded of him how, after a defeat which
entailed the death and capture of so many of his
fellow-citizens and the enslavement of all Greece,
he could dare to walk the streets of Athens in
open day, being, as he was, a living reminder to
hiscoimtry of her shame and reproach. ^
» Be Cor., §§ 194, 245. » Plut., Phoc, xvi.
» Diod., XVI, Ixxxviii.
388 Demosthenes
Of Stratocles we hear no more. Chares perhaps
did not return to Athens. ^
Thus the C^use of HglTgriiir liberty, for whirh
Demosthenes jiaj^gl^rivpn for gn many ypflrs, wfl<;
finally lost. A few brief struggles had yet to be
made, but the battle of Chasroneia was in effect
a thoroughly decisive blow. " WitlL-ihe— bodies
of those who_fgn hprp •vyq„<; bnripH f^tp ftPpdnrn
ol the Hellenes." ' Close to the battle-field, where
the Theban dead were buried, a marble lion was
erected in memory of those who had died for
freedom. This monument has in recent times
been restored from the ruin into which it had fallen,
and re-erected on or near the spot on which it
originally stood.
Eight years afterwards in the Speech on the
Crown, ^ Demosthenes was called upon to defend
the policy which had led to so disastrous a failure,
-^schines had left no argument untried which
could fasten the defeat of Chaeroneia upon his
rival. The defence which Demosthenes made was,
in effect, that since the policy was the only right
and worthy one for Athens and since all that
an orator or a statesman could do to make it
successful had been done, he was not to blame if,
through bad generalship or the inscrutable will of
Heaven, the struggle had ended in defeat.
In everything the issue falls out as Heaven wills,
but the principle which he follows reveals the mind
' Lycurgus, in Leocr., § 50.
' De Cor., §§ 192, 193 ; comp. §§ 194, 195, and 245, 246.
\
ChcBroneia 389
of the statesman. Do not therefore count it a crime
on my part that Philip proved victorious in the
battle. The issue of that event lay with God, not
with me. But show me that I did not adopt every
expedient that was possible, so far as human reason
could calculate; that I did not carry out my plan
honestly and diligently, with exertions greater than
my strength could bear; or that the policy which I
initiated was not honourable, and worthy and indeed
necessary; and than denounce me, but not before.
He claimed above all to have interpreted aright
the deepest instincts of his fellow-countrymen,*
and only those who believe that no attempt is
justifiable which fails can refuse to accept his plea.
For years he had striven to foster the love of lib-
erty in the Athenian people, until at last they were
ready to sacrifice everything else for the one thing y
which they counted best, as their fathers had done ■
before them. To have succeeded in this aim, to
have produced so great a moral reaction in a peo-
ple who were tending more and more to yield to
the pleasure of the moment, and to sacrifice nat-
ional to private considerations, was in itself, per-
haps, a greater service to his country than any
success which a general might have won. That
he had not misinterpreted the feelings of his coim-
trymen was shown by their steady support of him
in the ensuing years, in face of all the attacks
of time-serving enemies. Defeated undoubtedly
the Athenians were, but they had become them-
^ Ibid., §§ 199, 206. See pp. 329, 490.
390 Demosthenes
selves once more, if only for a moment, they had
fought for the noblest cause known to the Hel-
lenic world, and the consciousness of this must
at least have been some consolation to the nobler
spirits among them in the years which followed
the battle of Chaeroneia.
NOTES ON CHAPTER X
1. The story is told by ^sch. in Ctes., §§ 1 13-131, and Dem.,
de Cor., §§ 143-152, and from the two accounts the facts can be
reconstructed with fair probability. It has been disputed
whether the quarrel broke out at the autumn meeting of 340,
or the spring meeting of 339 ; but Kromayer, Antike Schlachtf elder,
i., pp. 181, 182, has shown conclusively that it was at the autumn
meeting, in October or November.
2. The Pylagori were not members of the Council, and had no
vote in it, but were official representatives of their several States,
sent to transact business with the Council. They were perhaps,
as a rule, persons of greater distinction than the Hieromnemon.
It was as Pylagorus that Demosthenes had attended the Council
in 343. (See Sundwall, Epigraphische Beitrdge, pp. 50, 51.)
3. Kromayer {I.e.) shows that Philip must have been elected
general at the spring meeting, not the autumn meeting of 339,
since the latter only took place in October or possibly early in
November. The spring meeting was in May or June, and this
would be long enough after Philip's return to Macedonia to
justify ^schines' statement {I.e., §129) that it was iroXXy XP^''V
Ha-repov, if he returned late in February or in March.
4. Schafer concludes from the order of Philochorus' state-
ments that Demosthenes carried these measures before the cap-
ture of Elateia, but the inference does not seem to be necessary.
The measures were passed in the archonship of Lysimachides,
i.e., after July 9th, 339; and it does not appear that between that
date and the capture of Elateia in September any event occurred
of so threatening a character as to induce the Athenian People to
divert the theoric money from the festivals — ^a step to which they
had always been obstinately opposed.
' 5- 0*1 the official position of Lycurgus, see Francotte, Les
Cheer oneia 391
finances des citSs grecques, pp. 231, 232. He was for four years
a theoric commissioner, and probably held various special com-
missions during and after that time. The office which most
historians suppose him to have held — that of "chief of the ad-
ministration" {oeirl ry dioiK-fitrei) — does not appear to have been
constituted until a later date. Francotte thinks that the office
of military treasurer may have existed as early as 347, but his
argument is not conclusive.
6. Glotz, Bidl. Corr. Hell., 1909, pp. 526-546, argues that the
rebuilding of the Phocian towns (except for the fortification of
Ambrysus by the allies for purely military purposes) was really
the work of Philip, whom he supposes to have become friendly
with the Phocians since his rupture with Thebes. This involves a
very violent treatment of Pausanias' statements, and does not
seem to be proved. It is true that the Phocians are not men-
tioned among Philip's opponents at Chasroneia. But were the
Phocians in a condition to engage in active hostilities at all at this
period?
7. The taking of Naupactus by Philip is recorded in Theo-
pompus, fr. 42 (Oxford text), and is placed here by Beloch (who
follows Schafer) because no other date can be found for it, though
it is fair to notice that Schafer has to emend Suidas' statement
that the fact is recorded by 9€(Mr6jUiros iv /3' (Book II), to iv v/S'
(Book LII), because Book LII of Theopompus seems to have
dealt with this period. Possibly the taking of Naupactus ought
really to be placed after Chasroneia. (The event may only have
been mentioned in passing in Theopomp., II.). Beloch's argument
that after Chasroneia no one resisted Philip is not conclusive.
We have no evidence to show that the people of Naupactus may
not have done so, and Theopompus seems to imply that they did.
8. The authorities for Philip's communications with Athens
and Thebes are Plutarch, Dem., xviii., Phoc, xvi.,and ^sch., in
Ctes., §§ 149-151. But ^schines' story is not very clear as to the
date of these proceedings, and Plutarch gives no precise indica-
tion. It is possible that these proceedings really belong to an
earlier stage, before the arrangement with Thebes was decisively
concluded.
CHAPTER XI
AFTER CILERONEIA
THE night after the battle of Chaeroneia was
spent by Philip in drunken revelry. He
mocked triumphantly at the failure of Demos-
thenes' plans, as he shouted out the opening words
of the orator's decrees,^ beating time with his
foot to their half -metrical rhythm. In his intox-
ication he jeered at his prisoners, imtil he was
suddenly sobered by the remark of one of them,
the Athenian orator Demades — "O King, Fortune
has bidden you play the part of Agamemnon.
Are you not ashamed to behave like Thersites?"
At this he tore off his garlands, put an end to the
revel, and ordered Demades to be set free.* But
when the fugitives, who^ad assembled at Leba-
deia, asked_ leave jbo bury their Hpfld, he refuser!
their ^PQ12g?t, altViQIlgJl l^y s'~> doirg hp was vinlat.-
ing one of the mostsacred tradition^ nf Orppk
warfare; and they were forced to return to their
homes^ cleaving their^solemn obligation^o their
comradesjunfulfilled.
The news of the disaster reached Athens first
' Ar]fw<T94v7ii AijiMffOivovs Ilaiavieis rdS* etirey.
» Diod. XVI, Ixxxvii.; Plut,, Dent., xx.
392
After ChcBroneia 393
through a rumour from G)noe^; but soon the
defeated soldiers began to arrive, and its full mag-
nitude became known. Amidst all the anxiety
and lamentation of the friends of the soldiers,*
the leading statesmen in Athens did not lose their
heads for a moment. On the resolution of Hyper-
eides the Assembly passed, without delay, a reso-
lution ordering preparations to be made for the
defence of the city. That such a project was not
hopeless, even though the country-districts of
Attica might be devastated by Philip, was shown
by the King's failure to reduce Byzantium, in
consequence of his inability to cut off her access
to the sea ; for in the case of Athens his difficulties
would have been far greater. The Council of
Five Hundred marched under arms to the Peiraeus
to take measures for its defence. ^ It was resolved
to bring the women and children from the country
districts into the city, to arm all citizens who were
between fifty and sixty years of age as a garrison
for the walls, '» to restore their civic rights to those
who had lost them owing to judicial sentences, to
give citizenship to any resident aliens, and freedom
to any slaves, who would serve in the forces, ^ and
to appoint Charidemus, Philip's implacable enemy,
commander-in-chief.^ Demosthenes, on his re-
' Hyper., in Aristog., fr. 31 (Oxford text).
' Vividly described by Lycurgus, in Leocr., §§ 39 flf.
J Lycurgus, I.e., § 37. ■* Ibid., § 16.
5 Hyper., in Aristog., fr. 29; Vit. X Oral., 851a, etc.
*Plut., Phoc, xvi.
394 Demosthenes
turn, provided by a series of decrees for the details
of the defence — the disposition of the garrisons, the
entrenchments, the funds for the fortifications^;
and the confidence of the People in him remained
unimpaired. Arms were taken from the temples
in which they had been dedicated, and slabs from
the tombstones, to meet the urgent need. Demos-
thenes was also appointed corn-commissioner,
and sailed away to procure com and money for
the city's use, while the financial control at home
remained in the hands of Lycurgus.
The departure of Demosthenes at this juncture
has been criticised with undue harshness. It is
said that he quitted Athens when he should have
been there to face the consequences of his policy;
and that he left Hypereides and Lycurgus to do
the hard work, and to incur the subsequent hu-
miliation of submission to Philip. It is at least an
equally plausible hypothesis that he was especially
selected for the work of collecting com and money,
because all his eloquence would be needed to
persuade the allies and others to supply these
necessities at such a moment; and it is highly
probable that when he left Athens, he did so in
the confidence that the work of defence was in
good hands, and that the policy of continued resist-
ance to Philip was securely accepted by the People.
' Dem., de Cor., § 248. ^schines, in Ctes., § 159, and Plut.,
Dent., xxi., state that from motives of caution, Demosthenes
got his friends (especially Nausicles) to propose these decrees
formally.
After Chceroneia 395
But this policy was not destined to be carried
out, and the line of action adopted by Philip was
probably the reason for this. We cannot indeed
be stire of the precise order of events during the
days which followed the battle of Chaeroneia;
but it is certain that Philip at once took stem
vengeance upon Thebes, and at the same time
displayed an astonishing leniency, and even
friendliness, towards Athens. He placed a Mace-
donian garrison in Thebes, and entrusted the gov-
ernment to three hundred of his own supporters,
who punished the patriotic party mercilessly with
exile, execution, and confiscation. "^ He further
decreed the dissolution of the Boeotian league, and
the restoration of Orchomenus, Plataeae, and
Thespiae, which had been traditionally hostile to
Thebes.* The Theban prisoners captured at
Chaeroneia were sold into slavery, and the Thebans
had even to pay for the privilege of burying their
dead. The obedience of northern Greece was
still more firmly secured by the planting of Mace-
donian garrisons in Chalcis and Ambracia, and
(now if not earlier 3) by the transference of Naupac-
tus from the Achaeans to the ^tolians.
Yet^towards Athens Philip tnoV nn hostile
action. Various reasons for this have been sug-
gested— the rliffirnlf^r nf x^c\^^c'Mng the ^^Y', his
genuine admiration of Athens _as„jthe centre of
Hellenic culture ; and (possibly the most important
* Justin, IX, iv., etc. » Pausan. IV, xxvii., § 5, IX, i., § 3.
» See above, pp. 382, 391.
396 Demosthenes
consideration of all) his desire to obtain without
trouble her co-operation in his projected Eastern
campaign. In any case Athens was not, like
Thebes, a tg^^^j^^nlly '^^ ^^'^ ^w^j ^ and he might
weU feel free to be generous. Either Philip's
attitude, or a sense (which may have revived in
the absence of Demosthenes) of the inevitable
hardships which further resistance would entail,
brought about a change of feeling in Athens.
The appointment of Charidemus, who (as Plutarch
states) had been clamorously nominated by the
wilder spirits in Athens, was cancelled by the
Council of Areopagus, and Phocion was elected
in his place; and when Philip sent Demades to
Athens, to express his willingness to enter into
negotiations, it was resolved to send Phocion and
iEschines, with Demades himself, as ambassadors
to Philip. By the terms of the Peace of Demades,
Athens was permitted to retain possession not
only of Athens, but of Delos, Lemnos, Imbros,
Scyros, and Samos. ^ Oropus was restored to her,
and the King promised not to send any warship
into the Peiraeus, or any land-force into Attica.
On the other hand, the Athenian alliance was
dissolved, and its members (with the exception of
the island peoples already mentioned) were de-
clared independent; the Chersonese passed into
* The alliance had been formally dissolved by the declaration
of war in 340; see p. 350.
' Diod., XVIII, Ivi.; Aristotle, Ath. Pol., 61, 62; C. I. A., ii.,
824.
After ChcBroneia 397
Philip's power '; a.nri A then? herself hp.ca.rne_the
ally ofPhilip. The bones of the Athenians slain*^
at Chaeroneia, who had been burned on the battle-,
field by the motors, were conY£Y£d back to Athf.ns
by Alexander himself, accompanied by Antipater
and Alcimachus, two of Philip's ablest gen_ei:als ;
and the two thousand prisoners were j;estm;ed
without ransom. The reaction of feeling in
Athens prodiiced by this unlooked-for generosity
was_gj:eat. On the proposal of Demades, the
citizenship of Athens was_ voted to Philip and
Alexander, it was resolved to erect a statue of
Philip in the market-place, and other honours
were offered to the two generals."
For the moment the Macedonian party in
Athens seemed to have triumphed; Philip's aim
was not, after all, what Demosthenes had said it
was — the destruction of Athens: and ^schines
at least boasted openly of his friendship with
Philip. But on the return of Demosthenes, it
was soon seen that the popular confidence in him
unshaken. The renewal of the fortifications was
actively continued, as inscriptions of the time
make plain, » Instead of hurried preparations
for defence, systematic building and modemisa-
' It is not mentioned in the list of Athenian possessions in
Aristotle, Ath. Pol.
* Justin, IX, iv., v.; Polyb., V, x.; Plut., Detn., xxii.; Hyper., in
Demad., fr., 77; Paus. I, ix., § 4; Demades, fr., etc.
^See Frickenhaus, Athens Mauern, pp. 14-29; and Wilamo-
witz-Moellendorf, Arist. u. Athen, i., pp. 194, 353, etc.
398 Demosthenes
tion of the fortifications were carried on; Demos-
thenes was appointed (by the Pandionid tribe)
to be one of the Ten Commissioners' entrusted
with the superintendence of the work; and during
his tenure of office, he contributed as much as a
talent and a half from his own property for the
service of the State. ^ It appears also that a
system of drill and military discipline^ much more
regular than had hitherto been enforced in time
of peace, was now instituted for those who were
liable to service,.
It was a far higher mark of public respect, that
Demosthenes was chosen to deliver the Funeral
Oration in honour of those who fell at Chaeroneia,
despite the bitter opposition of vEschines and other
orators of the Macedonian party. "And the
reason," he told ^schines, in the Speech on the
Crown, 3
you know well, but I will tell it you nevertheless.
The People knew for themselves both the loyalty and
zeal which inspired my conduct of affairs, and the
iniquity of yourself and your friends. . . . And
further, they thought that one who was to pronounce
an oration over the dead, and to adorn their valour,
should not have come beneath the same roof, nor
shared the same libation, as those who were arrayed
' T«x<MroM)t'. Whether he was appointed in 338 or 337 is
uncertain.
" ^sch., in Ctes., §§ 17, 31; Dem., de Cor., § 113.
* §§ 286-288. The extant Funeral Speech which purports
to be the one delivered by Demosthenes on this occasion is a
patent forgery.
After Cheer oneia 399
against them; that he should not there join hands
with those who with their own hands had slain them,
in the revel and the triumph-song over the calamities
of the Hellenes, and then come home and receive
honour — that he should not play the mourner over
their fate with his voice, but should grieve for them
in his heart. What they required they saw in them-
selves and in me, but not in you; and this was why
they appointed me, and not any of you. Nor, when
the People acted thus, did the fathers and brothers
of the slain, who were then publicly appointed to
conduct the funeral, act otherwise. For since (in
accordance with the ordinary custom) they had to
hold the funeral feast in the house of the nearest of
kin, as it were, to the slain, they held it at my house,
and with reason; for though by birth each was more
nearly akin to his dead than I, yet none stood nearer
to them all in common. For he who had their life
and their success most at heart, had also, when they
had suffered what I would they had not, the greatest
share of sorrow for them all.
The enemies of Demosthenes continued to show
their hostility by attacking him on every conceiv-
able ground.
All those who were interested in injuring me [he
says^] combined, and assailed me with indictments,
prosecutions after audit, impeachments, and all such
proceedings — not in their own names at first, but
through the agency of men behind whom, they
thought, they would best be screened against recogni-
tion. For you doubtless know and remember that
^ De Cor., §249.
400 Demosthenes
during the early part of that period I was brought to
trial every day, and neither the desperation of Sosicles,
nor the dishonesty of Philocrates, ^ nor the frenzy of
Diondas and Melantus, nor any other expedient, was
left untried against me. And in all these trials,
thanks to the gods above all, but secondarily to you
and the rest of the Athenians, I was acquitted;
and he justly prided himself upon the public
testimony thus given to his integrity and patri-
otism. Hypereides was assailed in the same
way.^* He was impeached by Aristogeiton for
the illegality of the decree which he had moved
immediately after the battle, and by which slaves
were set free, aliens enfranchised, and those con-
demned by the law-courts restored to their priv-
ileges. The decree was in fact plainly illegal;
but Aristogeiton's opposition had already had the
effect of making it a dead letter, ^ and the People
accepted Hypereides* defence. "It was the arms
of the Macedonians," he said, "that darkened my
eyes. It was not I that proposed the decree; it
was the battle at Chaeroneia." It was plain that
the honours paid to Philip and Alexander had been
but the expression of an immense feeling of relief
at the moment, in consequence of Philip's gener-
osity, and that the real sentiment of the People
remained true to Demosthenes.
After settling Phocis and Euboea, Philip went
to Megara, and thence to Corinth and the Pelo-
' Not the proposer of the Peace of 346. » Vit. X Orai., 849 a.
3 See above, p. 168.
?
o
Ill
z
\-
UJ
I
J.
H
o
After Cheer oneia 401
ponnese. The Megareans and Corinthians re-
ceived him with honour; and a Macedonian force
was left at Corinth to command the Isthmus.
Most of the Peloponnesian peoples submitted to
him readily, and some displayed an ignominious
flattery. The Spartans, on the contrary, bluntly
refused to acknowledge him, in spite of their
military weakness at the time; and in consequence
of this he overran Laconia, and gave considerable
portions of it to the Argives and others of his
allies, though he refrained from attacking Sparta
itself. He next held a congress of representatives
of the Greek States at Corinth, and announced
his intentions with regard to the invasion of the
Persian Empire. He was formally appointed
commander of the Greeks against Persia; the con-
tingents to be furnished by the several States for
the campaign were settled; and a common synod
of the Greeks was now established, with Corinth
as its meeting place. ^ The Athenians were called
upon to furnish a fleet 'and a troop of cavalry; and
Demades proposed in the Assembly the fulfilment
of this demand; but it needed the influence of
Phocion to persuade the Athenians to agree to it,
in spite of their obvious inability to refuse, — so
strong was the sense of shame at the position in
which they found themselves. *
' Note I at the end of the Chapter.
* Diod., XVI, Ixxxix.; Justin, IX, v.; Polyb., XVI, xxxiii.;
Plut., Phoc, xvi.; Oxyrh., Pap., I, p. 25, col. iii., 1. 3 fif.; WiUielm,
Attische Urkunden, p. 43.
2d
402 Demosthenes
It was probably at about this time that the
aged Isocrates wrote his Third Letter to Philip,
expressing his satisfaction that he had lived to see
the dream of his youth on the point of realisation —
the union of the Hellenes in a great expedition
against Persia, — a satisfaction which was his sole
consolation amid the trials of old age. Before
the end of the year 338 he died. ^
The attacks of the Macedonian party upon
Demosthenes and Hypereides in the law-cotirts
were met by counter-attacks, in which Lycurgus
was especially prominent. The first of his more
notable victims was Autolycus, a member of the
Coimcil of Areopagus; upon whom the death
penalty was pronounced for his withdrawal from
Athens with his family and his money, when the
news of Chceroneia had arrived, and the city had
need of all her men and their resources. * Another
was Lysicles, who had been general at Chaeroneia,
and was also condemned to death. ^ So relentless
and successful was Lycurgus in his political pro-
secutions, that one of his opponents said that he
dipped his pen, not in ink, but in death, when
he composed his speeches.'' His high personal
character, and his known patriotism and incorrupt-
ibility, as well as his proved ability in practical
administration, gave him great power; and the
» Note 2. a Lycurg., in Leocr., § 53, etc.
i Diod., XVI, Ixxxviii. See above, p. 387.
*Vii. X Oral., 8416.
Ajter Chceroneia 403
moral earnestness and pathos of his oratory were
sufficient to conceal his harshness towards his
opponents and the exaggeration of his language.
Hypereides also took part in the campaign of
litigation. Demades had actually proposed to
confer the citizenship of Athens, and the office of
proxenus, or consul for Athens, upon Euthycrates,
whose treachery had brought about the fall of
Olynthus; and Hypereides indicted the proposal
as illegal.^ The result of the trial is not known;
but it is difficult to suppose that Demades received
the approval of the jury.
Early in the summer of 337 Demosthenes was
chosen commissioner of the festival-fund for the
four years beginning in July of that year. We do
not know to what extent the distributions of
festival-money were carried out during his term
of office. It was a time of peace, and probably
the surplus no longer went (as it had done during
the war by his own enactment) into the war-chest,
but was at least in part distributed as "theoric
money." That Demosthenes should have agreed
to this is not inconsistent with his insistence in
earlier years upon the application of the surplus
to defray the cost of war. He had never in fact
condemned the distribution as bad in itself, but
only as bad when it was treated as more important
than the vital needs of the State; and he had
admitted that if those needs could be met without
suspending the distributions, they ought to be so
» Apsines, I, p. 388.
404 Demosthenes
met.^ That condition was now realised. The
large expenditure of Lycurgus on public buildings
shows that the financial condition of the city must
have been tolerably prosperous; and we can be
sure that popular opinion must have demanded
the resumption of the distributions.
The popularity of Demosthenes and the general
sense of his generosity and administrative ability
were expressed by a decree proposed by Ctesiphon
early in 336, that Demosthenes should be crowned
with a golden crown in the theatre at the ensmng
Dionysia, on the ground that he continuously spoke
and acted for the best interests of the city. The de-
cree ordered that the herald should proclaim before
the assembled miiltitude (which would include
strangers from all parts of Greece) that Demos-
thenes was crowned for his merit and his courage. *
The decree was passed by the Council ; but when it
came before the Assembly, ^schines gave sworn no-
tice that he intended to indict Ctesiphon for the
illegality of his proposal. This declaration ipso
facto suspended the operation of the decree, and
.^schines instituted judicial proceedings; but be-
fore he could bring the case to an issue, events took
a turn which made it very unlikely that the Mace-
donian party would win any success with the Peo-
ple or a popular jury for some time to come.
When Philip had made his arrangements at
' Olynth. Ill, § 19.
» -<Esch., in Ctes., §§ 49, 236, 246; Dem., de Cor., § 244, etc.
After Chceroneia 405
Corinth for his projected invasion of Asia, he
retiimed to Macedonia; and shortly afterwards a
quarrel which had long been imminent came to a
head. PhiHp had grown tired of his wife Olympias,
the mother of Alexander, and in 337 he married
Cleopatra, the niece of Attains, one of his generals.
At the wedding-feast an angry scene took place
between himself and Alexander; Alexander de-
parted into Lynce^tis, and his friends were ban-
ished. But early in 336 a formal reconciliation
took place; Olympias and Alexander returned to
court; and it was arranged that Alexander's
sister (also named Cleopatra) should marry
Olympias' brother_ (her own uncle), Alexander of
Epirus ; while Attalus was sent to Asia in command
(with Parmenio) of a large division oFtEe^army. ^
We may pass over certain other compHcations of
the situation. PhiHp determined to celebrate
the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra at ^gae
with great splendour; all" the'Greek States and
neighbouring princes sent embassies bearing pre-
sents i_ and among them the Athenians sent^ a
golden crown, and announced a decr^^ '"^^j'^'h tVipy
had passed, imdertaking to deliverujLanyione^who
had conspired agamst Philip's life and esra.ped
to Athens.^ But iathe midst of the feast, Philip
» Plut., Alex., ix., X.; Justin, IX, v.; Diod., XVI, xci., etc.
' Whether, as Beloch (A. P., p. 239) supposes, this decree was
passed in response to a demand by Philip for some fresh proof of
the loyalty of Athens, in view of the strong anti-Macedonian
feeling recently manifested there, there is no evidence to show.
4o6 Demosthenes
was stabbed in the theatre, where the festal per-
formance was about to begin, by an injtired fa-
vourite named Pausanias, and died immediately.
(July, 336.)' That Olympias was in the back-
ground of the plot is more than probable; the
satisfaction which she did not hesitate to show
lent colour to the suspicion; and the fact that
Cleopatra, her rival, had just borne a son to Philip,
who might some day contest th'e succession against
Alexander, may have impelled her to desire Philip's
instant death.*
Demosthenes received private intelligence of
Philip's death, before the news was generally
known in Athens; and it would be pleasant if we
could draw a veil over his behaviour. He came
before the Council with a joyful face, declaring
that he had had a dream, in which Zeus and
Athena had appeared to him, promising some
great blessing to Athens. This was in itself
nothing more than a piece of rather childish acting;
but it was far more reprehensible that when the
news was made public, he appeared in a festal
garment, and with a garland on his head, though
it was but seven days since the death of his own
daughter; and that the People (doubtless fol-
lowing his lead) offered sacrifice in gratitude for
good news and voted a crown to Pausanias.
Phocion, to his credit, protested against this un-
generous exultation over the dead, and reminded
»Diod., XVI, xci.-xciv. » Justin, IX, vii.; Diod., XVII, ii.
After ChcBroneia 407
his countrymen that the army which had defeated
them at Chaeroneia was only diminished by one
man.^ The plea that Demosthenes' conduct was
intended as a political demonstration — an invita-
tion to other States to throw off the Macedonian
yokgzr-is no excuse for the want of restraint and
generosity displayed both_ by himself and tEe
People.
It soon became plain how illusory was the idea
that the death of Philip afforded an opportunity
for the recovery of independence. Any such hope
was excluded by the promptitude with which
Alexander, recognised as King by Antipater and
the army, took steps to secure his position. His
half-brother Arrhidasus he treated indeed with
consideration, and gave him a military command,
first in Thrace and then as captain of the Thes-
salian cavalry. But all actual or possible conspir-
ators or claimants to the succession were at once
put to death; Cleopatra and her infant son fell
victims to the ferocity of Olympias, though Alex-
ander was not privy to her design; Attalus,
Cleopatra's uncle, was assassinated in Asia Minor
by Alexander's own orders — his hostility to
Alexander was proved by the fact that the Athen-
ians had opened communication with him; — and
though Demosthenes chose to mock at the young
King and to call him Margites, after a foolish
character in an old poem,^ he showed himself
' Plut., Dem., xxii., Phoc, xvi.; ^sch., in Ctes., §§ 77, 78;
Diod., XVII, iii. ' Probably of the sixth century B.C.
4o8 Demosthenes
entirely capable of managing his difficult inherit-
ance. Within three months of Philip's death he
marched southwards into Greece at the head of a
large army. He first claimed the allegiance of
the Thessalians, who resolved to join him in
marching against Athens.' At Thermopylae he
was acknowledged by the Amphictyonic Council,
and proclaimed commander in- chief of the Greeks ;
and he expressed himself in friendly language to
the Ambraciots and Acamanians, who had seemed
likely to give him trouble. He then proceeded
on his way and encamped outside Thebes.
The Athenians now repented of their rashness,
and, on the proposal of Demades, sent a deputa-
tion to apologise for their tardy recognition of
him. At the same time they once more brought
in their families and property from the cotintry
into the city.^ Demosthenes himself was elected
to serve on this embassy, but returned home after
accompanying his colleagues only as far as Mt.
Cithasron.3 Alexander at first addressed the
envoys severely, but afterwards returned a gracious
reply; and the People of Athens, relieved of their
terror, voted him even higher honours than they
had conferred upon Philip. '♦ After this Alexander
convened a congress of representatives of the
Greek States at Corinth (the Spartans still holding
» Diod., XVII, iv.; ^sch., in Ctes., § i6i.
' Diod., XVII, iv.; Justin, XI, iii.; Demades, fr., etc.
3 Diod., I.e.; .^sch., in Ctes., § i6i ; Dein., in Dem., § 82; Plut.,
Dem., xxiii. * Diod., I.e.; Arrian, I, i., § 3.
After Chceroneia 409
aloof); his leadership of the Greek forces was
formally recognised, and a convention was drawn
up, by which it was agreed that the several States
were to be autonomous, and all forms of interfer-
ence by one State with another were forbidden;
the congress was to meet periodically; and it is
most probable that a Macedonian force remained
at Corinth.''
In the spring and summer of 335 Alexander was
occupied with campaigns in Thrace and Illyria,
undertaken with a view to ensuring the obedience
of the restless inhabitants of those countries dur-
ing his expedition into Asia. These campaigns
were completely successftil. But his absence at so
great a distance allowed the sentiment of independ-
ence to revive once more in Athens and Thebes;
false reports of his death encouraged the patriotic
movement, and may have been used as arguments
for action by Demosthenes and Lycurgus. ^
Demosthenes appears at this time to have hoped
to secure his country's freedom by making common
cause with Persia. The details of these negotia-
tions are not clearly known to us. Rather earlier
' The authority is the speech "On the Treaty with Alexander, "
certainly not written by Demosthenes, but perhaps a genuine
speech of one of the anti-Macedonian party, and later in date than
332, since in § 7 it mentions events in Lesbos in that year
(Arrian, III, ii., § 6).
' So the fragment of Demades states; but the authority is bad,
as the fragment is probably a late forgery (see Blass, Ait. Ber.,
Ill, ii.,p. 272).
410 Demosthenes
— just after Alexander's accession, — Demosthenes*
overtures (which were perhaps made without the
knowledge of the People) appear to have been
rudely repulsed, and the King bluntly refused to
send money to Athens.^ But soon afterwards
Darius, who had probably succeeded to the throne
about the end of 336, seems to have realised the
formidable character of Alexander's intentions,
and to have sent a sum of three hundred talents,
to be used against the Macedonian power. ^ This
sum the People refused, as was correct; but it is
stated to have remained in the hands of Demos-
thenes, to be employed for the object specified.
That his enemies should afterwards accuse him
of misappropriating it was a matter of course. ^
It was with the connivance and aid of Demos-
thenes that the Thebans now received back some
of their exiled fellow-citizens (who had been
sojourning in Athens), and then killed two of Alex-
ander's officers, restored the democratic constitu-
tion, and besieged the Macedonian garrison in the
Cadmeia. On Demosthenes' proposal the Athen-
ians resolved to send help to Thebes; an army
and fleet were made ready, and an embassy was
sent to Persia to propose a formal alliance. '' Dem-
osthenes also sent large supplies of arms,
'-(Esch., in Ctes.,^ 238.
' According to Plutarch, proofs of this were found by Alexander
at Sardis in some letters written by Demosthenes, and in records
by Persian generals of the amount sent.
3 Msch., in Ctes., §240; Dein., in Dent., §§ 10, 18; Plut.,
Dem., XX. ■♦Arrian, II,xv.
After Cheer oneia 411
bought with Persian gold, to Thebes. But the
forces of Athens made no move. The People had
already experienced the consequences of hasty
action, and were apparently waiting to learn the
truth about Alexander himself, and to discover
what direction events were likely to take. Some of
the Peloponnesian peoples also signified their
sympathy with the revolt of Thebes; and some
were persuaded by Demosthenes ^ to reject Anti-
pater's demand for their help against the Thebans;
but only the Arcadians sent any troops, and these
marched no farther than the Isthmus. Had en-
ergetic action been taken by their friends, it is
not impossible that the Thebans might have been
successful, and ^schines afterwards^ accused Dem-
osthenes himself of bringing about the over-
throw of Thebes by his miserliness; he would not
even, ^schines says, advance the five talents for
which the Macedonian mercenaries in the Cad-
meia offered to betray the fortress. Deinarchus
also accused him of refusing ten talents to Astylus,
the leader of the Arcadian forces, and stated that
others paid Astylus the money on condition that
he should return home instead of going to the
assistance of Thebes. ^ These assertions are hardly
credible. It is much more likely that it was the
influence of Phocion, whose caution had more than
once justified itself, that kept the Athenians from
carrying their sympathy into action.
' Dein.', in Dent., § 19; Vit. X Oral., p. 850.
' In Ctes., § 240. 3 Dein., in Dem., § 20.
412 Demosthenes
But though it is conceivable that the Athenians
might have enabled Thebes to free herself, it is
not likely. With astonishing suddenness, Alex-
ander himself appeared with his army outside the
walls of Thebes. At first he attempted to win
the Thebans by conciliatory overtures; but they
had stiffered much from the garrison in the Cad-
meia, and were determined to resist to the last.*
Within a few days the town was taken by storm, the
forces of Thespias, Platseae, Orchomenus, and the
Phocians taking part in the assault, and giving vent
to the hatred of many generations. Six thousand
Thebans were slain in the massacre which followed,
and over thirty thousand were taken prisoners.
Alexander entrusted the decision of the fate of the
conquered to the Greek peoples who had taken
part in the siege. In accordance with that deci-
sion Thebes was razed to the ground, the temples
and the house of Pindar alone being spared ; nearly
all the captives were condemned to be sold as
slaves, and the remaining survivors of the Thebans
were declared outlaws, to whom no Hellenic city
must give shelter. The territory of Thebes was
divided between Orchomenus and Plataeag, and
a Macedonian garrison once more occupied the
Cadmeia. ^
The destruction of Thebes caused a paroxysm
of horror and fear in the other Greek States.
' Arrian, I, vii.; Diod., XVII, ix.
» Arrian, I, ix. ; Diod., XVII, xiv., etc.
After Cheer oneia 413
Some of them sought to secure themselves by-
giving evidence of submission to the destroyer.
The Arcadians put to death those who were re-
sponsible for the despatch of troops to the Isthmus ;
the people of Elis recalled from exile the banished
partisans of the Macedonian domination; the
^tolians asked pardon of Alexander for the sym-
pathy they had shown with the conquered; at
Messene and at Pellene in Achaia tyrants were set
up who favoured the Macedonians. ^ The Athenians
were not slow to recognise their own special peril,
owing to the part they had played in encouraging
the revolt of Thebes. The news of the massacre
reached them in the midst of the Eleusinian Mys-
teries. The feast was broken off, and the city-
was once more prepared for defence against the
expected attack; large sums of money were con-
tributed both by citizens and resident aliens';
and the fugitives from Thebes were warmly wel-
comed, in spite of the prohibition pronoimced
by the King and his allies. ^ But once more the
spirit of resistance was overcome by that of cau-
tion and alarm. On the motion of Demades, ten
ambassadors were sent to Alexander with a message
of congratulation, not only upon his safe return
from Illyria, but also (if the accounts which have
come down to us are correct) upon his punishment
^ Diod., XVII, viii.; Arrian, I, x. ; Speech on Treaty with Alex.,
§§ 4ff., 10, 11; Paus., VII, xxvii., § i.
' Dem., de Cor., § 3i2;f» Phorm., § 38.
3Plut.,^/ex.,xiii.
414 Demosthenes
of the rebellious Thebans. It is not surprising
that, on receiving this shameful despatch, the King
threw it away and refused to speak to the envoys. ^
Subsequently, however, he offered to pardon
Athens, if she would send away the Theban refu-
gees who had taken shelter with her, and would de-
liver up to him the leaders of the anti-Macedonian
party, among whom were named Demosthenes,
Lycurgus, Polyeuctus, Charidemus, Ephialtes, and
others.''
In the debate which ensued in the Assembly,
Phocion, after being repeatedly called upon for his
opinion, recommended that the demands of the
King should be obeyed, declaring that the leaders
whose surrender was in question had brought
enough trouble upon Athens already, and that
he himself would gladly sacrifice his dearest friend
for the public good, after the example of the heroes
of legend. It is said that the People shouted this
proposal down. Demosthenes himself warned
them that it was not well for the sheep to surrender
the sheep-dog to the wolves ; and that if they sold
the orators to Alexander, they woiild be selling
themselves into slavery, like merchants, who only
display a few grains of com as a sample, but
thereby sell their whole cargo. Hypereides and
Lycurgus also opposed Phocion's proposal.^ The
' Arrian, I, x. ; Plut., Phoc, xvii. See Note 3.
' Arrian, l.c, Plut., I.e., and Dem., xxiii.; Diod., XVII, xv. The
names are not the same in all the accounts.
3 Vit. X Oral., 838d; Plut., Phoc, ix.
After Cheer oneia 415
resolution which was finally adopted was moved
by Demades. (Diodorus states — we do not know
on what authority — that he had been bribed by
Demosthenes with a gift of five talents). It was
determined to send an embassy to Alexander to
ask pardon for the orators and generals whose
surrender he had demanded, on condition that
judicial proceedings should be taken against any
who were guilty of misconduct; and to beg that
the Theban exiles should be permitted to remain
in Athens.
The embassy was headed by Phocion and
Demades. The eloquence of the latter, and the
outspoken advice which the former gave to the
King, proved successful. In fact the sack of Thebes
and the extirpation of one of the greatest cities
of Greece was an act which was condemned by the
moral sense of the Greeks generally; Alexander's
own conscience was not free from misgivings about
it; and he may have been glad to retrieve his
character by showing clemency towards Athens.
Accordingly he gave ear to Phocion 's advice that
he should turn his army against barbarians, not
against Greeks; and reduced his demands to the
requirement that Charidemus, one of the most
irreconcilable opponents of Macedonia, should be
expelled from Athens. With this the Athenians
complied. Charidemus went to Persia and took
service under Darius ; and his example was shortly
afterwards followed by Ephialtes and other Athen-
ian generals. Alexander returned to Macedonia
4i6 Demosthenes
with the knowledge that he had nothing to fear
for the present from the Greeks.
A resolution of the Assembly entrusted the
Council of Areopagus with the promised enquiry
into the use made of gold from Persia for the as-
sistance of Thebes, but the Coimcil allowed the
matter to drop^; and although the enemies of
Demosthenes repeatedly accused him of enriching
himself with the money sent by the Great King,
there is no evidence which deserves the name to
show that he really did so ; and the reception given
to his defence in the Speech on the Crown, in which
he claims to have been incorruptible from first to
last, is scarcely consistent with the insinuations
made by his enemies to the effect that his accept-
ance of large presents from Persia was matter of
common knowledge. ^
When we review the course of events from the
battle of Chseroneia to the departure of Alexander
to Asia, it is not easy to find sufficient reason for
the severity with which the part played by Demos-
thenes has been criticised. It is plain that his
own policy was one of resistance to the uttermost.
That alone he considered to be worthy of the tradi-
tions of Athens. Whatever concessions to circum-
stances his fellow-countrymen, less courageous
than himself, might make, he lost no opportunity
' Dein., in Dent., § lo.
' ^sch., in C<«5.,§§ 173, 209, 259; Dein., in Dem., % 70; Hjrper.,
in Dem., Col. 25; Plut., Dem., xiv., etc
After Cheer oneia 417
which seemed to offer a chance of throwing off the
yoke, and worked steadily, with Lycurgus, for
the improvement of the defences, the increase of the
efficiency of the army, and the strengthening of the
financial resources of the city. It is also plain that
he had the confidence of the People; and, conscious
of this, he did not shrink from taking measures,
which his country's interest seemed to demand,
upon his own responsibility, whatever risk to
himself they involved. Chief of these measures
were the communications which he kept up during
this period with Persia, with whom it was natural
to make common cause against a common foe.
It is true that his correspondence with Persia was,
from a narrowly democratic point of view, a
violation of the spirit of the constitution. "The
Coimcil and the Assembly," -^schines protested,
"are passed over: despatches and embassies come
to private houses, and those not from insignificant
persons, but from the greatest Powers in Asia and
Europe." Besides this, the responsibility for the
expenditure of the money remitted from Persia
to be used against Alexander was one which,
when refused by the People, placed him in a very
invidious position. Yet here again he took the
risk of the charges of malversation which any one
could bring, and which, though no one could prove
them, could not, in all probability, be disproved
without disclosing facts as to the use of this secret
service money which had better be kept secret;
and he was not afraid of being denoimced as an
4i8 Demosthenes
autocrat. There is no valid ground for believ-
ing that Demosthenes acted, during this period,
otherwise than with a single eye to what he believed
to be the interest and honour of his country.
But was his action wise, as well as patriotic?
Was his statesmanship equal to his good intentions?
Here there is more room for doubt. We cannot
tell whether he did or did not rely too strongly
upon the support of his countrymen, — whether
he ought to have known that they would not really
go to the help of Thebes. It was at least a generous
error, if he attributed to them still the spirit which
they had shown before the battle of Chaeroneia.
Nor can we now tell how far his belief that the
moment was a favourable one for the revolt of
Thebes was reasonable. Alexander, so far as
any one knew, was in lUyria, and some said he
was dead. His sudden appearance before Thebes
was at least as great a surprise to every one else as
to Demosthenes himself; and it does not seem
right to blame him for falling into an error which no
one else avoided. It is easy to find fault with him
in the light of our later knowledge of Alexander's
character, and his skill in making sudden move-
ments with a rapidity paralysing to his enemies.
But in 335 Alexander was not so well known, in
spite of his prompt action in the previous year,
as he became a few years later. On the whole,
therefore, it does not seem just to denoimce the
course piu-sued by Demosthenes during these
years either as dishonest or as unstatesmanlike;
After Cheer oneia 419
and more credit is due to him than has always been
given for the courage and consistency which he
displayed.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XI
1. Wilhelm, Attische Urkunden (Sitzungsber. Akad. Wien.,
191 1), shows that the confederation formed at Corinth included
far more States than has been generally supposed, and that it was
much more minutely organised, especially as regards the repre-
sentation (on a proportional basis) of the several peoples in the
common synod. (He interprets in this sense C. I. A., ii., i6o,
184, and some other inscriptions.) It is disputed whether Philip
intended only to free the Greek towns in Asia from Persian rule,
or to conquer the whole or the greater part of Asia Minor, or to
enter upon a series of campaigns comparable to those actually
carried out by Alexander. There is no evidence on the point.
2. The picturesque story of Isocrates being so overcome with
grief at the defeat of Chseroneia that he refused food, and so died
a few days after the battle, must be taken to be disproved; and
apart from this story there are no good grounds for disputing
the genuineness of the Third Letter to Philip. (See Beloch,
Griech. Gesch., ii., p. 574 n.) The Letter is in keeping with
Isocrates' known sentiments, and the style is also his.
3. Grote and others doubt the story of this embassy to
Alexander; and it is not clear that Plutarch's statement can
refer to any embassy before Alexander's demands were made.
His language is very obscure {e.g., it is not at all plain to what
the words t6 fi^v irpGn-ov ^^(jiur/M refer). That he was much
confused about this period is shown I'y the fact that in his Life of
Demosthenes, chapter xxiii., he runs together events of which
some took place before and some after the taking of Thebes.
Arrian also may have transferred to an earlier stage in the
proceedings a message really sent to Alexander after he had
demanded the surrender of the orators. But it is only too
probable that, whether before or after, some such message was
sent.
CHAPTER XII
GREECE IN THE ABSENCE OF ALEXANDER
WE know little of the history of Athens during
the first years of Alexander's absence in the
East. But it can be gathered that it was Demades
who took the lead in public affairs, sometimes
holding financial, sometimes military offices, and
receiving frequent presents from Antipater, whom
Alexander had left in charge of Macedonia and
Greece. The statue of Demades in bronze was
even erected in the market-place in his Hfetime,
contrary to Athenian custom ; and he was accorded
the honour of perpetual maintenance in the Pry-
taneum at the expense of the state. He was
supported by Phocion, who was continually re-
elected general, and (unlike Demades) decHned all
presents from Antipater; and also by ^schines,
though the activity of the latter appears to have
been intermittent, and he lived for the most part
the life of a prosperous landowner. Among his
possessions were included estates which had once
formed part of the territory of Thebes.' Demo-
'Dem., de Cor., §§ 41 fiF. 307 flf;^sch.,tn Cte5.,§§2i6 S.; Dein.,
in Dem., §§ loi ; Plut., Phoc, xxx., etc.
420
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 421
sthenes seems to have given up for the time all
attempt to influence the course of affairs. "When
there happened," he says to -^schines,^ "what I
would had never happened, when it was not states-
men that were called to the front, but those who
would do the bidding of a master, those who were
anxious to earn wages by injuring their country,
and to flatter a stranger — then, along with every
member of your party, you were found at your
post, the grand and resplendent owner of a stud —
while I was weak, I confess, yet more loyal to
my fellow-countrymen than you. " ^schines and
Deinarchus of course attribute his quiescence to
cowardice."* If it is cowardice to recognise the
temporary hopelessness of a cause, then Demos-
thenes is open to the charge; but that is not the
ordinary meaning of cowardice; and when there
seemed to be hope once more, Demosthenes acted
energetically enough.
A modem historian ^ has suggested that the rea-
son for Demosthenes' retirement is to be found
in a rapprochement between himself and Dema-
des, as the result of which Demades in 335 pro-
posed the motion which prevented the surrender
of Demosthenes and others, while Demosthenes
undertook not to attempt to disturb the Peace, or
to interfere with Demades' acts. But there is no
sufficient evidence of any such agreement, and the
subsequent association of the two orators in the
' De Cor.,^ 320. ' ^sch., in Ctes., §§ 163 ff. ; Dein., l.c.
sBeloch, Att. Polilik., p. 243.
422 Demosthenes
affair of Harpalus^ does not prove it. It is more
likely that Demades' motion was a compromise
dictated by the strong popular feeling against
conceding Alexander's demands on the one hand,
and the danger of refusing compliance on the other;
and that Demosthenes' abstinence from public
affairs was no more than a wise concession to
circumstances. Indeed, even after the supposed
compact with Demades, Demosthenes joined
Hypereides in opposing the proposal to furnish a
contingent to Alexander (as the Athenians were
bound to do) — a fact which of itself almost proves
that the compact never existed.^ On the motion
of Phocion, twenty ships and a smaU corps of
cavalry were sent to join Alexander's army 3; but
a number of Athenian volunteers took service in
the cause of Persia. Whether there is any truth
in the assertions of Demosthenes' enemies that he
sought a reconciliation with Alexander through the
mediation of a youth named Aristion, and with
Olympias through Callias of Chalcis, is very doubt-
ful.'* The statements made by ^schines and
Hypereides when prosecuting him some years
later are certainly not reliable testimony; espec-
ially as -^schines at least was particularly anxious
to prove that Demosthenes had really taken the
Macedonian side — a. paradox which only false-
hoods could support.
» See below, p. 461. » Vit. X Oral., 847 c, 848 e.
3 Plut., Phoc, xxi.; Diod., XVII, xxii.
* Msch., in Ctes., § 162 ; Hyper., in Dem., col. 20.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 423
But though defeated, the anti- Macedonian
party was not wholly inactive. In 334 Diotimus,
one of the generals whose surrender Alexander had
demanded, died; and Lycurgus proposed a decree
in his honour. ' In the same year when the Persian
fleet appeared in the -^gean, it was permitted by
the Athenians to re victual at Samos.^ But
Alexander could afford to overlook these pin-
pricks, and it is clear that he desired to remain on
good terms with Athens. He even went out of his
way to pay her compliments. After his victory
at the Granicus in 334, despite the fact that he had
captured a number of Athenians among the enemy,
he sent a present to Athens and three hundred
suits of Persian armour to be dedicated in the
Parthenon; with the inscription, "Dedicated by
Alexander, son of Philip, and by the Greeks,
except the Lacedaemonians, out of the spoils taken
from the Barbarians of Asia. " ^
Until the battle of Issus in 333, Demosthenes,
who continued to receive special intelligence from
the seat of war, cherished hopes that Alexander
would be defeated in Cilicia, and regarded with
unconcealed satisfaction the apprehensions of
.^schines and other friends of the Xing'*; but after
that victory, no room was left for such hopes.
In the spring of 331 the Athenians sent an em-
bassy to Alexander, bearing him a golden crown in
honour of his victories ; and he then set free those
■ Vit. X Oral., 844 a. » Arrian, I, xix., § 8.
* Arrian. I, xvi., § 7. ■♦iEsch. in Ctes., § 164.
424 Demosthenes
of their fellow-citizens whom he had taken prison-
ers at the Granicus, and had before refused to
release^; and in ordering the affairs of Greece,
whether by his own commands or through his
regent Antipater, he appears to have been careful
to avoid, so far as Athens was concerned, any
breach of the agreement between himself and the
Greek States.
Thus the course of events in Greece was com-
paratively uneventful until after Alexander's
crowning victory at Arbela in 331, and the death
of Darius in the following year. Sparta alone
acted in a manner which threatened trouble.
The Spartan King Agis entered into commiinica-
tion with Persia, and in 333, supported by funds
received from Persian admirals, made himself
master of Crete. Consequently in 331, Alexander
ordered a large fleet under Amphoterus to take
action against Sparta, and sent money to Antipater
to be used in reducing the Spartans to obedience. '
At last, in 330, Sparta declared war against Alex-
ander. The moment seemed favoiirable. Anti-
pater was engaged in Thrace, where a revolt had
broken out under the leadership of the Odrysian
King Seuthes; and Memnon, one of Alexander's
own commanders, seems for a time to have joined
in it. ^ Further, there was considerable discontent
^Arrian, I, xxix.; Ill, vi.; C. I. A., ii., 741 f.
»Arrian, III, vi.; Diod., XVII, xlviii.
3 In this year the Athenians passed a decree in honour of
Rhebulas, son of Seuthes (C. I. A., ii., 175 b). This may mean
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 425
in Greece at the violation of the promises made by
Alexander at Corinth in 336, through the arbitrary
conduct of Macedonian commanders. Tyrants
had been set up, favourable to the Macedonian
domination, in Messene, Lesbos, and Pellene,
though it had been promised that there should be
no interference with the constitutions of the States.
Macedonian captains had seized Athenian and
other trading vessels and detained them atTenedos,
and the Athenians had actually equipped a fleet
of one hundred ships under Menestheus, son of
Iphicrates, to recover them; but (in accordance
with Alexander's policy of conciliation towards
Athens) they were released before active measures
were taken. A Macedonian trireme had entered
the Peirsus, nominally to demand permission for
the building of small vessels there for the Mace-
donian fleet, but more probably in the hope of
recruiting the fleet with Athenian sailors, though
the request had been withdrawn when the Atheni-
ans objected. ^
Agis at first gained some slight successes. He
defeated a Macedonian corps under Corrhagus ; the
people of Elis, all the Arcadians except those of
Megalopolis, and all the Achaeans except those of
Pellene joined him; and he laid siege to Megalo-
that Rhebulas came to Athens to renew the old friendship
between the city and the Thracian princes, and that the Athenians
wished to show sympathy with the revolt of Seuthes. See Schafer,
iii., p. 200.
' Speech on Treaty with Alexander.
426 Demosthenes
polis. ^ He also appealed to Athens for support, and
the extant speech (wrongly ascribed to Demosthe-
nes) "On the Treaty with Alexander" may have
been delivered in one of the consequent debates in
the Assembly, by a supporter of the Spartan King's
request. It is not easy to ascertain with any
certainty what part Demosthenes took in the
discussion. According to Plutarch,^ he began by
asking the Athenians to assist Agis, but afterwards
shrank back, finding that the People were not
willing to join in the rising. It may be suspected
that this is substantially the truth. That he did
at first encourage the Spartans to hope for Athen-
ian aid seems to be indicated by ^schines' state-
ment ^ that Demosthenes had clahned (though
falsely) a share in instigating the Peloponnesian
revolt, as well as a revolt in Thessaly, of which we
know nothing more; though in the same speech —
so vEschines states — he complained in a series of
strained metaphors of the helpless condition into
which his old opponents had brought the State,
and so excused himself from carrying his support
of the movement further. In another place, ■•
Plutarch states that the Athenians resolved to give
the Peloponnesians the support of their fleet —
perhaps they were influenced by Demosthenes*
attitude at the outset — but that Demades cleverly
parried this resolution, by pointing out that the
'.^ch. in Ctes., § 165, 166; Dein., in Dein.,% 34; Diod.,
XVII, c. » Plut., Dem., xxiv.
3 In Ctes., § 167. 4 Plut., PrcEC. Ger. Rep., 818 e, f.
I
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 427
only funds available for the expenditure which this
policy would entail were those which he, asTheoric
Commissioner, had saved for distribution at an
approaching festival; and that the Athenians,
rather than forego this distribution or contribute
from their private property, were content to do
nothing. In that case, Demosthenes might well
complain that the sinews of the State had been
cut by his opponents ; and his withdrawal from his
first attitude was dictated by simple prudence.
It was of no use to encourage Sparta to expect sup-
port which the People would not give ; and it is to
Demosthenes* credit that he was not afraid to
face the humiliation which such a withdrawal
from his original position brought with it. Cer-
tainly nothing can be more despicable than the in-
sincerity of ^schines and Deinarchus ' in blaming
him afterwards for doing nothing to help the
Spartans against Macedonia, while at the same
time they tried (as will be seen shortly) to fasten
upon him some of the responsibility for the rising,
and declared that his behaviour had brought dis-
credit upon the city. ^
The siege of Megalopolis was raised upon the
arrival of Antipater with an army considerably
outnumbering that of the Spartans and their al-
lies. Agis gave battle, but was completely de-
feated, and himself slain. ^ Antipater demanded
^^sch., I.e.] Dein., in Dem., § 35. »^sch., in Ctes., § 254.
sCurtius, VI, i; Diod., XVII, Ixii., Ixiii,; Paus., I, xiii., § 6;
Justin, XII, i.; Plut., Agis, iii., etc.
428 Demosthenes
fifty noble Spartans as hostages, and entrusted the
sentence on the rebelHous States to the congress of
the Greeks at Corinth. But the Spartans ap-
pealed to Alexander, to whom the hostages were
sent ; and he pardoned all but the chief movers in
the revolt, only commanding the payment of 120
talents to Megalopolis as compensation for the
inconvenience caused to them by the siege. ^ A
proposal was made by the enemies of Demosthenes
to hand him over for judgment to the Amphicty-
onic Coimcil, which was to meet in the autumn of
330, as though he had been in some way respon-
sible for the disturbances ; but the People refused
to sanction this, ^ and showed thereby that though
they might be unwilling to take any action which
involved danger or sacrifice, their sympathy with
the attitude of Demosthenes towards the Mace-
donian conqueror had not substantially altered.
Moreover, a notable trial of this same year
(330) showed that the patriotic party was still
active. Lycurgus prosecuted a certain Leocrates
for desertion after the battle of Chaeroneia. When
the first report of the battle came, Leocrates had
departed with all his belongings to Rhodes, to
escape the ruin which seemed to be coming upon
Athens, and had even reported at Rhodes that
Athens was actually taken. He had subsequently
settled at Megara as a resident alien, and engaged
'Curtius, I.e.; Diod.XVII, Ixxiii.
•iEsch., twCtes., §§ 161, 254; Dem.,<i« Cor., §322.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 429
in trade on a considerable scale. In the year 33 1 -o
he ventured to return to Athens; and Lycurgus,
true to the stem principles which had led him to
prosecute Autolycus, charged him with treason
and demanded the death-penalty. The Speech
of Lycurgus may still be read. He justly prides
himself on his avoidance of all attempt to bring
odium upon the accused by the introduction of
matter irrelevant to the charge, and of references
to the life of the prisoner, apart from the time of his
offence. He spends all his energy in proving the
enormity of the offence itself, judged by the
standard of Athenian tradition; and a consider-
able part of the Speech consists of narratives of
episodes in Athenian history, with long quotations
from the poets. Though the language is exagger-
ated,^the tone of the Speech is earnest and patriotic ;
but nothing can quite justify the attempt to put
Leocrates to death for an offence committed eight
years before, by way of making a demonstration
against the Macedonian supremacy. The votes
of the jury were equally divided and Leocrates
was acquitted. The trial illustrates the sharp
division of political opinion in Athens, and the
large amount of support upon which statesmen of
the patriotic party could still reckon, at least when
no sacrifice was entailed by their policy.
It was probably at about the same time* that a
certain Euxenippus was impeached by Polyeuctus
' It was at any rate between 330 and 324 (Blass, AU, Ber., Ill,
ii., p. 64).
430 Demosthenes
for giving bad advice to the People and receiving
bribes from those who were acting against the
interests of Athens. From the remains of Hyperei-
des' speech for the defence, it is evident that of
the arguments used by the prosecutor, one of the
most formidable was derived from the prisoner's
alleged flattery of the Macedonians, and of
Olympias in particular. That such an argument
should have been used is some indication of the
state of popular feeling.
It may have been the failure of the Spartan
revolt, with which Demosthenes was known to
have sympathised, that led -^schines to renew the
attack upon him, in the form of a prosecution of
Ctesiphon, which he had allowed to drop six years
before, when the news of Philip's death had re-
vived the antipathy of the Athenians to Mace-
donian rule. It will be remembered that Ctesiphon
had proposed in the Council, and the Council had
resolved, that a golden crown should be bestowed
upon Demosthenes in the theatre at the Dionysia,
with a proclamation to the effect that he consis-
tently spoke and acted for the true good of the
People of Athens, and a commemoration of his pub-
lic services ; and that ^schines had indicted this
as illegal. The indictment had had the effect of
suspending the operation of the decree, which
became void at the end of the year in which it had
been moved. Some difficulty has been caused
by the fact that in the Speech against Ctesiphon
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 431
iEschines clearly assumed that unless Ctesiphon
was condemned, Demosthenes would be crowned
at the next Dionysia; and certain historians have
been led by this to suppose that Ctesiphon' s
decree had again been brought forward at the
time of the Spartan rising, and that this led
^schines to repeat his indictment. But there is
no evidence of this; and it seems more natural to
suppose that every one assumed, as a matter of
course, that if the jury acquitted Ctesiphon his
motion would be formally reintroduced and carried
into effect. Others have suggested that Demos-
thenes' own party, in the confident expectation
of an acquittal, forced ^schines to proceed with his
indictment, by threatening to prosecute him and
demand the infliction of a fine upon him for having
failed to carry out his sworn intention earlier. But
of this also there is no evidence; and it is incon-
ceivable that if such threats had been used, neither
orator should have made the barest allusion to them.
It is much more likely that ^schines thought
that an opportunity offered itself, in the temporary
humiliation of Demosthenes owing to his failure
in regard to the Spartan rising, of inflicting a
crushing defeat on his rival; and that the revived
prosecution of Ctesiphon is to be connected with
the prosecutions of anti- Macedonian leaders in
other States, perhaps with the approval of Alexan-
der or Antipater. Demosthenes himself saw such
a connection.^ "At the same time as the irre-
_^De Cor., § 197.
432 Demosthenes
concilable enemies of Athens, Aristratus in Naxos
and Aristoleos in Thasos, are bringing the friends
of Athens to trial, ^schines in Athens itself is
accusing Demosthenes." But -^schines had un-
der-estimated the strength of Demosthenes' po-
sition. The sympathies of the People, of whom
the jury that would try the case would be repre-
sentative, were still with Demosthenes and an-
tagonistic to the Macedonian rule. Even before
the trial began ^schines must have been conscious
of this; for he actually attempted to enlist the
good-will of the jury by alleging, as among the
offences of Demosthenes, that he had let slip a
number of occasions upon which he might have
opposed the Macedonians, and by continually in-
sinuating that Demosthenes' opposition to Mace-
donia had been a sham. The result of the trial
was to afford Demosthenes his last and most signal
triumph.
iEschines assailed the proposal of Ctesiphon on
three grounds. He alleged first, that it was il-
legal to crown a statesman who had not passed
the public scrutiny to which all public officials
were liable on laying down office, and that Demo-
sthenes, who at the time of the decree had been a
Commissioner of fortifications and of the festival-
fund, had not passed this scrutiny; secondly, that
it was illegal to proclaim the crown in the theatre
in the manner proposed; and thirdly, that the
reasons which were given by Ctesiphon for the
award of the crown, and which it was proposed to
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 433
proclaim, were false. It was a case in which the
jury had not only to give the verdict, but also, if
they condemned the accused, to fix the penalty.
Never within the memory of man had any trial
aroused such interest throughout the Greek world,
and the court was thronged not only with Atheni-
ans, but with strangers from all parts of Greece.'
The prosecutor addressed the court first. After
an introduction, in which he emphasised the im-
portance of punishing illegal proposals, in order
to safeguard the constitution at a time when all
constitutional principles were falling into neglect,*
he proceeded at once to explain the technical
grounds upon which he relied. He first cited the
law which forbade the crowning of an official still
liable to scrutiny, and defended it on the ground
that a proposal to confer a crown, even if the
reservation were made (which Ctesiphon had
omitted to make) that the ceremony should not
take place until after the scrutiny had been held,
was bound to prejudice the issue of the scrutiny in
favottr of the recipient of the crown. ^ He further
replied to the argument which he expected Demo-
sthenes to use, to the effect that the office which he
held was not a public office in the technical sense,
and that the public money of which he had charge
was his own gift, for which he could not reasonably
be called to account.'' It may be suspected that
some of these passages (like some which occur
' ^sch., in Ctes., § 56. » § § 1-8.
2 §§ 9-12. ■♦ §§ 13-31.
28
434 Demosthenes
later in the Speech) were inserted in it for publica-
tion after Demosthenes had spoken; but there can
be no doubt that up to this point ^schines' case
was a good one in point of law.
With regard to the second technical question,
there is not much more doubt. There appears to
have been a law which forbade the proclamation
of a crown in the theatre, and ordered that a
crown, if awarded by the Council, should be
proclaimed in the Coimcil-chamber, if by the
People, in the Assembly. But there was appar-
ently another law, regulating proceedings at the
Dionysia, and forbidding proclamations in general
at the festival, but permitting those crowns to be
publicly conferred in the theatre which had been
granted to Athenian citizens by other States, if
the People gave permission. This law ^schines
expected Demosthenes to wrest to his purpose, by
arguing that coronation in the theatre was lawful
if the People consented to it, and omitting to
mention the restriction of this permission to the
case of crowns conferred by other States. Accord-
ingly he warned the jury against such sophistry,
and protested against the notion that, with all the
safeguards provided by the constitution against
contradictory laws, such a contradiction as the
anticipated argument implied would have been
permitted to remain. *
It is highly probable that here also ^schines
was on firm groimd. But both he and Demos-
* §§32-48.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 435
thenes were well aware that the case would not
be decided upon purely technical grounds, and
though he dealt with these grounds fully, and (so
far as we can judge) straightforwardly, the greater
part of his Speech was devoted to the attempt to
prove that the reasons which Ctesiphon had given
for conferring the crown on Demosthenes were
false, and that Demosthenes had not deserved
well of the State. ^
After a brief reference to some of the early in-
cidents of his rival's career, he divided his life
into four periods — the first, the time of the Peace
of Philocrates; the second, from the Peace of
Philocrates to the renewal of the war with Philip;
the third, the time of the alliance with Thebes;
and the last from the battle of Ch^eroneia to the
time of the trial. He attempted to show that in all
four periods the policy of Demosthenes was corrupt
and detrimental to Athens. We have considered
these charges in reference to the events of the
several periods in their place, and need not do so
again. The most significant points in ^Eschines'
attack are his insinuation that Demosthenes, in
spite of his patriotic professions, had more than
once acted in subservience to the Macedonian
interest, and his attempt to prove, not only that
Demosthenes had worked in harmony with Phil-
ocrates (in which there was some truth), but also
that the alliance which he had negotiated with
Callias and the Euboeans was dictated by sordid
'§§49-176.
436 Demosthenes
self-interest; that he had claimed undue credit for
the alliance with Thebes, and had granted the
Thebans terms which were highly disadvantage-
ous to Athens ; that his policy at that time had led
directly to the battle of Chaeroneia and the de-
struction of Thebes ; and that since these disasters
he had pursued a cowardly, but not less mis-
chievous, course. In a striking passage,^ ^schi-
nes imagines the scene at Dionysia, if, when the
orphans of those who had fallen in the service of
their country were presented with a suit of armour
by the State, Demosthenes, whose policy had made
them orphans, was crowned with gold. At an-
other point ^ he enumerates the qualities of a
true "friend of the People," and finds that neither
in his parentage nor in his character has Demos-
thenes any of these marks of the democratic
spirit.
In the latter part of the Speech, ^schines first
argued that whereas in old times rewards had been
but rarely bestowed by the People, and had there-
fore been highly esteemed, the indiscriminate
bestowal of honours was tending to diminish their
value. ^ He then returned to the topic of the
importance of trials for illegal proposals, and de-
clared that in cases where the proof was neces-
sarily so straightforward, and required only the
comparison of the incriminated proposal with the
letter of the law, the accused ought not to be
allowed to employ an advocate to mislead the
'§§152-158. "§§168-176. 3 §§177-191.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 437
jury — that Demosthenes, in short, ought not to be
permitted to speak on behalf of Ctesiphon, or at
least ought to be strictly confined to the legal
questions at issue, and to the order of topics laid
down by the prosecutor.^ There follows in the
Speech as we have it, a series of brief arguments
in reply to those which Demosthenes was expected
to use — ^most of them, in all probability, inserted
after the trial, as a reply to arguments which
Demosthenes actually had used — together with
passages designed to arouse the animosity of the
jury against Demosthenes himself or against
Gtesiphon.^ In conclusion, .^schines insisted
upon the moral effect which the verdict of the jury
must inevitably have, and besought them to put
an end to the acquisition of excessive power by
individuals and to the corruption of statesmen by
Persian gold.^ A passage of real power ends with
a sadly frigid and artificial appeal :
And now, O Earth and Sun and Virtue and In-
telligence and Culture, whereby we distinguish the
honourable from the shameful, I have given you my
aid and have spoken. If I have accused him well, and
as the charge deserves, I have spoken as I desired; if
inadequately, as well as I could. Do you consider the
arguments which I have used, and those which I have
passed over, and give the vote which justice and the
interest of the city require.
Had the reply of Demosthenes been lost, it may
be that ^schines' Speech would have been given
'§§191-214. »§§ 215-242. '§§243-259.
438 Demosthenes
a higher place in the estimation of later ages than
has usually been assigned to it. There are indeed
in it passages of overwrought rhetoric and digres-
sions of disproportionate length ; yet his case is, on
the whole, strongly presented, and its personalities
do not transgress the limits which Athenian taste
allowed. But Demosthenes' defence of Ctesiphon
throws his rival's oration utterly in the shade. It
is not only that, except upon the technical points,
which no one present can have regarded as of
serious importance, his case is overwhelmingly
good; his Speech as a whole stands on a moral
level which is incomparably higher. Certain re-
servations must doubtless be made, and those
not unimportant. The replies to the several
portions of -^schines' accusation are interspersed
with passages of personal attack, which are almost
savage in their vehemence, and are irrelevant to
the main issue. Probably no such language was
ever used by a politician about his opponents
on any other occasion even in Athens, and the
brilliant dramatic power which some of these pass-
ages show does not excuse their untruthfulness.^
There are, moreover, — chiefly in those parts of the
Speech which deal with the Peace of Philocrates, —
misrepresentations of the truth, due to the orator's
desire to disclaim all share in a transaction which
was now discredited in popular estimation. On
the points of law which ^schines' adduced, the
' Comp, esp., §§ 159, 198, 209, 257-264 (the famous account
of iEschines's earlier days — probably almost entirely false), 308.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 439
reasoning of Demosthenes can only be called
sophistical and evasive. At best it could only be
urged that the law had been broken before on
many occasions, sometimes in Demosthenes' own
favour. But when all that can be said in criticism
of the Speech is fully allowed for, the greatest
difference between it and that of ^schines remains,
^schines scarcely ever rises above the level of the
party politician, the legal prosecutor, the personal
enemy. His Speech reveals no breadth of outlook,
no worthy ideal of national policy. Its whole
effect is negative. It attacks one act of Demos-
thenes after another, cleverly indeed, but from the
standpoint of no general principles, no far-sighted
aims; and sometimes — more particularly in those
passages in which it seeks to disparage the terms of
the alliance with Thebes, or those in which Demos-
thenes is accused of favouring the Macedonian
interest^ — a meanness and an insincerity are re-
vealed which are utterly unworthy of a statesman.
Demosthenes, on the other hand, speaks in the
tone of a statesman who has attempted whole-
heartedly to carry out his own highest ideals, and
those of his countrymen, and who can appeal with
confidence to the best side of their national
character, convinced that he has not interpreted it
wrongly. He claims to be judged, not by the
' Demosthenes did not reply to the charges so far as they
referred to the most recent times — doubtless because of the
danger he would have incurred had he tried to prove expressly
his hostility to Alexander.
440 Demosthenes
familiar jargon about the "friend of the People,"
but by the highest standards of statesmanship.
Every investigation that can be made as regards
those duties for which an orator should be held re-
sponsible, I bid you make. I crave no mercy. And
what are those duties? To discern events in their
beginnings, to foresee what is coming, and to forewarn
others. These things I have done. Again, it is his
duty to reduce to the smallest possible compass,
wherever he finds them, the slowness, the hesitation,
the ignorance, the contentiousness, which are the
errors inseparably connected with the constitution of
all city-states; while, on the other hand, he must
stimulate men to unity, friendship, and eagerness to
perform their duty. All these things I have done,
and no one can discover any dereliction of duty on
my part at any time. ^ . . .
Do you ask me [he demands] for what merits I
count myself worthy to receive honour? I tell you
that at a time when every politician in Hellas had
been corrupted — beginning with yourself, — no oppor-
tunity that offered, no generous language, no grand
promises, no hopes, no fears, nor any other motive,
tempted or induced me to betray one jot of what I
believed to be the rights and interests of the city ; nor
of all the counsel that I have given to my fellow-
countrymen, up to this day, has any ever been given
(as it has by you) with the scales oTthe mind inclining
to the side of gain, but all out of an upright, honest,
uncorrupted soul. I have taken the lead in greater
affairs than any man of my own time, and my ad-
' § 246.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 441
ministration has been sound and honest throughout
aU.' . . .
All these measures, men of Athens, will be found by
any one who will examine them without jealousy,
to have been correctly planned, and executed with
entire honesty; the opportunity for each step was
not, you will find, neglected or left unrecognised or
thrown away by me; and nothing was left undone,
which it was within the power and the reasoning
capacity of a single man to effect. But if the might
of some Divine Power, or the inferiority of our
generals, or the wickedness of those who were betray-
ing your cities, or all these things together, con-
tinuously injured our whole cause, until they effected
its overthrow, how is Demosthenes at fault ?^ . . .
Not when my surrender was demanded, not when I
was called to account before the Amphictyons, not in
face either of threats or of promises, not when these
accursed men were hounded on against me like wild
beasts, have I ever been false to my loyalty towards
you. For from the very first I chose the straight and
honest path in public life ; I chose to foster the honour,
the supremacy, the good name of my country, to seek
to enhance them, and to stand or fall with them.^
At every stage in the argument, Demosthenes
puts the question, "What was the part which
Athens was bound to pla}', if she was to be true to
herself and her traditions?" and claims to have
urged her to play that part.
Should she, ^schines, have sacrificed her pride and
her own dignity? Should she have joined the ranks
^§§297.298. ="§303. 3 §322.
442 Demosthenes
of the Thessalians and Dolopes, and helped Philip
thereby to acquire the empire of Hellas, cancelling
thereby the noble and righteous deeds of our fore-
fathers? Or, if she should not have done this (for it
would have been in very truth an atrocious thing),
should she have looked on, while all that she saw would
happen, if no one prevented it — all that she realised,
it seems, at a distance — was actually taking place?'
. . . What language should have been used, what
measures proposed, by the adviser of the People at
Athens (for that it was at Athens makes the utmost
difference), when I knew that from the very first, up
to the day when I myself ascended the platform, my
country had always contended for pre-eminence,
honour and glory, and in the cause of honour, and for
the interests of all, had sacrificed more money and
lives than any other Hellenic people had spent for
their private ends: when I saw that Philip himself,
with whom our conflict lay, for the sake of empire and
absolute power, had had his eye knocked out, his
hand and his leg maimed, and was ready to resign any
part of his body that Fortune chose to take from him,
provided that with what remained he might live in
honour and glory? And surely no one would dare to
say that it was fitting that in one bred at Pella, a
place then inglorious and insignificant, there should
have grown up so lofty a spirit that he aspired after
the empire of Hellas, and conceived such a project
in his mind; but that in you, who are Athenians, and
who day by day in all that you hear and see behold
the memorials of the gallantry of your fathers, such
baseness should be found that you would 3deld up
*§63.
Greece in the Absence of Alexmider 443
your liberty to Philip by your own deliberate offer and
deed. '
So he argues above all in justification of the
policy which led to the battle of Chaeroneia:
Even if what was to come was plain to all before-
hand; even if all foreknew it; even if you, ^schines,
had been crying with a loud voice in warning and
protestation — you who uttered not so much as a
sound — even then, I say, it was not right for the city
to abandon her course, if she had any regard for her
fame, or for our forefathers, or for the ages to come.
As it is, she is thought, no doubt, to have failed to
secure her object — as happens to all alike, whenever
God wills it: but then, by abandoning in favour of
Philip her claim to take the lead of others, she must
have incurred the blame of having betrayed them all.
. . . But this was not, it appears, the tradition of the
Athenians: it was not tolerable; it was not in their
nature. From the beginning of time no one had ever
yet succeeded in persuading the city to throw in her
lot with those who were strong, but unrighteous in
their dealings, and to enjoy the security of servitude.
Throughout all time she has maintained her perilous
struggle for pre-eminence, honour, and glory.* . . .
It cannot, it cannot be that you were wrong, men
of Athens, when you took upon you the struggle for
freedom and deliverance. No! by those who at
Marathon bore the brunt of the peril — our fore-
athers! No! by those who at Plataeae drew up their
battle-line ; by those who at Salamis, by those who off
» §§ 66-68. ' §§ 199-203.
444 Demosthenes
Artemisium fought the fight at sea; by the many who
lie in the sepulchres where the People laid them — •
brave men, all alike deemed worthy by their country,
iEschines, of the same honour and the same obsequies
• — not the successful or the victorious alone ! ^
It is such sentiments that give its unique eleva-
tion to the Speech on the Crown. We have
considered in the preceding chapter the justifica-
tion of Demosthenes' policy at different stages
in his career, and there is no need to repeat what
has been said, nor to give a formal analysis of a
Speech which every student of Demosthenes must
read many times. The Speech began with an
appeal to the gods; and the solemnity of its con-
clusion also is in keeping with the momentous
character of the issue :
Never, O all ye gods, may any of you consent to
their desire! If it can be, may you implant even in
these men a better mind and heart. But if they are
verily beyond all cure, then bring them and them
alone to utter and early destruction, by land and sea.
And to us who remain, grant the speediest release
from the fears that hang over us, and safety that
nought can shake. ^
When the votes of the jury were counted, it was
found that ^schines had not received one fifth
of the total number. He thereby became liable
to the penalties ordained by the law of Athens for
malicious prosecution — Si fine of looo drachmae,
'§208. *§324-
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 445
and certain civil disabilities. ^ He coiild doubtless
have paid the fine and faced the loss of rights ; but
he could not face the spectacle of Demosthenes'
triumph, and therefore withdrew from Athens.
He first went to Ephesus, where he hoped to obtain
a favourable reception from Alexander,^ but the
hope was frustrated by the news of Alexander's
death in 323. Then, if not before, he went to
Rhodes, where he passed most of the remainder of
his life. He is said to have taught rhetoric there,
reciting to his pupils the very speech with which
Demosthenes had overthrown him; and to have
met their admiration with the remark, "Ah! but
you should have heard the beast himself!"^
The division of opinion in Athens, or rather, the
conflict in the public mind between interested
caution and patriotic sentiment, is illustrated by
the few facts, apart from the doings of Alexander,
that have come down to us from the period im-
mediately following the acquittal of Ctesiphon.
On the one hand, the party of non-resistance
remained powerful. Phocion continued to be re-
elected general.'' Demades retained his power in
the Assembly. ^ On the other hand, Lycurgus was
' Plut., Dem., xxiv.; comp., Dem., de Cor., §§ 82, 266.
» Vit. X Oral., 846 c.
J Hid., 840 d.; Schol. on ^sch., de F. L., {., etc.
* Ai: he was general forty-five times, he must have been re-
appointed almost every year.
s Decrees of the years 329 to 323 in his name are known to us
from C. I. A., ii., 178, 193, 809, 811; cf. Dein., in Dem., § loi.
446 Demosthenes
in control of public finance down to 326, and De-
mosthenes himself exercised important influence,
since he was described by Hypereides as "director
of State-affairs in general."^ Deinarchus also
complains of his power, and both Demosthenes and
Demades figure as leading statesmen in the melan-
choly episode which comes before us, when next
we are able to study the internal history of Athens
in detail. It is probably to be inferred, not that
any formal agreement had been made between the
rival parties, but that statesmen of opposite views
were able to exercise influence side by side, and to
divide the administrative offices between them,
because caution demanded that those who were
of the Macedonian party should not be discarded,
while the stronger popular sentiment was on the
side of Demosthenes and Lycurgus. Probably
there was little open friction; and it seems most
likely that the political life of Athens was confined
for some years to purely local questions, and that
its most notable expression was the carrying out of
the extensive building operations which had been
planned by Lycurgus.' For the rest, the citizens
went about their business, and enjoyed the dis-
tributions of festival-money, and the otherpleasures
of a time of peace.
In one respect only did serious trouble arise.
^ i-iruTTdTfjs rG)v SXup vpayftArav. Hyper., in Dent,, col. xii.;
comp. Dein., in Dem., §§ 5, 7.
' See von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, AristoUsles und A then, pp.
352, 353; Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, pp. 8, 9, etc.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 447
The price of com rose about this time to a for-
midable height. The rise had begun even before
the trial of Ctesiphon^; and it became so serious
that a special fund was formed for the purchase of
com; Demosthenes was made com-commissioner,
and contributed a talent from his own capital to
the fund.' The position was made worse by the
action of Cleomenes, Alexander's representative
in Egypt, who made a "comer" in grain, and sold
it at very high prices in Athens, transferring his
cargoes elsewhere whenever the price fell.^ It is
possible that a number of decrees proposed by
Demosthenes, conferring honour upon various
persons, are to be connected with their services
in connection with the corn-supply. By these
decrees, '* a certain Diphilus was given the privilege
of maintenance in the Prytaneum, and the honour
of a statue in the market-place; a resident alien,
named Chaerephilus, and his sons, were given the
citizenship of Athens, and so were the bankers
Epigenes and Conon ; and statues of the princes of
the Bosporus, whose friendship with Athens was
of long standing, were also erected.^ Demo-
sthenes was accused of embezzlement during his
tenxire of office, but was acquitted. * We hear also
' Dem., de Cor., § 89. » Vit. X Orc^,845 c.
» [Dem.], in Dionysod., § 7, etc.; see Boeckh, Staatsh., i., p. 119,
etc. < Dein.,mZ?ew.,§43.
» We do not, however, know the date of their erection, and it
may have taken place earlier.
* Vit. X Oral., 845 e. Schafer rightly observes that this
notice cannot refer to the year 338; ^schines would not have
448 Demosthenes
of an expedition under Miltiades in May, 324, to
Western waters, to protect the Athenian trade
in the West against Tyrrhenian pirates. The
decree ordering the expedition was proposed by
Cephisophon and supported by Hypereides,' and
instructions were given for the founding of a
colony on the Adriatic; but we know nothing of
the fortunes of the expedition.
In 326 Lycurgus ceased to hold office. Whether
he retired of his own accord, or whether he was
rejected in favour of other candidates we do not
know. The former alternative is possible; he
was not living after 324, and his health may already
have been failing. The other alternative is sug-
gested by the fact that he was succeeded by a
personal enemy, Menes^chmus, whom he had
successfully prosecuted for impiety in a matter
which had to do with the sanctuary of Delos.^
It has also been suggested that the election of
Menesaechmus marks the beginning of a division
m the ranks of the patriotic party, since we after-
wards find Menesaschmus associated with Hyper-
eides in attacking Demosthenes; but there is no
evidence to prove or disprove this supposition.
Shortly before his death, Lycurgus caused him-
self to be taken to the Metroon and the Council
chamber, to render an account of his long steward-
failed to notice any charge against Demosthenes of dishonesty in
thatyear. ' C. /. ^.,ii.,8o9 a.
' Vit. X Oral., 843 d. A speech for the defence was included
in antiquity among the speeches of Deinarchus.
Greece in the Absence of Alexander 449
ship. Menesaechmus, who alone ventured to
bring any charge against him, entirely failed to
justify his allegations, and the stem but capable
and honest old statesman was carried home to
die.^
^ Vit. X Orat., 842 e.
39
CHAPTER XIII
THE AFFAIR OF HARPALUS AND THE LAMIAN WAR
FOR about two years (327 to 325) Alexander
was engaged in his great expedition to India,
and it was not until 324 that he returned to Susa.
In his absence his deputies had governed as though
they had expected him never to come back; and
among the most shameless of these unfaithful
viceroys was Harpalus, who, after a chequered
career, had been left in command at Babylon.
There he indulged in a long orgy of luxury and
immorality. He sent to Athens for the famous
courtesan Pythionice, and treated her as his queen;
and after her death he buried her sumptuously,
and erected statues of her both in Babylon and in
Athens, where Charicles, the son-in-law of Phocion,
acted as his agent in the matter. The "Tomb of
Pythionice" was still to be seen in Plutarch's day
on the road from Athens to Eleusis. Another
courtesan from Athens, named Glycera, was soon
installed in the vacant place, and the extravagances
of Harpalus continued as before. Suddenly it was
announced that Alexander was on his way back
from India. Harpalus fled from Babylon without
450
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 451
delay (in the winter of 325-4) , taking with him a
force of six thousand mercenaries, and the sum of
five thousand talents out of Alexander's treasure,
which had been in his charge. ^
He first sailed to the coast of Attica with thirty
ships, and anchored off Sunium, expecting that
the People of Athens would receive him and join
forces with him in a revolt against the Macedonian
power. ^ There was some ground for his expecta-
tions, since he had influential friends in Athens, and
in return for presents of com which he had sent,
the Athenians had already granted him the citi-
zenship. But Demosthenes, who doubtless saw
that there would be great danger in such an alHance,
and that the assistance of Harpalus was not likely
to be the means by which Athens could secure
freedom, persuaded the People to reject Harpalus'
offer (tempting as it must have been at first sight)
to place his ships and men at the disposal of the
Athenians. ^ Demosthenes' policy on this occasion
is very like that which he had pursued in regard
to the Peace of 346 — a policy of refusing to break
the Peace when the chances of success were too
small for a prudent statesman to act upon. The
general Philocles, who had charge of Munychia
and the Peiraeus, was ordered to prevent Harpalus
from landing, and undertook upon oath to do so. "*
Thus baffled, Harpalus departed with his ships
' Diod., XVII, cviii.; Theopomp., fr. 244, 245 (Oxford text);
Plut., PAoc, xxii. ' Curt., x., ii. ' Plut., Dem., xxv.
* Vit. X Oral., 846 a; Diod., I.e.; Deinarch., in FhUocl,, § i.
452 ' Demosthenes
to Taenarum, and landed his men there. He then
returned with a single ship to the Peiraeus, bringing
with him a very large sum of money. Philocles,
probably induced by a bribe, failed to prevent his
entrance, and he now supplicated the People for
aid, at the same time distributing bribes where
he thought they would be effective,'' The less
cautious members of the patriotic party, and
among them Hypereides, wished to take this
opportunity of declaring war, being evidently
convinced (perhaps by the statements of Harpalus
himself) that many of the oriental satraps were
ready to rise against Alexander, and would already
have done so, had Athens not repelled Harpalus.'
But this policy was opposed by Demosthenes, who,
as before, thought the occasion unfavourable for
the renewal of the war, and by Phocion, who spoke
so plainly in regard to Harpalus' methods as to
force him to cut short his distributions of money. ^
At the same time the surrender of Harpalus was
demanded by Antipater and Olympias, and also
by Philoxenus, Alexander's commander in south-
em Asia Minor. Philoxenus came personally to
Athens for the purpose, and his advent caused
the Athenians great alarm, of which Demosthen-
es took advantage. "If," he asked the People,
" you cannot look a candle in the face, how will you
face the sim when he appears? " (There is in fact
'Plut.,PAoc.,xxi.
» Pollux, X, § 159; Hyper., jwZJew., col. xix.
3 Plut., Dew., XXV. ; PAoc, xxi.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 453
reason to think that Alexander was just now
contemplating a great expedition against Athens,
in consequence of a rumour that had reached him
that Harpalus had been well-received there. 0
Finally it was resolved, on Demosthenes' proposal,
not to surrender Harpalus (for probably public
opinion would not have permitted this), but to
keep him in confinement, and to take charge of the
money which he had brought, until Alexander
should send a fully accredited representative to
take both over.^ Demosthenes also had the
question' put directly to Harpalus by Mnesitheus,
how much money he had brought with him,^
Harpalus named seven hundred talents as the
sum; but the amount actually deposited next day
in the Acropolis was found to be no more than 350
talents. Demosthenes, who was one of those
charged with the duty of conveying the money to
the Parthenon, failed to inform the People of the
exact sum deposited.'' The probable reason for
this omission will presently appear; but it soon
became known that a very large sum was missing.
Demosthenes next appears to have carried two
proposals — first, that those who had received
' Curt., X, ii. The rumour is alluded to in the fragments of a
satyric play named Agen, performed before Alexander, probably
at Susa, early in March, 324; Athen., XIII, p. 596.
» Vit X Oral., 846 b; Dein., in Dem., § 89; Hyper., in Dem., col.
viii., ix.
3 Hyper., I.e., adds the interesting note that Demosthenes was
sitting " in his usual place, under the cutting " or Katatome.
< Vit. X Oral., 846 c.
V
454 Demosthenes
money from Harpalus should be allowed to escape
all penalty if they restored it'; and secondly that
the Council of Areopagus should enquire into the
whole affair, and should report to the People the
names of those who had taken presents from
Harpalus, with a view to their prosecution. * Just
at this moment, Harpalus succeeded in escaping
from prison — with whose aid or connivance there
is no evidence to show^ — and returned first to
Taenarum, and thence sailed to Crete, where he
was murdered by one of his own captains, Thibron
of Sparta. " The Coimcil of Areopagus took their
time before setting seriously to work at the inves-
tigation entrusted to them, and in the meantime
the situation became further complicated.
Before Alexander had set out on his march to
India in 327, he had been greeted as a god through
the flattery of the sophist Anaxarchus — or it may
have been Cleon — and divine honours had been
paid him; though Callisthenes, the nephew of
Aristotle and himself a distinguished historian, had
strongly protested, and in consequence had shortly
afterwards been put to death on a charge of
complicity in a conspiracy of the royal pages. ^
Early in 324 Alexander demanded that the Greek
^ Hyper, in Dent. , col, xxxiv.
» Plut., Z)em., xxvi. ; Dein., t» Dem., § 4.
» It was notoriously easy to escape from prison at Athens;
comp. Plato's Crito, in which Socrates' friends oflFer to arrange
his escape. 4 Diod., XVII, cix.
s Arrian, IV, x., §§ 7-9, xv.; Curt., VIII, v., viii.; V\nt., Alex., Iv.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 455
States also should recognise his divinity.^ Prob-
ably the smaller States complied without making
any difficulties; at Megalopolis, for instance, a
shrine was dedicated to Alexander, and was seen
several centuries afterwards by Pausanias. ^ Even
the Spartans gave a contemptuous assent, agree-
ing to **let Alexander be a god if he liked. "^ At
Athens the spirit of resistance was stronger.
Lycurgus, who was priest of Erechtheus, asked the
indignant question, "What sort of a god is he, at
whose temple a man must purify himself on coming
out instead of on going in?"'' The demand was
opposed by Demosthenes, who declared that the
city should worship only the traditional gods.^ It
was also opposed by Pytheas, an orator who was
at present on the anti- Macedonian side^; and in
spite of Demades' warning to the Assembly,^
"to take care lest in guarding heaven they should
lose earth," the People refused to submit to the
demand.
But with it came another and a' more serious
command from Alexander, which Demosthenes
was at first prepared to resist even at the risk of
war.* This was an injunction issued to all the
* Note I at the end of the Chapter. » Paus,, VIII, xxxii., § i,
iJEX., Var. H:, II, xix.; Pint., Lac. Apophth., 2ige.
* Vit. X Oral., 842 d. The question may have been asked in
327; if not, it is the last recorded utterance of Lycurgus.
s Polyb., XII, 12 a. « Plut., Prac. Cer. Rep., 804 b.
7Val., Max., VII, xiii.
'Hyper., in Dem., col xxxi.; Dein., in Dem., §§ 69, 94;
Diod., XVIII, viii. See Ed. Meyer, Kleine Schriften, pp. 311 flf.
456 Demosthenes
Greek States that they should receive back those
who had been banished from their several cities,
with the exception of those who were under a
religious ban. The command was given by the
King partly (so Diodorus explains) "for the sake
of his reputation." It was not creditable to his
rule that many thousands of his subjects should
be homeless exiles; still less, that his dominions
should be overrun by lawless mercenaries or
brigands, such as many of the exiles became. But
the explanation was partly that "he desired to have
a large number of persons in each State attached
to himself, as a security against the revolutions
and risings of the Greeks." On the other hand,
the order was a direct breach of the convention of
Corinth, by which the King had undertaken not to
interfere with the internal affairs of the Greek
cities; though it might be argued that Alexander
the god could claim authority to supersede the
terms of any mere human convention; and from
this point of view, the combination of the two
demands was an ingenious stroke of policy.
Even apart from the divine claims, the injunction
was an announcement that Alexander intended to
stand above the internal party-divisions of the
several States. But the fulfilment of the injimc-
tion was boimd to lead to serious internal disturb-
ances in each city — the more so because exile was
generally due to political causes. The Athenians
had special reasons for apprehension, since they
had driven out a number of the inhabitants of
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 457
Samos^ to make room for Athenian settlers, and
the King's order would compel them to restore
these. In any case the order was bound to evoke
the strongest resentment in Athens. It was vir-
tually a demand that she should renounce her
internal autonomy; and it was in accordance with
Demosthenes* strongest political sentiments that
he should think it right to resist it to the death.
There is thus no reason to have recourse, for an
explanation, to the motive suggested by his ene-
mies, ' that he desired to get up a war in order to
divert the attention of the People from the enquiry
entrusted to the Council of Areopagus, from which
he had reason to apprehend danger.
The popular feeling was on Demosthenes* side,
and he was appointed chief of the official re-
presentatives sent by Athens to the Olympian
festival in July or August, 324, to which Nicanor
of Stageira had been sent by Alexander to pro-
claim the King's pleasure to the assembled Greeks. ^
In anticipation of Nicanor*s proclamation, more
than twenty thousand of the exiles affected by it
had gathered at the festival, and they received it
with great demonstrations of joy, which were not
shared by the Athenians or the ^tolians; for, just
as the former had occupied Samos, so the latter had
» Perhaps as recently as 326. C. I. A., ii., 808 a, records the
despatch of a fleet to Samos in that year.
* E. g. Hyper., /. c.
3Diod., XVIII, viii.; Justin, XIII, v.; Curt., X, ii.; Hyper.,
in Dent, col. xviii.
458 Demosthenes
occupied CEniadae, and expelled the inhabitants of
the town ; and they now found themselves required
to restore it to them.^ Nicanor was instructed
not only to proclaim the restoration of exiles
(except those from Thebes, whose return to their
native land was explicitly forbidden^), but also, it
would seem, to forbid the federal meetings of the
Achaeans, Arcadians, and Boeotians; and Antipater
was ordered to enforce the King's decree by arms
upon those cities which proved disobedient. Dem-
osthenes does not appear to have expressed the
feelings of himself or his fellow-citizens in any
conspicuous manner during the festival; but it is
mere malice on the part of Deinarchus^ to treat
him as a traitor to his country, on the ground that
he was seen speaking to Nicanor. The representa-
tives of the most hostile powers may have the best
of reasons for meeting one another, and it may
even be that Demosthenes postponed the outbreak
of a crisis by diplomatic conversations.
But whatever Demosthenes' conduct at Olym-
pia, '» his visit seems to have caused him to regard
the situation as more dangerous than he had at
first believed. He remained firm indeed as regards
the restoration of exiles; but he withdrew the im-
peachment which he had preferred against the or-
ator Callimedon for associating with the Athenian
exiles, who were now assembled at Megara and were
' Diod., /. c. ; V\nt.,Alex., xlix.
' Plut., Lac. Apophth., p. 221 a.
3 Dein., in Dem., §,103. < Note 2.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 459
demanding readmission to Athens^; and he also
withdrew his opposition to the recognition of Alex-
ander's divinity. "Let him be son of Zeus," he
said, "or, if he prefers it, son of Poseidon, for all I
care. " He doubtless believed that if the Athenians
gave way upon this point, which was of compara-
tively little pohtical importance, Alexander might
be content to ignore their neglect of the more seri-
ous injunction. ^ In consequence of this, Demades
now proposed that Alexander should be added as a
thirteenth to the twelve Olympian gods, under the
title of Dionysus, whose mythical home at Nysa
Alexander fancied himself to have discovered; and
that a temple should be erected to him^; and this
decree appears to have been accepted, since Hy-
pereides, a year or so later, '^ alluded scornfully to
this payment of divine honours to men.
A number of embassies proceeded about this
time to Babylon, where Alexander received their
congratulations and homage (accompanied by gold-
en crowns) early in 323; he also considered the
political and other questions which they submitted
to him, and among them, their requests in regard
to the return of the exiles. ^ It is probable that
' Dein., in Dem., §§ 58, 94. Another Athenian, named Poly-
euctus, was also prosecuted, though not by Demosthenes; but
was able to prove that he had gone to Megara to visit his mother.
' Dein., in Dem., § 94; Hyper., in Dem. col. xxxi.
sVal., Max., VII, ii., E. 10; .<EUan., Var. Hist., V, xii.; Athen.,
VI,p.25ib;Diog., L., VI, Ixiii. ^ Hyper., Epitaph., col. viii.
s Arrian, VII, xix., xxiii., seems to distinguish two series of
embassies; Diod., XVII, cxiii., groups all together.
460 Demosthenes
the Athenians sent envoys among the rest ; for we
are told that Alexander at this time restored to the
Greeks the statues and other works of art which
the Persians had carried off at the time of Xerxes*
invasion of Greece, and among others restored to
the Athenians the statues of Harmodius and Aris-
togeiton, who had liberated Athens from tyranny
in 510. But he probably refused to give way as
regards the restoration of exiles, since various in-
scriptions of the time allude to the return of the
banished to their several cities — to Samos among
others.'' Whether he insisted upon the reception
into Athens of those who had been expelled we do
not know.
Before the embassies were received at Babylon,
the Harpalus affair came to an issue. It is plain
that public excitement over the matter had been
growing; the apprehension of danger from Alexan-
der had also increased; and there was much
impatience at the long delay of the Council of
Areopagus in coming to a conclusion. They had
indeed instituted a search in the houses of sus-
pected persons, but without result. Demosthenes
was openly charged by his enemies with receiving
money from Harpalus ; and in self-defence proposed
a decree ordering an enquiry by the Coimcil of
Areopagus into the charge against himself, de-
claring himself ready to submit to the penalty of
death if he were foimd to have taken the money.
' C. I. G., ii., 2166, 2671, 2672, etc., and Ditt. Syll., (Ed. 2)
162.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 461
Philocles did the same.^ That Demosthenes
himself gave evidence before the Coiincil appears
from the circumstance that Deinarchus accused
him of committing perjury before that body. At
some point in the course of the proceedings, two
persons, a father and son, were condemned to
death and executed, on the proposal of Demos-
thenes ; it is conjectured that they may have been
the watchmen who had been set to guard the
treasure.* Such was the nervousness of all par-
ties, that those who had actually taken money
from Harpalus were the first to accuse others of
having done so, in the hope of saving themselves. ^
Even Hypereides, who was above suspicion, was
mentioned by the comic poet Timocles (prob-
ably at the Dionysia in March, 324) as having re-
ceived money, along with Demosthenes, Moerocles,
Demon, and Callisthenes. At last, six months
after the enquiry had been ordered,'' the Council
reported that Demosthenes had received twenty
talents of the lost money, Demades six thousand
gold staters (also equivalent to about twenty
talents), and that various sums had been accepted
by Philocles, Cephisophon, Hagnonides, Aristoni-
cus, Aristogeiton, and Charicles.
In consequence of this report, the Assembly
» Dein., in Dent., §§ 8, 47, 82, 83, 86, etc.; in Philocl., §§ i, 2.
Demosthenes perhaps trusted that this Council would be fav-
ourably inclined to him, as on some former occasions.
' Dein., in Dent., §§ 8, 62, 83.
s Plut., Dent., xxv. ; Phoc, xxi. * Dein., in Dent., § 45.
462 Demosthenes
appointed ten orators to prosecute the accused on
behalf of the State. Among the ten were Hyperei-
des, Pytheas, Menesaechmus, Procles, Stratocles,
and Himeraeus. ' Of these Menesaechmus was the
former assailant of Lycurgus; Pytheas, though
he had opposed the recognition of Alexander's
divinity, was shortly afterwards in the pay of
Antipater^; Stratocles had been described by
Demosthenes 3 as the most plausible scoundrel in
the world. What was Hypereides doing in con-
junction with such men, and in antagonism to
Demosthenes? Probably the two had been drift-
ing apart for some time. The patient moderation
of Demosthenes, who was waiting for a really
favourable moment before renewing the struggle
for freedom, and the fact that he had been content
to divide the administrative offices with Demades
and his friends, may gradually have alienated
Hypereides ; the original refusal of Demosthenes to
accept the overtures of Harpalus may have seemed
to Hypereides to be a sacrifice of a unique oppor-
tunity, 4 and the charge of bribery and embezzle-
ment may have seemed to be a convenient way of
getting rid of so cautious a leader. It was per-
haps for similar reasons that Hypereides attacked
Hagnonides and Aristonicus, who had also been
opponents of the Macedonian power.
The charge against Demosthenes was tried
» Dein., in Dem., § i; Vit. X Oral., 846 c.
» Comp. Dem., Ep., iii., § 29.
» In Pantcenet., § 48 (circ. 346-5 B.C.). * Note3.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 463
first. The speech of Stratocles, in which the
proofs of the charge are said^ to have been given,
has not come down to us; and we are therefore
ignorant what the nature of these proofs was.
The Council of Areopagus had only reported its
conclusions, not the grounds of them.^* The
speech of Deinarchus, composed for one of the
prosecutors — ^probably Himeraeus, ^ — ^followed that
of Stratocles. The speaker does not offer a vestige
of proof of any kind, being apparently content
with the findings of the Council. On the other
hand, he tries by every means to rouse prejudice
against Demosthenes, by recalling the destruction
of Thebes and other disasters and attributing
them to him, and by accusing him of taking bribes
on a number of former occasions. But the
meanest arguments, in a speech brimming over
with malice, are those which accuse Demosthenes
of having all along been working in the service of
Macedonia, from the time of the Peace of Philoc-
rates onwards, and of having thrown away every
opportunity of opposing Philip and Alexander.
(The arguments of course show that the prosecu-
tors were aware that the feeling of the jury would
be strongly anti-Macedonian.) The speaker
further urged the jury to remember that the eyes
* Dein., in Dem., § i. * Dem., Ep., ii., § i.
sBlass, Alt. Ber., Ill, ii., p. 310. Haupt thinks that the
speaker was Menesaechmus. Whoever he was, he had himself
been denounced for corruption by Pistias, an Areopagite, but
had succeeded in clearing himself.
464 Demosthenes
of the world were upon them, and that it was
important to punish corruption in the case of
eminent men above all. What, he proceeded to
ask, would happen if Alexander demanded to be
paid the money brought by Harpalus? Would
Demosthenes expect the Athenians to go to war,
in order that he and others might retain what they
had stolen? The Speech is marked throughout by
vehement and impetuous but overwrought rhetoric ;
by way of additional insult, passages not only of
iEschines' but of Demosthenes' own earlier orations
are used with very little alteration against Demos-
thenes himself; and, whatever were the merits
of the case, there is no public oration by a Greek
orator which stands on quite so low a level as this.
At a later stage in the trial Hypereides spoke,
and some not inconsiderable fragments of his
speech are known to us. Hypereides like Dein-
archus regards the finding of the Areopagus as
sufficient evidence in itself, particularly as Demos-
thenes himself had proposed that its verdict, if
given against him, should be conclusive. He asks
whether it is likely that it was for nothing that
Demosthenes had taken no proceedings against the
custodians who had let Harpalus go, when it was he
himself who had moved that he should be kept in
custody? or that Harpalus would have bribed lesser
men, and passed over Demosthenes, the mana-
ger of the whole affair? He also brings up against
Demosthenes the scandal about the Persian gold,
and the failure to help Thebes against Alexander.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 465
What is more interesting is that Hypereides
gives us the only information we have as to the
line of defence which Demosthenes was expected
to adopt, and which had no doubt become known
before the trial. Demosthenes had demanded a
detailed account of the sums which he was alleged
to have received, showing from whom he had
received them, and where — a. demand upon which
Hypereides throws scorn, saying that it is treating
the Council's report as though it were a banker's
accoimt ; but which seems in itself not unreasonable.
He had also declared that the report of the Council
of Areopagus was false, and that the Areopagites
desired to get rid of him, by way of doing a favour
to Alexander. The latter assertion is very likely
to have been so far true, that the danger which the
Athenians apprehended from Alexander's indig-
nation may have been strongly urged upon them,
and may have forced them to make a report,
when they had probably hoped to let the matter
drop, as they had done in the case of the "Persian
gold." But what is of most importance is the
statement of Hypereides that Demosthenes had
made all his subsequent denials of the receipt of
the money ineffectual, by having at first admitted
that he had taken the money and by having tried
to justify himself for doing so, on the pretext that
he had borrowed the money for the festival-fund.*
' The Interpretation of vpoSeSaveifffUvoi (Hyper., in Dent.,
col. X.) given by Holm and others, who take it to mean that
Demosthenes had advanced twenty talents of his own to the
30
466 Demosthenes
(His friend Cnosion also hinted that if pressure
were exerted, the result would be the revelation
of a state-secret, and would be detrimental to the
public interest.^) This defence Hypereides de-
scribed as bringing discredit upon the People, by-
letting it be thought that they would apply Harp-
alus' money to their own public purposes. The
verdict of the court was against Demosthenes.
It was open to them either to condemn him to
death, or to fine him ten times the amount alleged
to have been received by him.^ Instead of doing
either, they inflicted a fine of fifty talents, com-
mitting him to prison imtil it should be paid.
The question of the guilt or innocence of Demos-
thenes has been, and still is, keenly disputed. It is
impossible to discuss all the considerations which
have been urged on either side ; many of them are
plainly invalid; but it may be well to state briefly
the conclusions to which the very slender evidence
seems to point. It can scarcely be denied in the
face of Demosthenes' own admission (unless Hyp-
ereides is telling a downright falsehood) that
Demosthenes received the money. It appears
probable that he did not take it as a bribe from
Harpalus. If he had done so, he could hardly
have proposed to take Harpalus into custody and
festival-fund, and had repaid himself out of Harpalus' money,
cannot be extracted from the Greek, though it may represent
Demosthenes' plea.
^ Ibid., col. xiii. » Ibid., col. xxiv.; Dein., in Dent., § 60.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War /^iS'j
put his money into safe keeping to be restored to
Alexander. Plutarch indeed^ tells a story to the
effect that though Demosthenes had refused
Harpalus' offers at first, yet, when Harpalus was
in custody and the money being counted, he was
moved with admiration of a golden cup, finely
worked, which was among the treasure; and that
the same night Harpalus secretly sent him this
cup, together with twenty talents. Next day,
when he was called upon to speak in the Assembly,
and expected to maintain his former attitude
towards Harpalus, he pretended to be suffering
from loss of voice, and appeared with his throat
elaborately muffled up; but the story leaked out;
he and his friends thought it well to get Harpalus
away from Athens, to prevent any possible dis-
closures; and the Areopagus then instituted the
domiciliary search which has been mentioned.
But if this tale were true, it is almost inconceivable
that it should not have been alluded to in the
speeches for the prosecution. Deinarchus would
never have failed to take full advantage of so
picturesque a story. Nor does Hypereides men-
tion it when he alludes to the escape of Harp-
alus. Moreover, we are told that Harpalus'
steward was captured by Philoxenus at Rhodes,
and told him the names of the statesmen to whom
Harpalus had given money, and that Demo-
sthenes* name was not among the number.^
Demosthenes then did not receive the money
» Plut.,Z?eOT.,xxv. » Paus., II, xxxiii., §4.
468 Demosthenes
from Harpalus, but must have appropriated it
after the treasure had been transferred to those
appointed by the Assembly to take charge of it,
of whom he was one. Further it is quite possible
that his statement that he had taken it "for the
theoric fund" was true, though he cannot have
formally transferred it to the fund; for then it
could have been proved by the accounts of the
fimd. He was evidently apprehensive of war with
Alexander. In case of war, the theoric fund would
almost certainly be called upon to provide money
for military purposes; and it is far from improb-
able that Demosthenes hoped to lay the founda-
tions of a reserve out of the money taken from
Harpalus ; just as he had taken Persian gold to help
Thebes. If this was so, he was at least not guilty
of an act of theft for his own personal aggrandise-
ment, however indefensible his action may have
been. Indefensible, of course, it was. The money
was the property of Alexander; the People had
resolved that it should be kept in the Acropolis
until Alexander sent for it, and had entrusted to
Demosthenes, among others, the execution of this
decree: the money was clearly not available for
the public purposes of Athens. But it cannot be
doubted that if war with Alexander had broken
out, the People would have sanctioned the use of
Harpalus' treasure for the defence of Athens;
Deinarchus assumed that this was so'^; and it is
not to be supposed that the Athenians felt so
'Dein., in Dem., §§ 64 ff.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 469
strongly about Demosthenes* action in taking
the money prematurely for the use of Athens as
modem judges of the case would feel. The com-
paratively light penalty inflicted indicates this.
Demosthenes then was guilty of an action based
on the saijie principle, and directed towards the
same end, as his acceptance of Persian gold, but
less justifiable, because it involved a breach of
faith. When, however, that is admitted, his fault
still remains far less ignoble than his critics, ancient
and modem, would have us believe. There is at
least no sufficient reason for supposing that he was
influenced by corrupt motives, or that he aimed
at his own personal gain; and we are justified in
preferring an interpretation of his action, which,
while it does not acquit him of a certain unscrupu-
lousness as to means, is consonant with the patri-
otic aims which he pursued throughout his career.
The penalty inflicted was, as we have said, light
in comparison with that which the laws allowed.
But in itself a fine of fifty talents was a heavy one.
No doubt the court took into account not merely
the appropriation of the money by Demosthenes,
but also his failure to report the exact sum depos-
ited in the Acropolis^; though there may be some
ground for his complaint^ that he was treated more
harshly than the rest because his case was the
first to be tried, and that others who made pre-
cisely the same defence as he, got off impimished.^
' Vit. X Oral., 846 c. ' Dem., Ep., ii., § 15.
3lt must, however, be remembered that he occupied a position
470 Demosthenes
However that may be, he was unable to pay so
large a sum, and was cast into prison. But before
many days he felt the hardships of the prison to
be greater than his age and health could endure,
and contrived to make his escape. Plutarch tells
the story nhat when Demosthenes was a little way
from the city, he saw some of those with whom he
had had differences following him, and tried to hide ;
but they called to him that they had followed him to
bring him money for his journey, and urged him
to bear his misfortune cheerfully; whereupon he
burst into lamentation at his exile from a city
where even his enemies were kinder than any
friends he would find elsewhere. As he left the
city, so Plutarch also tells us, he had cried aloud
to Athena Polias, "O Lady of the City, why dost
thou delight in three of the most cruel beasts —
the owl, the snake, and the People?" and when
yoimg men came to talk to him during his exile,
he dissuaded them from entering upon a political
career, declaring that if he had a fresh start and
two roads lay open to him, the one to the platform
and the Assembly, the other straight to death,
then, knowing, as he did, all that a political career
involved — fears, jealousies, slanders, struggles, —
he would take the road that led straight to death.
He passed his time for some months partly in
-^gina, partly at Troezen; but he found Troezen
of special influence and responsibility, and that less important
persons might well be more leniently treated.
' Plut., Dem. xxvi.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 471
an unsafe refuge, and moved to the island of
Calaureia, from which (as from yEgina) he could
see Athens and the Attic coast. ^ Hence he wrote
the Second Letter ascribed to him, in which he
pleaded earnestly with the People for restoration
to Athens. He recalled his long career of public
service, and claimed the same leniency as was
shown to his fellow-defendants; he protested his
abiding loyalty to his country; and asked to be
delivered, for the sake of the reputation of the
People, as well as of his own, from the hardships
and shame of exile.
As for the other accused persons, Demades either
did not venture or did not condescend to face the
jury; he was condemned and fined, but did not
leave Athens. Probably he was able to pay the fine
inflicted, and thus remained free to take part in po-
litical life. Philocles, who was held responsible for
the original admission of Harpalus to Athens, as
well as for his acceptance of Harpalus' money, was
driven into exile. Aristogeiton and the remainder
of the defendants appear to have got off free. ^
Such was the history of this unhappy affair.
The result of it was that the party opposed to
Demosthenes had temporarily a free hand. Not
only Alexander, but also his deceased companion
Hephasstion, received official worship.^ Mene-
» Dem., Ep., ii., §§ 17-20. See Note 4.
» Dein., tnDem., § iOi\;inAristog.,% i5;Dem.,£p.,ii., §§ 15, 16.
3 Hyper., Epitaph., Col. viii.; Arrian, VII, xiv., § 7, xxiii., § 6;
Plut., Alex., Ixxii.
472 Demosthenes
saechmus prosecuted the sons of Lycurgus, claiming
that they should make good that alleged deficit in
the public accounts for which he had vainly tried
to prove their father responsible; and they were
actually condemned and imprisoned. But shortly
afterwards their cause was taken up by Democles,
a pupil of Theophrastus, and by Hypereides, and
was strongly supported by Demosthenes in a let-
ter addressed to the People — the third of those
ascribed to him — in which he declared that the
People of Athens were being ill-spoken of abroad
owing to their treatment of the sons of one of their
most loyal and public-spirited servants; and that
when Pytheas was suffered to riot in wealth and
immoraHty, and those who had taken the patriotic
side were driven into exile, it was plain that
patriotism was unprofitable. He quoted instances
of generous treatment accorded to far less deserv-
ing persons, and at the close of the letter pleaded
once more for himself, as well as for the sons of
Lycurgus. Whether owing to this letter or to the
activity of the advocates of the condemned in
Athens, the People were moved to remorse for their
ingratitude towards one of their greatest bene-
factors, and the sons of Lycurgus were released. ^
The enemies of Demosthenes did not long enjoy
their ascendancy; for early in June, 323, Alexander
died at Babylon after a short illness. When first
the rumour of his death reached Athens, Demades
refused to credit it. " If Alexander were dead, " he
' Vit. X Oral., 842 d, and Hyper., fragm. 118 (Oxford text).
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 473
declared, "the whole world would be reeking of
his corpse"^; and Phocion tried to quiet the public
excitement by saying, in the manner characteristic
of him, "If Alexander is dead to-day, he will be
dead to-morrow and the next day also ; so that we
have plenty of time to make our plans." In fact
the situation was not at all clear, for there was no
obvious successor to Alexander; but as the result of
the deHberations of his generals at Babylon, it was
decided that his half-brother Arrhid^us, a man of
feeble mind, should be temporarily acknowledged
King, saving the rights of the yet unborn infant of
Alexander and Roxana, should it prove to be a
boy; that Perdiccas should be regent; that Lysim-
achus should have the command in Thrace and
the Hellespont ; and that in Macedonia the supreme
power shotild be divided between Antipater, as
commander-in-chief, and Craterus, who shortly
afterwards advanced as far as Cilicia, but did not
at present proceed to Macedonia. Egypt was
assigned to Ptolemy, and various provinces in Asia
Minor to Eumenes, Antigonus, Leonnatus, and
others. ^
Their short experience of Macedonian govern-
ment led many Greek peoples at this crisis to
attempt to throw off the yoke. Risings took
place in Rhodes, Chios, and Ephesus. ^ In Greece
' Plut., Phoc, xxii., etc.
^Arrian, Suppl., §§ 3, 7; Diod., XVIII, ii.-iv., vi.; Dexippus,
fr. I.
3 Diod., XVIII, viii.; Suid., s. v., Ephorus; Strabo, XIV, p.
645, etc.; Polyasn., VI, 49.
474 Demosthenes
proper, the first active steps were taken by Leos-
thenes, an Athenian, who had succeeded in keeping
together at Tasnanim some eight thousand of the
Greek soldiers who had returned from Asia; and
this force was increased by the discontented sol-
diers who flocked thither from all parts, as to a
cave of AduUam. ^ On hearing the news of Alex-
ander's death, he went to Athens and opened
negotiations with the Cotmcil, which gave him
fifty talents and a supply of arms, and sent envoys
in his interest to the -^tolians, and obtained a
ready promise of support. These actions of the
Council were not at first made known to the People,
and it was not until the fact of Alexander's death
was placed beyond all doubt that a proposal to
fight for freedom was brought before the Assembly,
and recommended to it by Hypereides as well as by
messages from Demosthenes." The richer mem-
bers of the Assembly advised the maintenance of
the Peace, but were overborne by a large majority,
the eloquence of Hypereides proving more effective
than the cautious advice of Phocion, though some
of Phocion's observations were only too well
founded. 3 "Leosthenes' talk," he said, "is like
a cypress-tree — tall but unfruitful." "When,"
asked Hypereides, "will you ever advise the
Athenians to fight?" "When I see the yoimg,"
said Phocion, "ready to do their duty, and the
' Diod., XVII, cxi.; XVIII, ix.; Paus., I, xxv, § 5; VIII, lii., § 5.
» Hyper., Epitaph., col. ii.; Vit. X Oral., 849 f.
3 Diod., XVIII, ix.; Dexippus, fr. 2.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 475
rich to pay taxes, and the poKticians to abstain
from stealing public money." The army of
Leosthenes inspired no confidence in Phocion.
"It is good enough," said he, "for the short race.
I am afraid of the long — of the campaign; for the
city has no other funds or ships or soldiers. " But
the Assembly was in no mood for caution. It was
resolved to equip 240 ships, and to put all Atheni-
ans under forty years of age into the field — those
belonging to three of the tribes to guard Attica,
those belonging to the remaining seven to serve be-
yond the borders. They further sent embassies to
other Greek States,in the hope of inducing them to
join in a general rising and to claim their freedom. *
So unpopular had the Macedonians become, that
although it seemed to many persons in the other
States that Athens was taking a prematiu-e and a
dangerous step, the envoys found support almost
everywhere. Besides the ^tolians, many north-
em Greek tribes gave their adhesion — among them
some of those Thessalian and neighbouring tribes
which had been reckoned the most faithful allies
of Macedonia. Boeotia and Euboea were in the
occupation of Macedonian troops or were subject
to strong Macedonian influence; yet even in Eu-
boea the people of Carystus joined in the league.
In the Peloponnese, Sparta was powerless, or at
least unable to help; but the peoples of Argos,
Sicyon, Epidaurus, Troezen, Elis, and Messenia
all promised their aid. ^ As for funds, the treasure
» Diod., XVIII, X. » Ibid., xi.; Paus., I, xxv., § 4.
476 Demosthenes
of Harpalus was freely used.^ Demades was
prosecuted for making illegal proposals and for
impiety, and particularly for his proposal to re-
cognise the divinity of Alexander. He was heavily
fined — ten talents according to one authority, one
hundred according to another — and lost his civic
rights.^ Pytheas also was prosecuted and was
imprisoned; but he escaped, and he and Callime-
don betook themselves to Antipater, and were
despatched by him to the Peloponnese to coimter-
act the effect of the embassies sent thither by the
Athenians.^ In Arcadia Pytheas encountered
Demosthenes, who, though in exile, used all his
powers to aid Hypereides, Polyeuctus, and the
other spokesmen of Athens. Pytheas (according
to Plutarch's story) remarked that, just as asses'
milk made mischief in a house, so an Athen-
ian embassy was bound to cause disorders in
a state. "No," replied Demosthenes; "asses*
milk is a good medicine, and so is a visit from
the Athenians."
So great were the services rendered by Demo-
sthenes, that the Athenian People determined to
recall him. The formal decree for this purpose
was proposed by his nephew Demon ; and since it
would have been unconstitutional to remit the
fine of fifty talents which the orator had been
» Diod., XVIII, ix.
» Diod,, XVIII, xviii,; Plut., Phoc, xxvi.; Athen., VI, p. 251 b;
^lian., Var. H., V, xii.
3 Siiid., s. v., Pytheas; Plut., Dem., xxvii.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 477
condemned to pay, he was ordered to prepare and
decorate the altar of Zeus the Saviour for a forth-
coming festival, and to enable him to meet this
very slight expenditure, the sum of fifty talents was
voted to him.^ We may suspect that the money
came out of the treasure of Harpalus. A trireme
was sent to convey him from ^gina, and at the
Peiraeus he was met by a great concourse of his
fellow-citizens, headed by the nine archons and
the priests; and we are told that he raised his
hands towards heaven and thanked the gods that
he had been granted an even more honourable
return than Alcibiades, since his restoration was
not forced upon his fellow-citizens, but was their
voluntary act.
Before this happy event took place, the war had
probably begun. Leosthenes commenced opera-
tions by sending a force of eight thousand men by
sea from Taenarum to ^tolia; here he was joined
by an army of seven thousand ^tolians ; and with
the combined forces he marched to Thermopylae
and occupied the Pass without encountering
opposition. The Athenians had by this time
despatched a force of five thousand citizen-infan-
try, five hundred cavalry, and two thousand mer-
cenaries to join him; but they were unable to effect
a passage through Boeotia, owing to the strong
resistance offered by the allies of the Macedonians,
until Leosthenes marched southward with part of
» Plut., Dem., xxvii.; Vit. X Oral., 846 d; Justin, XIII, v.
478 Demosthenes
his forces, defeated the enemy, and so enabled the
Athenian troops to reach Thermopylae. ^ He then
moved northward to confront Antipater, who came
to meet him with thirteen thousand infantry and
six hundred cavalry, not waiting for the reinforce-
ments which he had urgently requested Craterus
and Leonnatus to send. The first engagement took
place near Heracleia. In the middle of the battle,
Antipater's Thessalian cavalry rode over and joined
Leosthenes, and Antipater was obliged to throw
himself into the fortress of Lamia, to wait for the
expected reinforcements from Asia. He was
blockaded by Leosthenes, who had no siege-train
with him, and failed to storm the fortress, but
hoped to starve the defenders out. Antipater
was one time so hard pressed that he asked Leos-
thenes for terms; but Leosthenes would accept
nothing less than unconditional surrender, and this
was naturally refused. ^
Leosthenes' forces had grown considerably
through accessions of troops from the peoples of
north Greece, but he could not draw Antipater into
the field. A peculiarly severe winter proved even
more trying to his soldiers than the petty fighting
to which they were continuously exposed; the
.^tolians made excuses and returned home; and
finally Leosthenes himself was struck on the head
by a stone, and died two days afterwards. ^
* Diod., XVIII, ix., xi.; Hyper., Epitaph., col. v.
' Diod., XVIII, xii., xviii,; Polyaen., IV, iv., § 2.
i Died., XVIII, xiii.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 479
The Funeral Oration in honour of Leosthenes
and others who had fallen in the campaign was en-
trusted to Hypereides.^ The greater part of his
speech has come down to us, and is a striking
specimen of the type, which was peculiar to
Athens. The matter, and even the style, of the
speech were largely determined by convention —
the introduction, in which the orator apologises
for his own inadequacy; the praise of Athens, her
indigenous People and the noble upbringing of her
sons; the praise of the fallen, and the recital of
their services to their country ; the prophecy of an
immortality of fame for them; the anticipation of
their meeting in another world with the glorious
men of old; the mingled congratulation and con-
solation addressed to the bereaved; and (as re-
gards style) the series of those artificial antitheses
of which Gorgias had set the example. Yet all
these conventional elements are treated by Hyper-
eides with a peculiar grace and no small imagina-
tive power; and the speech is a worthy monument
of the last struggle of the Hellenes for freedom.
Leosthenes was succeeded in the command by
Antiphilus, who, though he was an able general,
had not the commanding personality which was
particularly needed, if the depression caused by
Leosthenes' death was to be siu"mounted. ^ Not
' It is very doubtful whether Diodorus is right in saying that
Demosthenes had not yet returned to Athens. The reason for
the selection of Hypereides was doubtless that he (after Leosthe-
nes) was the chief promoter of the war. (So Schafer, iii., p. 374.)
» Paus., I, XXV., § 5; Justin, XIII, v.
480 Demosthenes
long afterwards Leonnatus, in response to Anti-
pater's urgent call, crossed to Europe and marched
into Thessaly with more than twenty thousand
infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry. Antiphilus
abandoned the siege of Lamia and moved north-
wards at the head of twenty-two thousand infantry
and thirty -five hundred cavalry. In a severe cav-
alry engagement, Leonnatus was defeated and
slain; and the Macedonian infantry, not daring
to face the Thessalian horse, withdrew into the
hills. But on the following day Antipater joined
forces with the relieving army, and marched north-
wards, unmolested by Antiphilus; and on the
banks of the Peneius he was joined by Craterus
and a large army.
At sea the Macedonian fleet proved victorious,
and though the Athenians equipped all the ships
they could, the total number which put to sea
under Euetion was only 170; and they were twice
severely defeated — ^the first time, probably, near
Abydos (Euetion having proceeded thither to
guard the Hellespont) ; the second time by Cleitus
with 240 ships, near Amorgos.* But a force of
Macedonians and mercenaries which landed on the
coast of Attica near Rhamnus and laid it waste
was repulsed with considerable loss by Phocion at
the head of a citizen-levy.* At the same time
» The evidence of unpublished inscriptions is cited for these
battles by Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, p. 17; Diodorus assigns
both victories to Cleitus. The Athenians had a larger number of
ships, but could not man them. See also Beloch, Gr. Gesch., iii.,
p. 76 n. » Diod., XVIII, xv., xvi.; Plut., Phoc, xxv.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 481
Phocion resisted successfully the proposal that an
Athenian force should invade Boeotia.^ Antiphi-
lus remained in Thessaly; but his forces had
been for some time falling away, many contingents
leaving either because they thought that Leosthen-
es' successes had settled the war, or because the
soldiers had affairs to attend to at home ; and signs
of discontent showed themselves in the camp.
When Antipater and Craterus marched south-
wards with an army of nearly fifty thousand men in
aU, Antiphilus had less than thirty thousand to
oppose to them. The two armies met at Crannon,
on the 7th of Metageitnion (early in August, 322),
the anniversary of the battle of Chaeroneia. The
battle was in itself indecisive, though the Greek
loss was heavier than the Macedonian; but the
council of war called next day by Antiphilus and
Menon (who commanded the cavalry) rejected the
proposal to request the Greek States to despatch
reinforcements, and decided to send a message to
Antipater, asking him to discuss terms of peace.
But Antipater refused to recognise the anti-
Macedonian league as a whole, and replied that
each State must treat with him separately; while
at the same time he proceeded to take the Thes-
salian towns one after another by storm, and
Pharsalus among them. The result was that the
States of northern Greece soon came to terms with
him, being further encouraged to do so by his
envoys, who promised favourable terms to those
' Plut., Phoc, xxiv.; Polycsn., Ill, xii.
31
482 Demosthenes
who submitted; and before long, out of all the
members of the league which had been formed, the
-^tolians and Athenians alone were left. ^
The Athenians now found it necessary them-
selves to ask Antipater for conditions of peace.
At what precise moment they first sent to him is
uncertain. It may have been after the taking of
Pharsalus^ ; but it was probably not tmtil Antipater
and Craterus had crossed the Pass of Thermopylae
and encamped in Boeotia. Then the Athenians,
in alarm, once more called upon Demades to get
them out of their difficulty, restoring to him his
civic rights, and cancelling the fine which had led
to his loss of them. He went to Antipater' s camp
with Phocion and Demetrius of Phalerum; but
Antipater would agree to no terms except ab-
solute surrender — the only terms which, in an
evil hour, Leosthenes had been willing to accept
from him at Lamia. That Antipater did not
march into Attica, as Craterus desired to do,
before dictating terms, was only due to his respect
for Phocion. ^
The Athenians had no choice but to submit.
They had not even, as in former days, any su-
premacy at sea, and would have had no power to
withstand a blockade; and although Demochares,
the nephew of Demosthenes, entered the Assembly
with his sword and called his fellow-countrymen to
« Diod., XVIII, xvii.
» Vit. X Oral., 846 e, does not really prove this.
9 Died., XVIII, xviii.; Plut., Phoc, xxvi.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 483
arms,^ it was resolved to send Phocion and the
other ambassadors back to Thebes, to announce
to Antipater the unconditional surrender of the
city. The philosopher Xenocrates, the head of
the Academy, was sent with them, in the hope that
being a friend of Antipater he might use his
influence to advantage; but Antipater refused to
hear him.* Antipater then announced that the
Athenians would be allowed to retain possession
of Attica, but not of Oropus, which was given to
the Boeotians. Lemnos and Imbros appear also
to have remained in the hands of Athens. ^ The
question of the possession of Samos was referred
to the regent Perdiccas, who subsequently re-
stored the island to its former inhabitants, and
ordered the Athenian settlers to withdraw. The
Athenians were reqiiired to deliver up to Antipater
the orators who had promoted the war; and to
revise the constitution in such a way as to restrict
the franchise to citizens who had a property of
at least twenty minas. On these conditions they
would be permitted to be the friends and allies of
Macedonia. A Macedonian garrison was to be
placed in Munychia, and a heavy war-indemnity
was required. "♦ Xenocrates is said, on hearing the
terms, to have declared them to be reasonable
terms for slaves, but harsh for free men; and
» VU. X Orat., 847 c, d. » Plut., Phoc, xxvii.
3Diod., XIX, Ixviii.; XX, xlvi.; C.I.A., ii.,268, 592, 737, etc.
<Diod., XVIII, x\'iii., Ivi.; Plut., Phoc, xxvii.; Diog. Laert.,
X,i.
484 Demosthenes
Phocion did his best to induce Antipater to give
up his determination to garrison Munychia, but
in vain. "I will do you any favour, Phocion,"
Antipater replied, "which does not mean destruc-
tion for you and for us"; and Callimedon, one of
Phocion's colleagues, and a man of strongly anti-
democratic sentiments, is said himself to have
opposed Phocion's request. The surest way to
quell any desire to resist the conqueror was to
disfranchise the greater number of those poorer
citizens whose inclinations were generally towards
war. On the day of the procession which escorted
the statue of lacchus from Athens to Eleusis, at
the opening of the Eleusinian Mysteries (the 20th
of Boedromion, in the middle of September, 322) ,
— ordinarily a day of joy and religious emotion,
— a Macedonian force under Menyllus occupied
Munychia, and the visible proof of the humiliation
of Athens was complete. By the constitutional
change imposed upon the city 12,000 citizens lost
the franchise, and 9000 only retained it. A very
large proportion of those who were disfranchised
were deported at Antipater' s bidding to new homes
in Thrace and elsewhere.
The chief power in Athens was once more in the
hands of Demades and Phocion, with whom were
associated Pytheas, Callimedon, and others of the
Macedonian party. On the proposal of Demades,
sentence of death for high treason was passed
against Demosthenes, Hypereides, Himeraeus, and.
'Diod., XVIII, xviii.; Plut., Phoc, xxviii.
CALAUREIA, VIEW NEAR THE PRECINCT OF POSEIDON
PHOTO BY MR. A. B. COOK
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 485
other patriotic orators.^ The condemned had
probably aheady fled from Athens; but the
emissaries of Antipater were in pursuit, and did
their work only too well, taking no account even
of the privilege of sanctuary.^ Archias of Thurii,
sumamed "the exile-hunter,"'' seized Hypereides,
Himerasus, and Aristonicus in the temple of ^acus
in ^gina, and sent them to Antipater at Cleonae,
where they were executed on the 9th of Pyan-
epsion (early in October). ^ Demosthenes took
refuge in the sanctuary of Poseidon in the island
of Calaureia. There Archias landed with some
Thracian soldiers, and first tried to induce him to
leave the sanctuary by promising that he should
suffer no injury. According to Plutarch's story,
Demosthenes had had a dream on the previous
night, in which he thought that he was acting a
tragedy, as the rival of Archias (who had been an
actor by profession), and that though he won the
favour of the audience, he failed in the end for
lack of proper equipment. No offer that Archias
could now make induced him to surrender.
"Your acting, Archias, " he said, "never convinced
me yet, nor will your promises now." Archias
then changed his tone, and began to use threats.
"Ah!" said Demosthenes, "now I hear the voice
from the Macedonian tripod; you were acting
until now. Wait a little, " he added, "until I have
written a message to my friends at home." He
' Suid., 5. V. ^AvriiraTpos. ' Polyb. ix., xxix. i<l>vyaSo6TJpai.
* Plut., Dem., xxviii., etc.; comp. Vit. X Oral., 849 b, c.
486 Demosthenes
then retired within the temple and took a tablet,
and biting the end of his pen, as he used to do
when he was composing, he kept it between his
lips for a short time, and then covered up his head.
The soldiers thought that this was a sign of
cowardice, and Archias again offered to effect
a reconciliation for him with Antipater. But
when Demosthenes felt the poison, which he had
concealed in the quill, beginning to work, he cried,
"Now, Antipater, the time has come when you
can play the part of Creon, and cast my body away
unburied. Dear Poseidon, I leave thy sacred
precincts before I die; for Antipater and the
Macedonians have not even left thy sanctuary
unpolluted." So saying, he tottered forward.
As he passed the altar he fell, and died with a
single groan. The day was the i6th of Pyan-
epsion, the day on which the women celebrating
the Thesmophoria held their soleron fast. ^
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIII
I. Mr. D. G. Hogarth in the English Historical Review for
1887, p. 317, and (with some slight modifications) in his Philip
and Alexander of Macedon, p. 198, attempts to prove that the
demand for divine honours for Alexander was made not by himself,
' Plut., Dent., xxix., xxx. Plutarch mentions some variations of
the story which became current; e. g. that he imbibed the poison
from an amulet, or took it from a bag which he carried around his
neck. He adds that the heading, but no more, of a letter to
Antipater was found upon his person when he fell, according to
one version. Demochares stated some years afterwards that his
uncle had not died of poison, but had been mercifully taken out of
this life by the gods at this critical moment.
Affair of Harpalus and the Lamian War 487
but by his supporters in the several cities of Greece, and was "a
spontaneous outburst of adulation from various cities, led by the
philo-Macedonian party in each, intended to greet the conquerer
on the earliest occasion whereon an embassy could approach his
presence. " He points out that the only authority which ex-
pressly mentions a letter from Alexander as the occasion of the
votes and debates in the several cities is ^lian., Var. Hist., II,
xix., who records how AXXot fjiiv dXka i\j/ri<pl(rai>To, AaKedaifjubvioi d'
ixeiva 'EirefSij 'AK^^avdpos ^o^Xerai 6e6s eivai, eorw Oeds, Arrian,
VII, xxiii., describes the embassies which subsequently went
to Alexander as garbed &ffirep Oeupol B^dev els rifiijv 6eov a^iyfjJvoi,
but does not say that it was in obedience to a command
from Alexander that they did so. It is true that .^Elian
is not always trustworthy; but it is surely not justifiable to
discredit his story on the ground that the Spartan reply is too
characteristically "Laconic" to be true — at least to be true of
Sparta in 324. Nor is the fact that his head was not struck on
any coin (for this was a mark of divinity) in his lifetime in itself
conclusive, especially as he died so soon after the date of the
alleged claim to divine honours.
Mr. Hogarth also tries to show that the irpoffKivrjixii or
adoration of Alexander in Bactria in 327 was due to a politic
determination on his part to assimilate the habit of the two
peoples — the Persian and the Macedonian — in their King's
presence, and did not imply a claim to divinity. But those who
were present certainly interpreted it in the latter way, if there is
any truth in Arrian's account; and Mr. Hogarth's attempt to
discredit Arrian's authority at this point is not very convincing.
At best, it must be left an open question whether Alexander
himself claimed divinity or not. So far as the position in Athens
is concerned, it makes little difference whether the demand was
initiated by Alexander or by Demades; though it does affect
our estimate of Alexander's character, which Mr. Hogarth is
concerned to defend. (See also Ed. Meyer, Kleine Schriften,
pp. 285 ff.; esp. pp. 330, 332.)
2. In Vint., Dent., ix., and Vit. X Oral., 845 b, c, we find the
story of a brilliant address delivered by Demosthenes at Olympia,
in reply to a sophist named Lamachus, who had uttered a panegy-
ric on Philip and Alexander, combined with denunciations of the
Thebans and Chalcideans ; whose services to Greece Demosthenes
488 Demosthenes
extolled, while attacking those who flattered the Macedonians.
No date is given, and Schafer assigns the incident to the present
occasion; but it seems at least as likely that it took place in 332,
though we have no independent evidence of Demosthenes'
presence at Olympia in that year.
3. Haupt {Die Vorgeschichte des harpalischen Processes,
Rhein. Mus., xxxiv., pp. 377-387) thinks that the split in the anti-
Macedonian party may have been of still longer standing. He
notes that Hypereides gets his material for the denunciation of
Demosthenes from as far back as the date of the destruction of
Thebes; and that he and Deinarchus use virtually the same
language about Thebes and about the alleged overtures of Demos-
thenes to Alexander and Olympias; and he argues that this means
that Hypereides cannot have been in agreement with Demosthe-
nes at that time. But all that it necessarily implies is that he was
getting up the best case he could against Demosthenes, and using
any material that would serve his turn. He may, however, have
been alienated by Demosthenes' withdrawal of active support
from the Peloponnesian revolt in 330, or by his acquiescence in
the recognition of Alexander's divinity. It is also possible (see
above, p. 448) that the substitution of Menesaechmus for Lycurgus
in 326 was due to differences in the party; but the evidence does
not permit certainty.
4. The genuineness of the Second and Third Letters ascribed to
Demosthenes is disputed by Schafer, Westermann and others.
Absolute proof is impossible; but Blass {Att. Ber., Ill, i., pp.440
ff., and III, ii., pp. 406-7) makes out a very strong case for their
genuineness, and I have felt at liberty to use them as historical
documents. If they are not by Demosthenes, they probably
date from very shortly after his time; and nothing of first-rate
importance depends upon them. The genuineness of the First
Letter is far more doubtful (it is an exhortation to internal unity
after the death of Alexander). The Fourth and Fifth are
probably spurious.
CHAPTER XIV
CONCLUSION
THE question how far Demosthenes was justi-
fied in the pohcy which he pursued has been
discussed in the preceding chapters in relation to
each of the principal crises of the struggle in which
he played so large a part. His vindication of
himself in the Speech on the Crown is more con-
vincing than any discussion at the present day
can possibly be, and very little more need be said.
The claim of Demosthenes to be ranked among
the heroic men of the past rests above all on the
constancy and sincerity with which he defended
the noblest cause known to the Greeks — that of
Hellenic liberty; and only those who have failed
to recognise that most of what was best in the
Greek, and, above all, in the Athenian character
sprang from and was bound up with political
liberty, can seriously censure his choice. If any
cause was, to a Greek, worth fighting for to the
death, that for Which Demosthenes fought and
died was pre-eminently so. Polybius indeed,^
writing two centuries later, declared that the
' Polybius, XVII, xiv.
489
X
490 Demosthenes
"crop of traitors" in the Greek cities, whom
Demosthenes so vehemently denounced, deserved
no such name, and that they were pursuing the
true interest of their several countries in submitting
to Philip and Alexander, and finding in subjection
to a common master that freedom from strife with
one another which they had failed to find so long
as they were autonomous. Yet such a solution
of their political problems can hardly be called an
honourable one; nor did these States ever bring
forth fruits comparable to those achievements by
which the Athenians, when they were most fully
inspired by the spirit of freedom, won the admira-
tion of humanity.
Moreover, it is plain that the test by which
Polybius tried the policy of the statesmen of the
fourth century was simply that of success. Dem-
osthenes' policy, he said, led to the disaster of
Chaeroneia, whereas the Arcadians and Messen-
ians enjoyed the blessings of peace. If success is
the true and only test of statesmanship, Polybius
was doubtless right. But if political libertyjtiad
proved itself so precious that without it the_
whole of life would have seemed to be lived on a
lower plane, success was an altogether unworthy
criterion by which to judge the actions of those
who were dominated by such a sentiment. Demo-
sthenes was convinced that such was the persuasion
of the Athenians, if not of all other Greek peoples,
and that by struggling to the end for the freedom
of Athens, and causing the Athenians to struggle
Conclusion 491
for the freedom of the Hellenes, he was fulfilling
their noblest instincts.
If, however, success is seriously taken to be the
proper criterion of merit, it must not be forgotten
that the policy of Demosthenes very nearly did
succeed. Philip was actually discomfited before
Byzantium; and the defeat of Chaeroneia was due
to nothing which it was in Demosthenes' power to
provide against, nor even to the inferiority of the
forces which he had brought together, but sim-
ply to bad generalship. Whether, supposing that
Philip had been defeated at Chasroneia,the struggle
would have been at an end, no one can say; and
it is idle to speculate upon such questions ; but at
least the defenders of Hellenic liberty came near
enough to success to justify their attempt, even
from the narrow standpoint assumed by Polybius
and by some modem critics. Nor is it without
significance that Aristotle (who had no special
liking for Demosthenes), when he desires to illus-
trate a common form of fallacy, ' finds a conspicu-
ous illustration in the statement that the policy
of Demosthenes was responsible for all the evils
that befell his country.
The principal causes of the failure of Demos-
thenes' plans have long been plain to us — the
unsteadiness of the Athenian people; the lack of
generals comparable in ability to the statesmen of
the time; the disunion of the Greek States. For
the second of these causes, no blame attaches to
^ The argument post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Ar., Rhet., II, xxiv.
492 Demosthenes
Demosthenes, and it is not certain that he could
have been aware of the inferiority of the Athenian
commanders until they were put to the test. The
disunion of the States he strove hard to overcome,
and to a very remarkable extent he succeeded.
The alliance of Thebes and Athens was a thing of
which the most sanguine prophet could never have
dreamed a few years before.
\l. But ought Demosthenes to have recognised that
f his fellow-countrymen were no longer equal to the
strain to which he desired to subject them? Is
he to be blamed for taking too generous a view of
their character? Certainly he was not unaware of
their defects. No one ever pointed out more
candidly than he, how far they fell short of the
traditional ideal of Athenian citizenship, or re-
alised more clearly their unwillingness to sacri-
fice pleasure and ease, and to undertake great
personal risks for the sake of the national honour.
The fickle and spasmodic nature of their patriotism,
their liability to be carried about by alternate
gusts of courage and alarm, were constantly before
him. Yet even so, incapable of sustained effort
A and prolonged sacrifices as the Athenians were, it
(. |\was a nobler thing to attempt to revive in them the
TJ^ spirit which they had lost, than to acquiesce in
their degeneracy and levity, and to " despair of the
Republic. " Nor must it be forgotten that in this
attempt also Demosthenes came nearly enough
within reach of success to justify his policy in the
judgment of any large-minded critic.
Conclusion 493
Demosthenes' ideal and his determination to
maintain it, as the ideal not of himself alone but
of his nation, stand in no need of vindication ; and
he well deserves our admiration for the courage
with which, in pursuit of this ideal, he contended
against those desires and prejudices of his fellow-
countrymen which were inconsistent with it.
In three important points at least, his policy ran
directly counter to popular sentiment — in his
demand that the festival-money should be given
up for purposes of war; in his far-sighted desire
to bring about an alliance with Thebes ; and in his
attempt to obtain the co-operation of the Persian
King against Philip. Yet all these aims he pur-
sued without faltering in face of attack and
misrepresentation; and there can be little doubt
that he was wise, as well as courageous, in so
doing.
The question whether liberty and pre-eminence
are political ideals which possess a universal value
and need no justification is too large to discuss here.
There are many who believe (as Plato and Arist-
otle probably believed) that these are secondary
in importance to the good life of the individual
in a peaceful society, and to whom militarism and
imperialism are consequently abominable. There
is something to be said for this view. But it must
not be forgotten that in the Athens of Demosthe-
nes' day it was a view which had not made its
way into the region of practical politics, but was
peculiar to philosophic circles. There is no evi-
494 Demosthenes
dence that it was desire for the good life, or for
the refined enjoyment of art, literature, and philo-
sophy, that made the majority of the Athenians
unwilling to fight; or that any higher motives
than business, pleasure, and love of ease were the
cause of their reluctance. Nor is it an absurd
contention that the life of the individual is itself
.greatly ennobled by membership of an imperial
nation.^ It may at least be doubted whether
more than a handful of Athenians thought other-
wise; and if so, it is a mistake to judge Demos-
thenes by a standard which is out of relation to the
political life of his times.
The faults which sullied the character of Demos-
thenes as a public man are not only conspicuous,
but are such as tend in many ways to alienate the
sympathies of the modem world from him. The
worst, perhaps, was an indifference to truth, which,
while it was not incompatible with the larger
sincerity manifested in his constancy to the su-
preme objects of his life, led him to deal very
tmfairly with his opponents, to falsify history, and
to repudiate his own share in transactions which
were perfectly proper, but which had come in
time to be viewed with disfavour by the majority
of the Athenians. Doubtless some of the blame
^ It cannot of course be contended that the noblest ele-
ment in British imperialism — the government of dependent
races for the good of the governed, and the bringing of light
to those who sit in darkness — was present in the imperialism of
Athens, but this does not invalidate the contention stated in
the text.
Conclusion 495
for this should be assigned to the People itself;
and Demosthenes' attempts to deceive the People
in regard to the past are in some degree excusable
when we consider that if he had spoken or ad-
mitted the whole truth, his policy in regard to the
present and future would certainly have been im-
perilled. It may be that absolute truthfulness
is not possible for the leader of a democracy. But *
it is difficult not to feel that the misrepresentations
of which Demosthenes was guilty sometimes went
beyond anything that such considerations can
justify; that one who could lament over the i
calamities of the Phocians, which he had done
nothing to prevent, and could ascribe them to the
man who (if any one had done so) had helped to miti-
gate them deserves the severest reprobation; and
that his scandalous inventions in regard to his rival's
history and morals are utterly atrocious. There
was also a certain intransigeance — amounting at
times almost to ferocity — in his absolute refusal
to consider even the most reasonable offers which
Philip might make, and in the steps which he
took to exacerbate the relations between Athens
and the King of Macedon. No doubt he was
whole-heartedly convinced that even if a compact,
as favourable to Athens as possible, were made
with Philip, it would mean at best that Athens
would be sure only of the second place in the
Hellenic world; and that whatever compact were
made, it would only be observed by Philip until
such time as he desired to break it. Yet Demos-
496 Demosthenes
thenes, however sincere and patriotic he may have
been, is sometimes repellent in the hatred which
he displays, and at times this hatred led him to
make false charges and to commit acts of cruelty
which admit of no justification.
In his money-dealings he did not always observe
the standard of correctness which a modem
statesman is expected, as a matter of course, to
observe. There is not, however, an iota of
evidence that will stand criticism to show that
he profited personally by any of the transactions
that were alleged against him; and the worst of
these transactions, the appropriation of Harpalus*
treasure, was probably dictated, just as his receipt
of the gold from Persia had been, by public spirit
so intense as to render him unscrupulous about
means. Judged by the standard of his times, he is
almost beyond reproach. It is not unworthy of
notice that within a few months of condemn-
ing Demosthenes for taking some of Harpalus'
money, the People themselves took all that was
left of it to pay the cost of the Lamian War. No
one now asserts that the policy of Demosthenes
was in the smallest degree influenced by considera-
tions of gain or of gratitude for presents received.
It is doubtful whether this could be said of some
of the orators who opposed him.
To the enumeration of his faults as a statesman,
it must be added that he seems to have been a
man of an unsociable and unfriendly temperament,
and a bitter and relentless enemy; in all that we
Conclusion 497
learn about him from the ancients or from his own
writings, there is no hint of any intimate friend-
ship or domestic affection. So wholly was he
identified with political aims, that he almost
seems to have had no private life. He was,
moreover, deficient in humour and in gentlemanly
feeUng; and both these faults reveal an unattrac-
tive narrowness of imagination.
But against these faults, public and private, is
to be set a devotion to a great ideal, absorbing
the whole man; a capacity for work unrivalled in
the history of great statesmen; a thoroughness in
all that he did, which cared for every detail, and
left nothing to chance; a gift of language, pene-
trated and transformed into eloquence of the
very highest order by the passion for a great cause ;
and a courage which rose superior to all physi-
cal weakness, and was not daimted by failure or
danger. The greatness of his character in these
respects more than redeems its unloveliness. ^
Many years after Demosthenes' death, in the
year 280 B.C., when there was a temporary revival
of the spirit of independence in Athens, his
nephew Demochares carried a decree that his
statue in bronze shotdd be erected in the market-
place, and that the eldest son of his house should
always receive maintenance at the public cost in
» I have attempted a brief appreciation of the character of
Demosthenes as an orator in the introduction to my translation
of the Public Speeches, and need not repeat what is there said.
See also Index, s. v. Demosthenes.
498 Demosthenes
the Prytaneum. The statue which was erected
was the work of Polyeuctus, and its character is
familiar to us through the two great copies of it in
marble which have come down to us. Of these
one is in Lord Sackville's collection at Knole, the
other in the Vatican. In both these the hands
which hold a roll are substitutes for those which
originally belonged to the statue. In the original
the hands were clasped tightly, and a story is told
of a soldier who deposited all his money in the
hollow formed by these clasped hands; the leaves
of a plane-tree which stood near fell into the
hollow and concealed the gold for a long time; and
when the soldier came back and found his money,
the wits of the time vied in making epigrams on
the orator's incorruptibility. '^ In the year 1901
a pair of clasped hands in marble was foimd in
the gardens of the Palazzo Barberini in Rome.
These proved to be the hands of a copy of the ori-
ginal work of Polyeuctus ; and a cast of the Vatican
statue which was made, with these hands in place
of the well-known ones, proves the superiority
of the original design. =* The earnestness and
strong emotion which the clasped hands betoken
are in keeping with the character of Demosthenes
as a politician and an orator. It is possible that the
hands which hold a roll were substituted at some
* Plut., Bern., xxx., xxxi,; qj. Vit. X Oral., 847 a, 850 f.
* See illustration. The discovery and restoration were the
work of P. Hartwig (see Jahrbuch des K. Deuischen Archaolog-
ischen Instituts, vol. xviii., pp. 28, 29).
THE STATUE OF DEMOSTHENES RESTORED BY HARTWIG
FROM THE JAHRBUCH DES DEUTSCHEN ARCHAOLOGISCHEN INSTlTUTS, VOL
XVIII, PART I, PAQE 28, PUBLISHED BY GEORGE REIMER, BERLIN, 1903
Conclusion 499
period when (the original hands having been lost)
Demosthenes was regarded from the standpoint
of his literary eminence, rather than of his political
importance and moral force.
INDEX
Abdera, 67, 162
Abydos, 341, 480
Acanthus, 48, 146
Acamania, Acamanians, 51,
54, 323, 344. 376, 408
Achaea, Achagans, 56, 65, 172,
178, 327, 344, 376, 395, 413,
428,458
Adaeus, 164
JEgas, 143, 405
^gina, 470, 477, 485
^nos, 330
iEschines, his origin, etc., 232;
his accounts of Demosthenes'
origin and youth, 6, 14-16;
supports Aristophon, then
Eubulus, III; cultivated
Olynthian lands, 207, 311;
in Euboea, 211; ambassador
to Arcadia, etc., 232-234; on
First Embassy to Philip, 239
flf; in discussions after First
Embassy, 245 ff, 259-263;
on Second Embassy, 264 S.;
in discussions after Second
Embassy, 277 S.; responsi-
bility as regards the Pho-
cians, 284, 285, 287, 292 flf.,
317-321; support of Philip
after Peace of Philocrates,
289; question of his corrup-
tion, 293 ff.; friendship with
Philip, 296, 297, 397;
prosecution for corruption by
Demosthenes, trial, speech,
and acquittal, 301, 302,
316-322; his prosecution of
Timarchus, 302 ; increasing
unpopularity, 309 ff.; super-
seded as envoy in regard to
Delos, 310; supports Python,
312; defends Antiphon, 322;
attacks Demosthenes in re-
gard to Euboean alliance,345,
346; opposes Demosthenes'
reforms, 351, 352, 357; ac-
tion at the Amphictyonic
Council, 360-368; attacks
Demosthenes in regard to
Theban alliance, 374, 375;
ambassador to Philip with
Demades, 396; opposes
choice of Demosthenes for
Funeral Oration, 398; sup-
ports Demades, 420, 421;
prosecution of Ctesiphon,
404, 430-445; leaves Athens,
445
.(Esius, II
.^tolia, iEtolians, 144, 324,
382, 395, 458, 474, 477, 478
Agathon, 146
Agesilaus, 58
Agis, 424, 426, 427
Aglaocreon, 240, 241
Agyrrhius, 44, 97, 106
Alcimachus, 397
Alexander (Macedonian
Prince), 144
Alexander II., of Macedon, 147
Alexander III., the Great, 149,
157, 327, 385, 386, 397,
405-409, 412-415, 418, 419,
422-424, 431, 450, 453-460,
471-473, 486-487; Speech
on Treaty with, 409, 426
Alexander the Molossian, 323,
405
501
502
Index
Alexander of Pherae, 57, 60,
66
Aleximachus, 263
Allies of Athens, meaning of
the Term, 255. (See also
Confederacy, Social War.)
Synod of the, 93, 248 flf.
Alponus, 237
Aleuadae, 67, 175
Amadocus, 63, 160-163, 170,
179
Ambassadors, position of
Athenian, 79
Ambracia, Ambraclots, 323,
324. 344, 395. 408
Ambrysus, 379, 391
Amorgos, 480
Amphictyonic Council, League,
etc., 171-173. 237. 272, 273,
286-289, 309, 310, 359-364,
390, 408, 428
Amphilochus, 332
Amphipolis, 53, 59, 61, 67, 146,
147, 155-158, 161, 208,
241-247, 255, 256, 295, 312
Amphissa, Amphisseans, 359-
368, 373, 376, 379, 382
Amphissean War, 359 ff.
Amphoterus, 424
Amyntas, Macedonian ad-
miral, 357, 373
Amyntas III., King of Mace-
don, 53, 59, 67, 146, 147, 242
Amyntor, 251, 253
Anaxarchus, 454
Anaximenes, 38, 97, 356
Anaxinus, 347
Andronicus, 30
Androtion, 92, 112-115, 137-
» MI
Antalcidas. See Peace
Anthemus, 157, 182
Antigonus, 473
Antiochus, 55, 227
Antipater, 152, 249, 252, 253,
353, 397, 407, 411, 420, 424,
427, 431, 452, 473, 476, 478-
486
Antiphilus, 479-481
Antiphon, orator, 37, 39
Antiphon, ambassador, 155
Antiphon, supposed traitor,
322
Aphobetus, 98, in
Aphobus, 4, 5, 7-12
Apodectae, 98, 1 12
ApoUodorus, General, 349
ApoUodorus, politician, etc.,
31, 40, 60, 201, 220-225
Apollonia, in Chalcidice, 48
ApoUonia, on the Euxine, 330
ApoUonides of Cardia, 162,
169
ApoUonides of Olynthus, 192
Apsephion, 117
Arbela, 424
Arbitration, at Athens, 8
Arcadia, Arcadians, 54, 56, 64,
132-134, 233, 234, 306, 307,
326, 376, 411, 413, 425-
428, 458, 476
Archelaus, 146
Archias, 485
Archidamus, 24, 55, 173, 238,
285
Areopagus, Council of, 14,
310, 322, 396, 416, 454, 460,
461,465
Argaeus, 154
Argives, Argos, 42, 43, 65,
132, 307, 316, 401, 475
Argura, 213
Ariobarzanes, 55, 58
Aristsechmus, 34
Aristarchus, 15, 36, 37
Aristion, 422
Aristocrates (and Speech
against), 162-168
Aristodemus, 235, 236, 239,
240, 247
Aristogeiton (politician), 461,
471
Aristogeiton, Statue of, 460
Aristoleos, 432
Aristomachus, 161
Aristomedes, 349
Aristonicus, 348, 461, 462, 465
Aristophon, 60, 86, 109-111,
H4, 116, 117, 123, 131, 174
Aristotle, 130, 149, 199, 204,
491
Aristratus, 432
Index
503
Arrhidseus (i) 206, (2) 407,
473
Artabazus, 61, 62, no, 119,
163
Artaxerxes II., 43, 55, 58
Artaxerxes III., 58, no, 119,
135, 181, 182, 191, 315, 316,
340-343. 349. 355
Artemisia, 135, 136
Arybbas, 183, 323
Asiatic Greeks, 45-47, 316,
419
Assembly. See Athens
Astylus, 411
Ateas, 354
Athenodorus, 63, 161, 162
Athens, condition after 404
B.C., 41, 42; in 359 B.C., 68;
in 353 B.C., 160; in 348
B.C., 214; constitution, char-
acter of Assembly and Peo-
ple, etc., 23, 71 ff., 128,
130, 180, 185, 186, 198, 213,
214, 254, 328, 337-339,
389, 390, 491-495; consti-
tution of 322 B.C., 484; mili-
tary and naval system, 86,
87, 99 ff.; 185 ff., 198, 202,
203, 214, 340, 351, 352,357.
377. 378, 480. {See also
Trierarchy.) Law-courts,
88 ff., 433, 436, 437; ar-
rangements for legislation,
91, 141. {See also Nomo-
thetae). Financial system,
92 ff., 107, III, 112, 124-
131, 142, 200-202, 216, 427.
(See also Taxation.) See
also Demosthenes, Confed-
eracy, Persia, Corn-Supply
Atrestidas, 206, 234, 311
Attains, 405, 407
Auditors. See Logistse
Autolycus, 402
Autophradates, 61
Babylon, 450, 459, 460, 472,
473
Bathippus, 117
Berisades, 63, 158, 160
Bianor, 161, 162
Boeotarchs, 383
Boeotia, Boeotians, 43, 53, 56,
65, 172, 271, 273, 288, 374,
395. 458, 475. 477, 483. (See
also Thebes)
Boeotus, 33
Bosporus, 59, 447
Bosporus, Cimmerian, 2, 69
Bottiaea, 200
Boucheta, 323
Brougham, Lord, 39
Byzantium, Byzantines, 51,
60,67,68, III, 170, 173, 179,
333. 341, 348-353. 358
Cabyle, 330
Cadmeia. See Thebes
Calaureia, 471 , 485
Callias, Althenian, 378
Callias, of Chalcis, 210, 211,
325, 326, 344-347. 422
Callias, of Phocis, 237
Callicles, 31, 32
Callimedon, 458, 478, 484
CaUisthenes (i), 99; (2), 454,
461
Callistratus, 47, 50, 51, 57,
60, 86, 159
Calybe, 330
Cardia, 63, 160, 162, 179, 276,
313. 314. 331.332
Carystus, 214, 475
Cassopia, 323
Cephallenia, 51
Cephisodotus, general, 61, 62;
orator, 117, 205
Cephisophon, 344, 352, 448,
461
Cersobleptes, 61, 63, 160-170,
179-181, 256, 263, 266, 267,
276, 305. 313, 327. 329
Cetriporis, 158, 161
Chabrias, 50, 52, 58, 63, 100,
no
Chaerephilus, 447
Chaeroneia, 175, 383-392
Chalcedon, 60, 68
Chalcidic League, 48, 52, 146,
182, 183, 199, 207. {See
also Olynthus.)
504
Index
Chalcis, 51, 210, 283, 325, 326,
343. 346. 395
Chares, 100, 109, no, 119,
161, 164, 176, 195, 198, 199,
205, 227, 340, 350, 352, 357,
358, 379. 385. 387
Charicles, 450, 461
Charidemus, 61-63, 103, 155,
161, 162, 167, 168, 180, 181,
184, 198, 199, 200, 393, 396,
414,415
Chersonese, Speech on, 331-
337
Chersonese, Thracian, 53, 58,
59. 62, 63, 69, 109, 154,
160 fit., 179, 180, 227, 244,
267, 268, 276, 306, 331-
333. 337. 340, 341. 348,
349. 353. 396
Chersonese, Tauric, 2
Chios, 51, 109-111, 340, 341,
353. 473
Cimon, 240, 241
Cirrha, 360, 361
Clazomenae, 45
Clearchus, 373
Cleitarchus, 324-326, 343, 344,
346
Cleitus, 480
Cleobuie, 2,4
Cleombrotus, 53
Cleomenes, 447
Cleon, 454
Cleonag, 485
Cleopatra, 405-407
Cleophon, 97, 251
Cleruchs, 69
Cnidos, 43
Cnosion, 466
Confederacy, Second Athenian,
50 flf., 68-70, 93, 396
Conon, admiral, 43
Conon, banker, 447
Conon, Speech against, 32,
33
Constitution. See Athens
Constitution, Speech on the,
38, 108
Corcyra, 42, 51, 68, 344, 376
Corinth, Corinthians, 42, 43,
65. 190, 323, 344. 400
Corinth, Congress at, 400, 401,
408, 409, 419, 428
Corn-Supply, at Athens, 2, 5,
9, 60, 69, 72-75, 99. 102,
180, 327, 341, 357, 394, 447,
451
Coroneia, 176, 288, 384, 385
Cos, III, 135, 136,353
Cothelas, 330
Cottyphus, 361-363
Cotys, 59, 61, 62
Council of Areopagus. See
Areopagus
Council of Five Hundred, 83,
84, 107, 113, 236, 245, 265,
277. 362, 371, 393, 404, 430
Crannon, 481
Craterus, 473, 480-482
Crenides, 158
Crete, 424
Critobulus, 263
Crithote, 62
Crobyle, 332
Ctesiphon, ambassador, 230,
231, 240, 245, 246; politician,
404, 430-445
Ctesippus, 117
Cynoscephalae, 57
Cyprothemis, 58
Cyprus, 45, 47
Cytmium, 368, 369, 379
Cyzicus, 60
Daochus, 373
Darius, 191, 410, 424
Datum, 159, 164
Deiares, 227
Deinarchus, 346, 421, 427,
446, 448, 458, 461, 463, 464,
468, 488
Deipyrus, 227
Delian League, Second. See
Confederacy
Delos, 184, 309, 310, 396, 448
Delphi, 55, 1 71-175, 268, 269,
359-361,377
Demades, 195, 392, 396, 397,
401, 403, 408, 413, 415,
420-422, 426, 427, 446, 455,
459, 472, 476, 484
Demagogues, 44
Index
505
Demes, political life of, 78,
107
Demetrius, 30, 482
Demochares, 2, 13, 482, 487
Damocles, 472
Democracy. See Athens
Democrates, 237
Demomeles, 13, 14, 379
Demon, 4, 13, 461, 478
Demophon, 4
Demosthenes, the elder, 2, 4,
71
Demosthenes, the orator, his
claim to fame, i ; birth and
origin, 2, 4, 35, 36; youth
and early ambitions, 5-7;
litigation with guardians,
etc., 7-14, 36; works as
writer of speeches for others,
I5i 16, 37; knowledge of
history and law, 16, 17, 26;
his private speeches, 31-35,
222-225; his speeches really
delivered, 37, 38; his tri-
erarchies, 62, 68, 95, 352;
speaks against Cephisodotus,
62; opinion of the Assembly,
82; speech against Andro-
tion, 1 1 2-1 16, 119; early
interest in naval matters,
32, 114, 115; speeches
against Leptines, 116-119;
on the Symmories, 1 19-124;
for the Alegalopolitans, 131-
134; for the Rhodians, 135-
137, 142, 181; against
Timocrates, 137-141;
against Aristocrates, 164-
170, 179; First Philippic,
184-189; Olynthiacs, 193-
204; opposes Euboean
Expedition, 209; assaulted
by Meidias; settles the
quarrel ; speech against
Meidias, 209, 212, 213, 217-
220; member of Council,
226, 236, 258; his part in
the Peace of Philocrates,
and attitude towards it
when made, 230 ff., 257-
259, 292, 293, 318-321, 435;
on First Embassy to Philip,
239 ff., 259; in discussions
after First Embassy, 245 ff.,
259-263; on Second Embas-
sy, 264 ff. ; in discussions
after Second Embassy, 277
ff. ; Speech on the Peace,
290; prosecution of ^schines,
Speech on the Embassy,
302, 309, 316-322, 356;
ambassador to Peloponnese,
306, 323; Second Philippic,
308; opposes Python, 312;
has Antiphon executed, 322 ;
co-operates with CalHas, 326,
436 ; negotiates alliance with
Megara, 326; Speech on
Chersonese, 331-337; Third
Philippic, 337-340; organizes
alliance against Philip,
341-345; Fourth Philippic,
342; crowned in 340 B.C.,
348; in 338 B.C., 379; sup-
ports declaration of war,
350; trierarchic reform,
351, 357; policy as to
Amphissean War, 362-368;
makes alliance with Thebes,
370-376, 436; organizes
allies before Chaeroneia,
376; financial reform, 377,
378; at Chasroneia, 387;
defence of his policy up to
Chaeroneia, 388-390, 489-
490; measures for defence
and food supply of Athens,
394, 397, 398; Funeral
Oration, 398, 399; attacked
in law-courts, 399, 400;
theoric commissioner, 403 ;
Ctesiphon's proposal to
crown him, 404; behaviour
on Philip's death, 406, 407;
resistance to Alexander,
409-419, 464; temporary
retirement, 421, 422; policy
in regard to the Spartan
rising, 426, 427; defence of
Ctesiphon, Speech on the
Crown, 430-445 ; influence
after trial of Ctesiphon,
5o6
Index
Demosthenes — Continued
446, 447; the Harpalus
affair, 451-454. 457, 460-
470, 496; attitude as regards
deification of Alexander,
455, 459; a-nd as regards
restoration of exiles, 456-
458; condemnation and
exile, 466-472, 476; his
letters, 472, 488; his recall,
476, 477; death, 485, 486;
character, 489-499
Ideals of national duty, 135
-137, 168, 217, 258, 298, 329,
337, 389, 416, 441-444, 489
ff. ; attitude towards Thebes,
174, 274, 278, 283, 292,
293, 329. 365-368, 370 ff.;
attitude towards Persia,
120, 136, 170, 181, 182, 316,
340-343, 355, 409, 410, 416,
417; as orator, i, 12, 13, 16,
18, 20-29, 37-39, 118, 119,
122, 133, 136, 137, 140, 166,
188, 196, 219, 220, 223, 308,
320, 321, 336, 340, 345,
438-444, 497
Dercylus, 240, 285
Diodorus (politician), 112, 113,
114, 138, 139
Diodorus (historian), 170
Diognetus, 359, 360
Diondas, 380, 400
Dionysia, 21 1-2 13, 217, 247,
260, 348, 430, 434, 436
Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
20
Dionysius of Syracuse, 23, 106
Diopeithes, 331-337, 34°. 342
Diophantus, 177, 190
Diotimus, 423
Diphilus, 447
Dolopes, 172
Dorians, 172,268
Doriscus, 266
Drongilus, 331
Ebryzelmis, 59
Echinus, 324, 365
Egypt, 47, 136, 138, 190, 315,
316,355
Elaeus, 62
Elateia, 369-372; comp. 323
Elatreia, 323
Eleusis, Eleusinian Mysteries,
190, 238, 259, 372, 377, 413,
484
Elis, Eleans, 56, 64, 65, 326,
376, 413, 428, 475
Embassy, the First, 230 ff.;
the Second, 264 ff.; the
Third, 283 ff., 299
Epameinondas, 54, 56, 57, 60,
148,377
Ephesus, 445, 473
Ephialtes, 342, 414, 415
Epicrates, 139
Epidaurus, 475
Epigenes, 447
Epirus, 144, 323
Ergiske, 266
Eretria, 51, 208, 209, 211, 324,
325, 344-346
Etesian Winds, 205, 333
Euagoras, 47, 191
Euboea, Eubceans, 43, 51, 54,
56, 66, 68, 183, 205, 208-
214, 226, 227, 229, 268, 279,
324-326, 333, 343-346, 376,
400, 475
EubuHdes, 34, 107
Eubulus, 73, 86, 92, 97, 98,
III, 124-131, 134, 142, 165-
168, 174, 177, 181, 200, 201,
204, 209, 210, 214-219, 229,
232, 234, 254, 317, 318
Eucleides, ambassador, 266,
305
Eucleides, archonship of, 2
Eucratus, 235
Euctemon, 37, 112, 113, 138,
139,213
Eudicus, 175
Euetion, 480
Eumenes, 473
Eunomus, 29
Euphraeus, 147, 325
Eurydice, 146, 147
Eurylochus, 249
Euthycles, 162
Euthycrates, 191, 192, 206,
310, 403
Index
507
Euxenippus, 429
Euxitheus, 34
Exchanges of property, 9
Festival- Fund, Money, etc.
See Theoric Fund
Generals, position of, in
Athens, 79, 83, 85, 86, 99,
100, 108, 187, 189, 198
Geraestus, 184, 235
Getae, 330
Glaucetes, 138, 139
Glycera, 450
Gorgias, 479
Grabus, 158
Granicus, 423, 424
Gravia, Pass of, 369, 379, 381,
382
Greek States, disunion of 23,
120, 126, 234, 338
Guardians. See Aphobus
Gylon, 2, 3
Hagnonides, 461, 462
Haliartus, 43
Halonnesus, 313-315. 347
Halus, 239, 242, 249, 252-254,
256, 257, 276, 279
Harmodius, 460
Harpalus, 450-454
Hegesileos, 214
Hegesippus, 282, 312-315, 323,
345
Hellespont. See Chersonese,
Thrace
Hephaestion, 471
Heracleia, 478
Heraeon Teichos, 170, 180, 181
Hermeias,3i6, 355
Hierax, 155
Hieromnemones, 359, 390
Hieron, 350
Hieron Oros. See Sacred
Mountain
Himeraeus, 462, 463, 484, 485
Hypereides, 310, 341, 342, 346,
352, 379. 393. 394. 400, 403,
414, 422, 430, 448, 452, 461-
467, 472, 474, 476, 479, 484,
485, 488
latrocles, 235, 240, 241
Illyria, lUyrians, 144, 155,
157, 158, 183, 304, 341, 409
Imbros, 45, 69, 184, 214, 396,
483
Immunity (from taxation, etc.) ,
116, 121, 141, 142
lonians, 172
Iphicrates, 44, 53, 59, 61,
100, no, 147
Isaeus, 7, 8, 12, 20
Ischander, 233
Isocrates, 8, 11, 15, 21-25,
50, 77, 82, 102, 120, 243,
290, 291, 304, 328, 402, 419
Issus, 423
Isthmian Games, 190
Jason, 23, 53, 102
Johnson, Dr., 39
Juries. See Athens, law-courts
Kepoi, 2
Lachares, 169
Lamachus, 487
Lamia, Lamian War, 478-480
Larissa, 67, 171
Lasthenes, 191, 192, 206
Laurium, 92
Law-courts. See Athens
Lebadeia, 384, 387, 392
Lemnos, 45, 69, 184, 214, 357,
396, 483
Leocrates, 428, 429
Leodamas, 117, 357
Leon, 55, 352
Leonnatus, 473, 480
Leosthenes, 60, 241, 474-479
Lep tines. Law of Leptines,
116-118, 141, 142
Lesbos, 51, 409, 425
Leucas, 323, 344, 376
Leuctra, 54, 171
Liturgies, 92, 116. See also
Immunity, Taxation.
Locrians, of Opus, 43
Locrians, Ozolian , 172-174;
and see Amphissa
Logistae, 267, 301, 316
508
Index
Lycinus, 230
Lycophron, 66, 175, 176
Lycurgus, 387, 394, 402, 404,
409, 414, 423, 428, 429, 445,
446, 448, 449, 454
Lycurgus, sons of, 472
Lyppeius, 158
Lysander, 43
Lysias, 18, 19, 21
Ly sides, 385, 387, 402
Lysimachus, 473
Lysitheides, 138
Macedonia, Macedonians, 57,
67, 143 ff., 169; and see
Philip
Magnesia, 176, 177, 199, 324
Magnetes, 172
Malians, 172
Mantineia, 48, 54, 56
Mantitheus, 33
Marathon, 184, 443
Maroneia, 67, 162, 163
Masteira, 33 1
Mausohis, no, 135, 138
Mecyberna, 204
Medocus, 59
Megalopolis, Megalopolitans,
54, 64, 132, 306, 425-428,
455
Megalopolitans, Speech for,
131-134
Megara, 11, 190, 326, 344,
376,400,401,458
Meidias, 10, 36, 140, 209-213,
217-220
Meidias, Speech against, 219,
220
Melantus, 400
Melanopus, 138, 139
Memnon, 61, 62, 424
Menelaus, 206
Menesaechmus, 448, 449, 462,
463, 472, 488
Menestheus, 425
Menestratus, 208
Menon, 481
Mentor, 62
Menyllus, 483
Mercenary armies, 1 01-104,
III, 203; and see Athens,
Generals
Messene, Messenia, Messe-
nians, 54, 55, 64, 131-134,
307. 327, 376, 413, 425, 475
Methone, 59, 67, 159, 169
Methymna, 51,111
Military System. See Athens
Military Fund, Treasurer of,
99
Miltiades, 448
Miltocythes, 62, 63
Mnesitheus, 453
Molossians, 183, 323, 405
Molossus, 213
Money, value of Athenian, 35
Munychia, 451, 483, 484
Myrtenum, 266
Mytilene, 51, iii
Naupactus, 324, 382, 391, 395
Nausicles, 177, 239, 240
Naiisimachus, 34
Nausinicus, 51
Naval Boards. See Symmories
Naval System. See Athens,
Symmories, Trierarchy
Naxos, 52
Neaera, Speech against, 201
Neapolis, 164
Nectanebos, 47
Neon, 175
Neoptolemus, 30, 235
Nicasa, near Thermopylae,
237, 324. 365. 369
Nicasa, in Thrace, 67
Nicanor, 457, 458
Nicias, 347
Nicobulus, 33
Nicodemus, 36, 37
Nissea, 326
Nomothetae, 91, 127, 139, 201,
202
Nymphaeum, 2, 3, 4
Odrysian Kingdom. See Beri-
sades, Cotys, Cersobleptes,
Seuthes
CEniadae, 458
CEnianes, 173
CEtaeans, 172, 286
Index
509
Olympian festival, games, etc.,
144,457,487
Olympian truce, 227, 230
Olympias, 348, 405-407, 422,
452
Olynthiac Orations, 193-204
Olynthus, 48, 52, 61, 146, 156,
182 flf., 191 ff., 228, 231, 232,
340
Onetor, and Speeches against,
11-13
Onomarchus, 164, 175-178
Oratory in Athens, 80 ff., 90.
See also Demosthenes,
Isocrates, Lysias, Rhetoric,
Statesmen
Orchomenus, 46, 56, 132, 175,
288,395,412
Oreus, 238, 242, 265, 325, 326,
340, 344-346, 348
Orontas, 190
Oropus, 49, 56, 66, 132, 133,
279. 374, 396, 483
Paeonians, 144, 158
Pagasse, 177, 199, 347
Pallene, 200
Pammenes, 64, 147, 163, 169,
170
Pamphlets, political. In Greece,
25, 26, 39
Panathenrea, 139
Pangasus, Mt., 67, 158
Panhellenic sentiment, 23, 337
Pantaenetus, 33, 223
Paragraphe, 33, 222
Parapotamii, 378, 379, 383,
384
Parmemo, 152, 157, 249, 324,
405
Parnassus, 268, 382
Pasicles, 221
Pasion, 31, 221
Pausanias, 147, 406
Peace, of AntaJcidas, 45-47,
T, 54,58
Peace, of 374 B.C., 52; of 371
B.C., 53; of 366 B.C., 56; of
362 B.C., 57, 60; of 350 B.C.,
134; of Philocrates, 83, 227
ff.. 347; of Demades, 396;
of 322 B.C., 483
Peiraeus, 29, 43, 285, 322, 393,
425, 451, 452, 477
Peitholaus, 66, 199
Pella, 143, 146, 147, 149, 265,
266, 268, 275, 298
Pellene, 413,425
Pelopidas, 55, 57, 148
Peltastae, 44
Peparethus, 60, 325, 347
Perdiccas II., 146
Perdiccas III., 147
Perdiccas, regent, 473, 483
Periander, law of, 96, 11 1, 121
Pericles, 97, 377
Perillus, 326
Perinthus, 67, ill, 170, 179,
348, 349
Perrhaebi, 172
Persia, Athenian policy in
regard to, 44, 55, 57, 58,
119, 120, 123, 135, 190, 191,
316, 340-343, 409, 410.
See also Artaxerxes, Darius.
Interference in Greek poli-
tics, 45-47, 55, 1 10, 315, 424;
Isocrates' policy in regard
to, 24
Persian gold, 46, 342, 343,
- 410, 411, 416, 417, 464, 465,
468
Phalascus, 182, 226, 237-239,
283, 284, 299, 300, 326
Phalerum, 28
Phanus, 12
Pharsalus, 239, 279, 368, 481
Phayllus, 176, 177, 182
Pherae, 67, 175, 176, 199,275,
298
Philip, birth, 147; early life,
57, 148; accession, 148;
character, 148-150, 154, 169;
organisation of his kingdom
and army, 150-154, 303;
early relations with Athens,
120, 142, 154, 155; capture
of Amphipolis, 155, 156;
treaty with Olynthus, 156;
takes Pydna, 157; Potei-
daea, 157; Methone, 159;
510
Index
Philip — Continued
Pagasae, 177; founds
Philippi, 158; campaigns
against Paeonians, Illyrians,
etc., 155, 158, 183, 304;
campaigns in Thrace, 160-
164, 169, 170, 179-181, 266,
327 flf., 357; his part in the
Sacred War, 171-178, 237
flf., 283 flf.; preparations for
attack upon Olynthus, 182-
184, 191, 193; relations with
Persia, 191, 315, 316, 355,
401 ; campaign in Thessaly,
199; capture of Olynthus,
204-208; negotiations with
Athens and Peace of Phi-
locrates, 228 ff., 268 flf.;
occupation of Phocis, 283
flf.; his letter to Athens, 38,
263, 286, 350, 356; his
position in 346 B.C., 290;
organises Macedonia, 303 ;
organises Thessaly, 304 ;
relations with Athens after
346 B.C., 305-315. O'l^ ^««
below; supports Alexander
against Arybbas, 323; inter-
feres in Euboea and Pelo-
ponnese, 324-326; besieges
Perinthus and Byzantium,
349. 350; in Scythia, 354;
wounded by Triballi, 354;
marches to Elateia, 368,
369; takes Amphissa and
Naupactus, 382 ; wins battle
of Chaeroneia, 383-387 ;
conduct after the battle,
392; treatment of Thebes
and Athens, 395-397; calls
Congress at Corinth, 401 ;
marries Cleopatra, 405 ;
assassinated, 406
Philip's Letter, reply to, 38,
356
Philippi, 158
Philippics. See Demosthenes
Philippides, 62
Philippopolis, 330
Philiscus, 55
PhiUstides, 324-326, 343, 344
Philocles, 451, 452, 461, 471
Philocrates, ambassador, etc.,
207, 230-235, 239 flf., 249 flf.,
280, 281, 284, 293 flf., 310,
311
Philocrates, prosecutor of
Demosthenes, 400
Philomelus, 173-175
Philosophy and politics, 26,
77, 78, loi, 106
Philoxenus, 453, 467
Phleius, 48, 65, 132
Phocians, Phocis, 43, 53, 66,
171-178, 182, 226, 237,
238, 248 flf., 273, 276 flf.,
294. 295. 299. 300, 317-321,
359. 360, 379, 391, 400, 412
Phocion, 86, 191, 210-213,
318, 326, 344, 352-354. 383.
387. 396, 401, 406, 4", 414,
415, 420, 422, 445, 452,
472-474, 480-484
Phoebidas, 49
Phormio, (i) 33, 220-224; (2),
117
Phrynon, 227, 230, 231, 240
Plataeae, 46, 49, 53, 57, 132,
374, 395. 512
Plataeae, Battle of, 251, 443
Plato, 19, 26, 39
Pleuratus, 304
Plutarchus, 209-211, 214
Polycles, Speech against, 60
Polycrates, 349
Polyeidus, 349
Polyeuctus (statesman), 323,
414,476
Polyeuctus (sculptor), 498
Polyphontes, 227
Poneropolis, 330
Porthmus, 324
Poteidaea, 59, 67, 157, 182,
255,312
Procles, 462
Proconnesus, 341
Proxenus (Athenian), 238,
243,259,265,278,311
Proxenus (Theban), 379
Ptoeodorus, 326
Ptolemy, 147
Pydna, 59, 67, I55-I57. 295
Index
511
Pylagon, 359, 390
Pytheas, 455, 462, 476, 484
Pythionice, 450
Python, 311, 312
Rhamnus, 480
Rhebulas, 424
Rhetoric, 15, 16, 18, 19, 77,
80,81, 114
Rhodes, 51, 109-111, 135-137,
181, 340, 341, 353, 445, 473
Rhodians, Speech for, 135-137,
142
Rhythm, In oratory, 21, 22
Rich and poor, in Athens, 72
flf., 220, 483, 484
Roxana, 473
Sacred Mountain, 266, 267
Sacred War, 131, 164, 171-
178, 236 ff., 271, 282 ff.
Salamis, battle of, 251
Salamis, in Cyprus, 191
Samos, 58, 69, 135, 396, 423,
457, 460, 483
Satyrus, 29
Sciathus, 325, 334
Scyros, 45, 69, 396
Scythia, 354
Selymbria, 68, iii, 357
Serrhium, 266
Sestos, 161
Seuthes, (i) 59, (2), 424
Simon, 161, 162
Simus, 175
Slave-labour, 102
Social War, 93, 109-112, 124,
157, 158
Socrates, 78, 146
Sophanes, 237
Sosicles, 400
Sostratus, 313
Sparta, Spartans, 42, 45, 47-
49. 54. 56, 64, 131-134. 172,
173, 178, 268, 275, 285, 289,
293. 306, 307, 363, 401,
424-428, 475
Spartocidae, 2
Speech-writers, professional,
15.16,37
Sphodrias, 49
Spudias, 31,32
Stageira, 199
Statesmen, corruption of, 82,
192, 193, 295, 310, 335-
340, 346, 440
Stephanus, and Speeches
against, 201, 222-225
Stratocles, (i) 155, (2) 385,
386, (3) 462, 463
Sunium, 451
Symmories, 51, 92, 96, 119-
124,351.357
Tachos, 47
Tasnarum, 452, 454, 474
Tamynae, 210, 211, 214
Taurosthenes, 210, 325, 344
Taxation, Athenian, 51, 52,
70. 73. 85, 92 ff., 112, 121-
124, 180, 198, 351
Tegea, 54, 56
Telephanes, 212
Tenedos, 341,425
Ten Thousand, the, 54
Teres, 329
Thasos, 158, 159, 326, 338, 347
Theagenes, 385
Thebans, Thebes, 42-44, 49,
51-57, 60, 65, 66, 131-134,
169, 171-178, 181, 237,
268, 270, 271, 273-275, 279,
281-293, 316, 329, 359,
362-388,395,409-414
Themison, 56
Theopompus, 169
Theoric Board, Fund, etc.,
96-99, 107, 125 flf., 195, 200-
202, 225, 318, 377, 378, 390,
391,403,427,465
Therippides, 5
Thermopylae, 175, 177-179,
237, 238, 268, 270-273,
277-279, 282, 290, 299,
362, 408, 477, 478, 482
Thesmophoria, 486
Thespiag, 46, 57, 132, 374,
395. 412
Thessalians, Thessaly, 56, 57,
66, 67, 172-178, 198, 199,
237, 284-290, 304, 324, 355,
368, 408, 478, 480, 481
512
Index
Thibron, 454
Thirty Tyrants, the, 41
Thrace, Thracians, 59-63, 67,
158, 160 ff., 179-181, 266-
268, 317, 327-337, 341,
348-354, 408, 424, 473
Thrasybulus, 51, 59
Thrasylochus, 9, 10
Thrasymachus, 21
Thucydides,i6, 17
Timagoras, 55
Timarchus, 259, 302
Timocles, 461 '
Timocrates (Athenian), 92,
112,137-141
Timocrates (Persian), 43
Timotheus (General), 50, 52,
53, 58, 59, 61, 68, no, 147,
155,208
Timotheus (poet), 146
Tiristasis, 332
Torone, 59, 204
Triballi, 354
Tricaranum, 132
Trierarchic Crown, Speech on,
31,32,114
Trierarchy, 9, 32, 71, 73, 92,
94-96, 116, 121-124, 351,
357
Triphylia, 64, 132
Troezen, 470, 475
Tyrrhenians, 448
Xenocleides, 313
Xenocrates, 483
Xenopeithes, 34
Zacynthus, 51
Zaretra, 211
Zeuxis, 146
^ Selection from the
Catalogue of
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
Complete Catalogue sent
on application
Heroes of the Nations
A Series of biographical studies of the Kves an(3
^ork of a number of representative historical char-,
acters about whom have gathered the great traditions
of the Nations to which they belonged, and who have
been accepted, in many instances, as types of the
several National ideals. With the life of each typical
character will be presented a picture of the NationaJ
conditions surrounding him during his career.
The narratives are the work of writers who are
recognized authorities on their several subjects, and,
while thoroughly trustworthy as history, will present
picturesque and dramatic "stories" of the Men and
of the events connected with them.
To the Life of each "Hero" will be given one duo-
decimo volume, handsomely printed in large type,
provided with maps and adequately illustrated ac-
cording to the special requirements of the several
subjects.
"^or f«U list of volumes see nexi pags.
HEROES OF THE NATIONS
NELSON. By W. Clark RnmO.
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS. By C
R. L. Fletcher.
PERICLES. By Evelyn Abbott.
THEODORIC THE GOTH. By
Thomas Hodgkin.
SIR PHILIP SIDNEY. By H. R.
Fox-Boume.
JULIUS CiESAR. By W. Ward*
Fowler.
WYCLIF. By Lewis Sergeant.
NAPOLEON. By W. O'Connor
Morris.
HENRY OF NAVARRE. By P.
F. WiUert.
CICERO. By J. L. Strachan-
DaTidson.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By Noah
Brooks.
PRINCE HENRY fOF PORTU-
GAL) THE NAVIGATOR.
By C. R. Beazley.
JULIAN THE PHILOSOPHER.
By Alice Gardner.
LOUIS XIV. By Arthur HassaU.
CHARLES XII. By R. Nbbet
Bain.
LORENZO DE' MEDICI. By Ed-
ward Armstrong.
JEANNE D'ARC By Mrs. OU-
phant.
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. By
Washington Irving.
ROBERT THE BRUCE. By Sir
Herbert Maxwell.
HANNIBAL. By W. O'Connor
Morris.
ULYSSES S. GRANT. By WiUiam
Conant Church.
ROBERT E. LEE. By Henry
Alexander White.
THE CID CAMPEADOR. By H.
Butler Clarke.
SALADIN. By Stanley Lane-
Poole.
BISMARCK. By J. W. Head-
lam.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT. By
Benjamin I. Wheeler.
CHARLEMAGNE. By H. W. C
Davis.
OLIVER CROMWELL.
Charles Firth.
By
RICHELIEU. By Jamas B. Fm»
kins.
DANIEL O'CONNELU By Rob-
ert Dunlop.
SAINT LOUIS (LouU IX. of
France). By Frederick Perry,
LORD CHATHAM, By Walfofd
David Green.
OWEN GLYNDWR. By Arthnc
G. Bradley.
HENRY V. By Charles L. King**
ford.
EDWARD I. By Edwaid Jenks*
AUGUSTUS CiESAR. By J. B.
Firth.
FREDERICK THE GREAT.
W. F. Reddaway.
By
WELLINGTON. By W. O'Connor
Morris.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. By
J. B. Firth.
MOHAMMED. D. S. Maigoliouth.
GEORGE WASHINGTON. By J.
A. Harrison.
CHARLES THE BOLD. By Ruth
Putnam.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR.
By F. B. Stanton.
FERNANDO CORTES. By F. A.
MacNutt.
WILLIAM THE SILENT. By R.
Putnam.
BLUCHER. By E. F. Henderson.
ROGER THE GREAT. By E,
Curtis.
CANUTE THE GREAT. By L.
M. Larson.
CAVOUR. By Pietro Orsi.
DEMOSTHENES. By A. W. Pickard-
Cambridge.
The Story of the Nations
In the story form the current of each National life
is distinctly indicated, and its picturesque and note-
worthy periods and episodes are presented for the
reader in their philosophical relation to each other
as well as to universal history.
It is the plan of the writers of the different volumes
to enter into the real life of the peoples, and to bring
them before the reader as they actually lived, labored,
and struggled — as they studied and wrote, and as
they amused themselves. In carrying out this plan,
the myths, with which the history of all lands begins,
will not be overlooked, though these will be carefully
distinguished from the actual history, so far as the
labors of the accepted historical authorities have
resulted in definite conclusions.
The subjects of the different volumes have been
planned to cover connecting and, as far as possible,
consecutive epochs or periods, so that the set when
completed will present in a comprehensive narrative
the chief events in the great Story of the Nations;
but it is, of course, not always practicable to issue
the several volumes in their chronological order.
For list of volumes see next page.
THE STORY OF THE NATIONS
GREECE. Prof. Jas. A. Htnkoo.
ROME. Arthur GilnuuL
THE JEWS. Prof. James K- Hew-
mer.
CHALDEA. Z. A. Ragozin.
GERMANY. S. Baring-GouM.
NORWAY. Hjalmar H. Boyesen.
SPAIN. Rer. B. E. and Susan
Hale.
HUNGARY. Prof. A. V&mh6rf.
CARTHAGE. Prof. Alfred J.
Church.
THE SARACENS. Arthur Gil-
man.
THE MOORS IN SPAIN. Stanley
Lane-Poole.
THE NORMANS. Sarah Ome
Jewett.
PERSIA. S. G. W. Benjamin.
ANCIENT EGYPT. Prof. Geo.
Rawlinson.
ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE. Prof.
J. P. Mahaffy.
ASSYRIA. Z. A. Ragozin.
THE GOTHS. Henry Bradley.
IRELAND. Hon. Emily Lawless.
TURKEY. Stanley Lane-Poole.
MEDIA BABYLON, AND PER-
SIA. Z. A. Ragozin.
MEDIEVAL FRANCE. Prof.Gus-
tave Masson.
HOLLAND. Prof. J. Thorold
Rogers.
MEXICO. Susan Hale.
PHCENICIA. George Rawlinson.
THE HANSA TOWNS. Helen
Zimmem.
EARLY BRITAIN Prof. Alfred
J. Church.
THE BARBARY CORSAIRS.
Stanley Lane-Poole.
RUSSIA. W. R. Morfill.
THE JEWS UNDER ROME. W.
D. Morrison.
SCOTLAND. John Mackintosh.
SWITZERLAND. R. Stead and
Mrs. A. Hug.
PORTUGAL. H. Morse-Stephens.
THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE. C.
W. C. Oman.
SICILY. E. A. Freeman.
THE TUSCAN REPUBLICS
Bella Duffy.
POLAND. W. R. Morfill.
PARTHIA. Geo. Rawlinson.
JAPAN. David Murray. ^, .
THE CHRISTIAN RECOVER%
OF SPAIN. H. E. Watts.
AUSTRALASIA. Greville Tn«ar.
then.
SOUTHERN AFRICA. Geo. M.
Theal.
VENICE. Alethea Wi&L
THE CRUSADES. T. 8. Andief
and C. L. Kingsford.
VEDIC INDIA. Z. A. Ragoda.
BOHEMIA. C. E. Maurice.
CANADA. J. G. Bourinot.
THE BALKAN STATES. "VraUaaa
Miller.
BRITISH RULE IN INDIA. R.
W. Frazer.
MODERN FRANCE. AndrS L6
Bon.
THE BRITISH EMPIRE. AHred
T. Story. Two vols.
THE FRANKS. Lewis Sergeant.
THE WEST INDIES. Amos K.
Fiske.
THE PEOPLE OP ENGLANH
Justin McCarthy, M.P. Twi
vols.
AUSTRIA. Sidney Whitman.
CHINA. Robt. K. Douglass.
MODERN SPAIN. Major Martin
A. S. Hume.
MODERN ITALY. Pietro Orn.
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES.
Helen A. Smith. Two vols.
WALES AND CORNWALL. Owna
M. Edwards.
MEDIEVAL ROME. Wm. Miller
THE PAPAL MONARCHY. Wm
Barry.
MEDI.ffiVAL INDIA. Stanley
Lane-Poole.
BUDDHIST INDIA. T.W. Rhy»
Davids.
THE SOUTH AMERICAN RE.
PUBLICS. Thomas C Daw.
son. Two vols.
PARLIAMENTARY ENGLAND.
Edward Jenks.
MEDI.<EVAL ENGLAND. Mary
Bate son.
THE UNITED STATES. Edward
Earle Sparks. Two vols.
ENGLAND. THE COMING, OP
PARLIAMENT. L.OeeilJaae,
GREECE TO A. D. 14- E. &
Shuckburgh.
ROMAN EMPIRE. H. Stuart
Jones.
BINDING SECT, C;CT2|
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
OF Oucjard-Cambridge. (Sir)
^^ Arthur Wallace
Demosthenes and the last
days of Greek freedom
P6
76
iiissiiiiiiiliilli^i