Demosthenes

Dēmosthĕnes, is (gen. i, Cic. Opt. Gen. 5, 14), m.,

• Δημοσθένης, the most celebrated of the Grecian orators, Cic. de Or. 1, 13; 20; id. Brut. 9; Prop. 3 (4), 21, 27; Quint. 10, 1, 76; 12, 10, 23 sq.; Juv. 10, 114 et saep.—Hence,
• II Dēmosthĕnĭcus, a, um, adj., Demosthenic: Demosthenicum, quod ter primum ille vocavit (i. e. action), Aus. Prof. 1, 19.

Dēmosthenēs, is u. ī, Akk. em u. ēn, m. (Δημοσθένης), der berühmte athenische Redner aus dem Demos Päania, der Verteidiger der griechischen Freiheit gegen Philipp von Mazedonien, Cic. de or. 1, 260; de opt. gen. 14 (wo Genet. -i); Tusc. 4, 55. Quint. 10, 1, 76. Iul. Val. 2, 15 (2, 5, wo Genet. -i). Iuven. 10, 114. (Vgl. Neue-Wagener Formenl.³ 1, 473 u. Keil de emend. Plin. ep. 1, p. 11 über den Akk. auf em u. en). – Dav. Dēmosthenicus, a, um, demosthenisch, Auson. prof. (XVI) 2, 19. p. 56, 14 Schenkl. – u. Dēmosthenicē, Adv. demosthenisch, Prisc. 15, 37.

Dēmosthĕnēs, (11) is, m. (Δημοσθένης), Démosthène [le célèbre orateur grec] : Cic. de Or. 1, 89 ; 1, 260 || -nĭcus, a, um, de Démosthène : Aus. Prof. 1, 19.

➳ gén. ī, Cic. Opt. 14 ; acc. em ou ēn.

demosthenes, is. m.
好口才之人名。

Suggest a Translation
See an image

Demo'sthenes

(Δημοσθένης), son of Alcisthenes, Athenian general, is one of the prominent characters of the Peloponnesian war. He was appointed in the sixth year, B. C. 426, to the command with Procles of a squadron of thirty ships sent on the annual cruise around Peloponnesus. Their first important efforts were directed against Leucas; and with the aid of a large force of Acarnanians, Zacynthians, Cephallenians, and Corcyraeans, it seemed highly probable that this important ally of Sparta might be reduced. And the Acarnanians were urgent for a blockade. Demosthenes, however, had conceived, from the information of the Messenians, hopes of a loftier kind ; and, at the risk of offending the Acarnanians, who presently declined to co-operate, sailed with these views to Naupactus. The Corcyraeans had also left hin, but he still persevered in his project, which was the reduction of the Aetolians,--an operation which, once effected, would open the way to the Phocians, a people ever well disposed to Athens, and so into Boeotia. It was not too much to hope that northern Greece might thus be wholly detached from the Spartan alliance, and the war be made strictly Peloponnesian. The success of the first move in this plan depended much on the aid of certain allies among the Ozolian Locrians, who were used to the peculiar warfare of the enemy. These, however, were remiss, and Demosthenes, fearing that the rumour of his purpose would rouse the whole Aetolian nation, advanced without them. His fear had been already realized, and as soon as the resources of his archery were exhausted, he was obliged to retreat, and this retreat the loss of his guide rendered even more disastrous than might have been expected for a force of heavy-armed men amidst the perpetual assaults of numerous light armed enemies. " There was every kind of flight and destruction," says Thucydides, " and of 300 Athenians there fell 120, a loss rendered heavy beyond proportion, through the peculiar excellence of this particular detachment." (Thuc. 3.91, 94, 98; Diod. 12.60.)

This, however, seemed to be hardly the worst consequence. The Aetolians sent ambassadors to Sparta, to ask for aid to reduce Naupactus; and received under the command of Eurylochus 3000 men-at-arms. The Ozolian Locrians were overawed into decided alliance. But Naupactus Demosthenes was enabled to save by reinforcements obtained on urgent entreaty from the offended Acarnanians ; and Eurylochus led off his forces for the present to Calydon, Pleuron, and Proschium. Yet this was but the preliminary of a more important movement. The Ambraciots, on a secret understanding with him, advanced with a large force into the country of their ancient enemy, the Amphilochian Argos; they posted themselves not far from the town, at Olpae. Eurylochus now broke up, and, by a judicious route, passing between the town itself and Crenae, where the Acarnanians had assembled to intercept him, effected a junction with these allies. Presently, on the other hand, Demosthenes arrived with twenty ships, and under his conduct the final engagement took place at Olpae, and was decided, by an ambuscade which he planted, in favour of the Athenians and Acarnanians. An almost greater advantage was gained by the compact entered into with Menedaeus, the surviving Spartan officer, for the underhand withdrawal of the Peloponnesians. And, finally, haying heard that the whole remaining force of Ambracia was advancing in support, he succeeded further in waylaying and almost exterminating it in the battle of Idomene. The Athenians received a third part of the spoils, and the amount may be estimated from the fact, that the share of Demosthenes, the only portion that reached Athens in safety, was no less than 300 panoplies. (Thuc. 3.102, 105_114; Diod. 12.60.)

Demosthenes might now safely venture home : and in the next year he was allowed, at his own request, though not in office, to accompany Eurymedon and Sophocles, the commanders of a squadron destined for Sicily, and empowered to use their services for any object he chose on the Peloponnesian coast. They, however, would not hear of any delay, and it was only by the chance of stress of weather, which detained the fleet at Pylos, his choice for his new design, that he was enabled to effect his purpose. The men themselves while waiting, took the fancy to build him his fort; and in it he was left with five ships. Here he was assailed by the Lacedaemonians, whom the news had recalled out of Attica, and from Corcyra, and here with great spirit and success he defeated their attempt to carry the place on the sea side. The arrival of forty Athenian ships, for which he had sent, and their success in making their way into the harbour, reversed his position. The Lacedaemonians, who in their siege of the place had occupied the neighbouring island, were now cut off and blockaded, and Sparta now humbled herself to ask for peace. The arrogance of the people blighted this promise ; and as the winter approached it became a question whether the whole advantage was not likely to be lost by the escape of the party. Demosthenes, however, was devising an expedient, when joined or rather, in fact, superseded by Cleon [Cleon], who nevertheless was shrewd enough not to interfere, possibly had even had intimation of it throughout. His Aetolian disaster had taught him the value of light and the weakness of heavy arms. Landing at two points with a force of which one-third only were full-armed, by a judicious distribution of his troops, and chiefly by the aid of his archers and targeteers. he effected the achievement, then almost incredible, of forcing the Spartans to lay down their arms. (Thuc. 4.2_40; Diod. 12.61-63.)

The glory of this success was with the vulgar given to Cleon, yet Demosthenes must have surely had some proportion of it. He was probably henceforth in general esteem, as in the Knights of Aristophanes, coupled at the head of the list of the city's generals with the high-born and influential Nicias. We find him in the following year (B. C. 424) commanding with Hippocrates in the operation in the Megarid; possessing himself by a stratagem of the Long Walls uniting Megara to Nisaea, and receiving shortly the submission of Nisaea itself, though baffled by the advance of Brasidas in the main design on Megara. Soon after, he concerted with the same colleague a grand attempt on Boeotia. On a fixed day Hippocrates was to lead the whole Athenian force into the south-eastern frontier, and occupy Delium, while Demosthenes was to land at Siphae, and by the aid of the democratic party, possess himself of it and of Chaeroneia. Demosthenes with this view took forty ships to Naupactus, and, having raised forces in Acarnania, sailed for Siphae. But either he or Hippocrates had mistaken the day; his arrival was too early, and the Boeotians, who had moreover received information of the plot, were enabled to bring their whole force against Demosthenes, and yet be in time to meet his colleague at Delium. The whole design was thus overthrown, and Demosthenes was further disgraced by a repulse in a descent on the territory of Sicyon. (Thuc. 4.66_74, 76, 77, 89, 101; Diod. 12.66-69.)

He does not reappear in history, except among the signatures to the treaties of the tenth year, B. C. 422 (Thuc. 5.19, 24), till the nineteenth, B. C. 413. On the arrival of the despatch from Nicias giving an account of the relief of Syracuse by Gylippus, he was appointed with Eurymedon to the command of the reinforcements, and, while the latter went at once to Sicily, he remained at home making the needful preparations. Early in the spring he set sail with sixty-five ships; and after some delays, how far avoidable we cannot say, at Aegina and Corcyra, on the coasts of Peloponnesus and of Italy, reached Syracuse a little too late to prevent the first naval victory of the besieged. (Thuc. 7.16, 17, 20, 26, 31, 33, 35, 42.)

The details of this concluding portion of the Syracusan expedition cannot be given in a life of Demosthenes. His advice, on his arrival, was to make at once the utmost use of their own present strength and their enemies' consternation, and then at once, if they failed, to return. No immediate conclusion of the siege could be expected without the recovery of the high ground commanding the city, Epipolae. After some unsuccessful attempts by day, Demosthenes devised and put into effect a plan for an attack, with the whole forces, by night. It was at first signally successful, but the tide was turned by the resistance of a body of Boeotians, and the victory changed to a disastrous defeat. Demosthenes now counselled an immediate departure, either to Athens, or, if Nicias, whose professions of greater acquaintance with the internal state of the besieged greatly influenced his brother generals, really had grounds for hope, at any rate from their present unhealthy position to the safe and wholesome situation of Thapsus. Demosthenes reasoned in vain: then ensued the fatal delay, the return of Gylippus with fresh reinforcements, the late consent of Nicias to depart, and the infatuated recal of it on the eclipse of the moon, the first defeat and the second of the all-important ships. In the latter engagement Demosthenes had the chief command, and retained even in the hour of disaster sufficient coolness to see that the only course remaining was at once to make a fresh attempt to break through the blockading ships and force their way to sea. And he had now the voice of Nicias with him : the army itself in desperation refused. In the subsequent retreat by the land, Demosthenes for some time is described simply as cooperating with Nicias, though with the separate command of the second and rearward division. This, on the sixth day, through its greater exposure to the enemy, was unable to keep up with the other; and Demosthenes, as in his position was natural, looked more to defence against the enemy, while Nicias thought only of speedy retreat. The consequence was that, having fallen about five miles and a half behind, he was surrounded and driven into a plot of ground planted with olives, fenced nearly round with a wall, where he was exposed to the missiles of the enemy. Here he surrendered, towards evening, on condition of the lives of his soldiers being spared.

His own was not. In confinement at Syracuse Nicias and he were once more united, and were together relieved by a speedy death. Such was the unworthy decree of the Syracusan assembly, against the voice, say Diodorus and Plutarch, of Hermocrates, and contrary, says Thucydides, to the wish of Gylippus, who coveted the glory of conveying the two great Athenian commanders to Sparta. (Thuc. 7.42_87; Diod. 13.10_33; Plut. Nicias, 20-28.) Timaeus, adds Plutarch, related that Hermocrates contrived to apprize them of the decree, and that they fell by their own hands. Demosthenes may be characterized as an unfortunate general. Had his fortune but equalled his ability, he had achieved perhaps a name greater than any of the generals of his time. In the largeness and boldness of his designs, the quickness and justice of his insight, he rises high above all his contemporaries. In Aetolia the crudeness of his first essay was cruelly punished; in Acarnania and at Pylos, though his projects were even favoured by chance, yet the proper result of the one in the reduction of Ambracia was prevented by the jealousy of his allies; and in the other his own individual glory was stolen by the shameless Cleon. In the designs against Megara and Boeotia failure again attended him. In his conduct of the second Syracusan expedition there is hardly one step which we can blame: with the exception of the night attack on Epipolae, it is in fact a painful exhibition of a defeat step by step effected over reason and wisdom by folly and infatuation. It is possible that with the other elements of a great general he did not combine in a high degree that essential requisite of moral firmness and command: he may too have been less accurate in attending to the details of execution than he was farsighted and fertile in devising the outline. Yet this must be doubtful: what we learn from history is, that to Demosthenes his country owed her superiority at the peace of Nicias, and to any rather than to him her defeat at Syracuse. Of his position at home among the various parties of the state we know little or nothing: he appears to have been of high rank: in Aristophanes he is described as leading the charge of the Hippeis upon Cleon (Equites, 242), and his place in the play throughout seems to imply it. [A.H.C]

Demo'sthenes

(Δημοσθένης), the greatest of the Greek orators, was the son of one Demosthenes, and born in the Attic demos of Paeania. Respecting the year of his birth, the statements of the ancients differ as much as the opinions of modern critics. Some of the earlier scholars acquiesced in the express testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ep. ad Amm. 1.4), who says that Demosthenes was born in the year preceding the hundredth Olympiad, that is, O1. 99. 4, or B. C. 381. Gellius (15.28) states that Demosthenes was in his twenty-seventh year at the time when he composed his orations against Androtion and Timocrates, which belong to B. C. 355, so that the birth of Demosthenes would fall in B. C. 383 or 382, the latter of which is adopted by Clinton. (F. H. ii. p. 426, &c., 3rd edit.) According to the account in the lives of the Ten Orators (p. 845. D.) Demosthenes was born in the archonship of Dexitheus, that is, B. C. 385, and this statement has been adopted by most modern critics, such as Becker, Böckh, Westermann, Thirlwall, and others; whereas some have endeavoured to prove that B. C. 384 was his birthyear. The opinion now most commonly received is, that Demosthenes was born in B. C. 385. For detailed discussions on this question the reader is referred to the works mentioned at the end of this article.

When Demosthenes, the father, died, he left behind him a widow, the daughter of Gylon, and two children, Demosthenes, then a boy of seven, and a daughter who was only five years old. (Plut. Dem. 4; Dem. c. Aphob. ii. p. 836; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 171; Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. i. p. 464.) During the last moments of his life, the father had entrusted the protection of his wife and children and the care of his property, partly capital and partly a large sword manufactory, to three guardians, Aphobus, a son of his sister Demophon, a son of his brother, and an old friend Therippides, on condition that the first should marry the widow and receive with her a dowry of eighty minae; the second was to marry the daughter on her attaining the age of maturity, and was to receive at once two talents, and the third was to have the interest of seventy minae, till Demosthenes, the son, should come of age. (Dem. c. Aphob. i pp. 814, 816, 2.840.) But the first two of the guardians did not comply with the stipulations made in the will, and all three, in spite of all the remonstrances of the family, united in squandering and appropriating to themselves a great portion of the handsome property, which is estimated at upwards of fourteen talents, and might easily have been doubled during the minority of Demosthenes by a prudent administration. But, as it was, the property gradually was so reduced, that when Demosthenes became of age, his guardians had no more than seventy minae, that is, only one twelfth of the property which the father had left. (Dem. c. Aphob. i. pp. 812, 832, 815, c. Onet. p. 865.) This shameful conduct of his own relatives and guardians unquestionably exercised a great influence on the mind and character of Demosthenes, for it was probably during that early period that, suffering as he was through the injustice of those from whom he had a right to expect protection, his strong feeling of right and wrong was planted and developed in him, a feeling which characterizes his whole subsequent life. He was thus thrown upon his own resources, and the result was great selfreliance, independence of judgment, and his oratory, which was the only art by which he could hope to get justice done to himself.

Although Demosthenes passed his youth amid such troubles and vexations, there is no reason for believing with Plutarch (Plut. Dem. 4), that he grew up neglected and without any education at all. The very fact that his guardians are accused of having refused to pay his teachers (c. Aphob. i. p. 828) shews that he received some kind of education, which is further confirmed by Demosthenes's own statement (de Coron. pp. 312, 315), though it cannot be supposed that his education comprised much more than an elementary course. The many illustrious personages that are mentioned as his teachers, must be conceived to have become connected with him after he had attained the age of manhood. He is said to have been instructed in philosophy by Plato. (Plut. Dem. 5, Vit. X Orat. p. 844; D. L. 3.46; Cic. Brut. 31, Orat. 4; Quint. Inst. 13.2.22, 10.24; Gellius, 3.13.) It may be that Demosthenes knew and esteemed Plato, but it is more than doubtful whether he received his instruction; and to make him, as some critics have done, a perfect Platonic, is certainly going too far. According to some accounts he was instructed in oratory by Isocrates (Plut. Vit. X Orat. p. 844; Phot. Bibl. p. 492), but this was a disputed point with the ancients themselves, some of whom stated, that he was not personally instructed by Isocrates, but only that he studied the τέχνη ῥητορική, which Isocrates had written. (Plut. Vit. X Orat. p. 837, Dem. 5.) The tradition of Demosthenes having been a pupil of Isocrates is, moreover, not supported by any evidence derived from the orations of Demosthenes himself, who speaks with contempt of the rhetorical school of Isocrates (c. Lacrin. pp. 928, 937), and an unbiassed reader of the works of the two orators cannot discover any direct influence of the elder upon the younger one, for certain words and phrases cannot assuredly be taken as proofs to the contrary. The account that Demosthenes was instructed in oratory by Isaeus (Plut. Dem. 5, Vit. X Orat. p. 844; Phot. Bibl. p. 492), has much more probability; for at that time Isaeus was the most eminent orator in matters connected with the laws of inheritance, the very thing which Demosthenes needed. This account is further supported by the fact, that the earliest orations of Demosthenes, viz. those against Aphobus and Onetor, bear so strong a resemblance to those of Isaeus, that the ancients themselves believed them to have been composed by Isaeus for Demosthenes, or that the latter had written them under the guidance of the former. (Plut. Vit. X Orat. p. 839; Liban. Vit. Dem. p. 3, Argum. ad Orat. c. Onet. p. 875.) We may suppose without much hesitation, that during the latter years of his minority Demosthenes privately prepared himself for the career of an orator, to which he was urged on by his peculiar circumstancesno less than by the admiration he felt for the orators of his time, and that during the first years after his attaining the age of manhood he availed himself of the instruction of Isaeus.

Immediately after becoming of age in B. C. 366, Demosthenes called upon his guardians to render him an account of their administration of his property; but by intrigues they contrived to defer the business for two years, which was perhaps less disagreeable to him, as he had to prepare himself and to acquire a certain legal knowledge and oratorical power before he could venture to come forward in his own cause with any hope of success. In the course of these two years, however, the matter was twice investigated by the diaetetae, and was decided each time in favour of Demosthenes. (Dem. c. Aphob. i. p. 828, c. Aphob. iii. p. 861.) At length, in the third year after his coming of age, in the archonship of Timocrates, B. C. 364 (Dem. c. Onet. p. 868), Demosthenes brought his accusation against Aphobus before the archon, reserving to himself the right to bring similar charges against Demophon and Therippides, which, however, he does not appear to have done (c. Aphob. i. p. 817; Plut. Vit. X Orat. p. 844; Zozim. Vit. Dem. p. 147). Aphobus was condemned to pay a fine of ten talents. This verdict was obtained by Demosthenes in the face of all the intrigues to which Aphobus had resorted for the purpose of thwarting him and involving him in a series of other law-suits (c. Aphob. p. 862). The extant orations of Demosthenes against Aphobus, who endeavoured to prevent his taking possession of his property, refer to these transactions. Demosthenes had thus gained a signal victory over his enemies, notwithstanding all the extraordinary disadvantages under which he laboured, for his physical constitution was weak, and his organ of speech deficient--whence, probably, he derived the nickname of Βάταλος, the delicate youth, or the stammerer,--and it was only owing to the most unwearied and persevering exertions that he succeeded in overcoming and removing the obstacles which nature had placed in his way. These exertions were probably made by him after he had arrived at the age of manhood. In this manner, and by speaking in various civil cases, he prepared himself for the career of a political orator and statesman. It is very doubtful whether Demosthenes, like some of his predecessors, engaged also in teaching rhetoric, as some of his Greek biographers assert.

The suit against Aphobus had made Meidias a formidable and implacable enemy of Demosthenes (Dem. c. Aphob. ii. p. 840, c. Meid. p. 539, &c.), and the danger to which he thus became exposed was the more fearful, since except his personal powers and virtues he had nothing to oppose to Meidias, who was the most active member of a coterie, which, although yet without any definite political tendency, was preparing the ruin of the republic by violating its laws and sacrificing its resources to personal and selfish interests. The first acts of open hostility were committed in B. C. 361, when Meidias forced his way into the house of Demosthenes and insulted the members of his family. This led Demosthenes to bring against him the action of κακηλορία, and when Meidias after his condemnation did not fulfil his obligations, Demosthenes brought against him a δίκη ἐξούλης. (Dem. c. Meid. p. 540, &c.) Meidias found means to prevent any decision being given for a period of eight years, and at length, in B. C. 354, he had an opportunity to take revenge upon Demosthenes, who had in that year voluntarily undertaken the choregia. Meidias not only endeavoured in all possible ways to prevent Demosthenes from discharging his office in its proper form, but attacked him with open violence during the celebration of the great Dionysia. (Dem. c. Meid. p. 518.) Such an act committed before the eyes of the people demanded reparation, and Demosthenes brought an action against him. Public opinion condemned Meidias, and it was in vain that he made all possible efforts to intimidate Demosthenes, who remained firm in spite of all his enemy's machinations, until at length, when an amicable arrangement was proposed, Demosthenes accepted it, and withdrew his accusation. It is said that he received from Meidias the sum of thirty minae. (Plut. Dem. 12; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 52.) The reason why Demosthenes withdrew his accusation was in all probability his fear of the powerful party of which Meidias was the leader; his accepting the sum of thirty minae, which, however, can scarcely be treated as an authentic fact(Isid. Epist.4.205), has been looked upon as an illegal act, and has been brought forward as a proof that Demosthenes was accessible to bribes. But the law which forbade the dropping of a public accusation (Dem. c. Meid. p. 529) does not appear to have been always strictly observed, as it was merely intended to prevent frivolous and unfounded accusations. If, on the other hand, Demosthenes did receive the thirty minae, it does not follow that it was a bribe, for that sum may have been required of him as a fine for dropping his accusationn against Meidias, or Demosthenes may have regarded that sum as a satisfactory acknowledgement of the guilt of his enemy. This affair belongs to the year B. C. 353, in which also the extant oration against Meidias was written, but as Demosthenes did not follow up the suit, the oration was left in its present unfinished state.

Demosthenes had some years before this event come forward as a speaker in the public assembly, for in B. C. 355 he had delivered the orations against Leptines and Androtion (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. 1.4), and in B. C. 353 the oration against Timocrates. The general esteem which Demosthenes enjoyed as early as that time is sufficiently attested by the fact, that in B. C. 354, in spite of all the intrigues of Meidias, he was confirmed in the dignity of Βουλευτής, to which he had been elected by lot (Dem. c. Meid. p. 551), and that in the year following he conducted, in the capacity of architheoros, the usual theoria, which the state of Athens sent to the festival of the Nemean Zeus (c. Meid. p. 552). The active part he took in public affairs is further attested by the orations which belong to this period: in B. C. 354 he spoke against the projected expedition to Euboea, though without success, and he himself afterwards joined in it under Phocion. (Dem. de Pace, p. 58, c. Meid. p. 558.) In the same year he delivered the oration περὶ συμμορῶν, in which he successfully dissuaded the Athenians from their foolish scheme of undertaking a war against Persia (Dem. de Rhod. lib. p. 192), and in B. C. 353 he spoke for the Megalopolitans (ὑπὲρ Μεγαλοπολτῶν), and opposed the Spartans, who had solicited the aid of Athens to reduce Megalopolis.

The one hundred and sixth Olympiad, or the period from B. C. 356, is the beginning of the career of Demosthenes as one of the leading statesmen of Athens, and henceforth the history of his life is closely mixed up with that of his country; for there is no question affecting the public good in which he did not take the most active part, and support with all the power of his oratory what he considered right and beneficial to the state. King Philip of Macedonia had commenced in B. C. 358 his encroachments upon the possessions of Athens in the north of the Aegean, and he had taken possession of the towns of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea, and Methone. During those proceedings he had contrived to keep the Athenians at a distance, to deceive them and keep them in good humour by delusions and apparently favourable promises. Demosthenes was not, indeed, the only man who saw that these proceedings were merely a prelude to greater things, and that unless the king was checked, he would attempt the subjugation, not only of Athens but of all Greece; but Demosthenes was the only person who had the honesty and the courage openly to express his opinions, and to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength against the common foe. His patriotic feelings and convictions against Macedonian aggrandizement are the groundwork of his Philippics, a series of the most splendid and spirited orations. They did not, it is true, produce the desired results, but the fault was not his, and the cause of their failure must be sought in the state of general dissolution in the Greek republics at the time; for while Philip occupied his threatening position, the Phocians were engaged in a war for life and death with the Thebans; the states of Peloponnesus looked upon one another with mistrust and hatred, and it was only with great difficulty that Athens could maintain a shadow of its former supremacy. The Athenians themselves, as Demosthenes says, were indolent, even when they knew what ought to be done; they could not rouse themselves to an energetic opposition; their measures were in most cases only half measures; they never acted at the right time, and indulged in spending the treasures of the republic upon costly pomps and festivities, instead of employing them as means to ward off the danger that was gathering like a storm at a distance. This disposition was, moreover, fostered by the ruling party at Athens. It was further an unfortunate circumstance for Athens that, although she had some able generals, yet she had no military genius of the first order to lead her forces against the Macedonian, and make head against him. It was only on one occasion, in B. C. 353, that the Athenians gained decided advantages by a diversion of their fleet, which prevented Philip passing Thermopylae during the war between the Phocians and Thebans. But a report of Philip's illness and death soon made room for the old apathy, and the good-will of those who would have acted with spirit was paralyzed by the entire absence of any definite plan in the war against Macedonia, although the necessity of such a plan had been pointed out, and proposals had been made for it by Demosthenes in his first Philippic, which was spoken in B. C. 352. Philip's attack upon Olynthus in B. C. 349, which terminated in the year following with the conquest of the place, deprived the Athenians of their last stronghold in the north. At the request of several embassies from the Olynthians, and on the impressive exhortation of Demosthenes in his three Olynthiac orations, the Athenians had indeed made considerable efforts to save Olynthus (Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 426; Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. 1.9), but their operations were thwarted in the end by a treacherous plot which was formed at Olynthus itself, and the town fell into the hands of Philip.

The next event in which Demosthenes took an active part is the peace with Philip, which from its originator is called the peace of Philocrates, and is one of the most obscure points in the history of Demosthenes and of Athens, since none of the historians whose works are extant enter into the details of the subject. Our only sources of information are the orations of Demosthenes and Aeschines on the embassy (περὶ παραπρεσβείας), which contain statements so much at variance and so contradictory, that it is next to impossible to come to any certain conclusions, although, if we consider the characters of the two orators, the authority of Demosthenes is entitled to higher credit than that of Aeschines. The former may, to some extent, have been labouring under a delusion, but Aeschines had the intention to deceive. The following particulars, however, may be looked upon as well established. During the Olynthian war, Philip had expressed his willingness to conclude a peace and alliance with Athens, and the Athenians, who were tired of the war and unable to form a coalition against the king, had accepted the proposal. Philocrates accordingly advised the Athenians to commence negotiations and to send an embassy to Philip. Demosthenes supported the plan, and Philocrates, Aeschines, and Demosthenes were among the ambassadors who went to the king. The transactions with Philip are not quite clear, though they must have referred to the Phocians and Thebans also, for the Phocians were allied with Athens, and the Athenian ambassadors probably demanded that the Phocians should be included in the treaty of peace and alliance between Macedonia and Athens. But this was more than Philip was inclined to agree to, since he had already resolved upon the destruction of the Phocians. It is, therefore, very probable that he may have quieted the ambassadors by vague promises, and have declined to comply with their demand under the pretext that he could not make a public declaration in favour of the Phocians on account of his relation to the Thessalians and Thebans. After the return of the ambassadors to Athens, the peace was discussed in two successive assemblies of the people, and it was at length sanctioned and sworn to by an oath to the king's ambassadors. Aeschines censures Demosthenes for having hurried the conclusion of this peace so much, that the Athenians did not even wait for the arrival of the deputies of their allies, who had been invited, and the contradictory manner in which Demosthenes himself (de Fals. Leg. p. 346, de Coron. p. 232) speaks of the matter seems indeed to cast some suspicion upon him; but the cause of Demosthenes's acting as he did may have been the vague manner in which Philip had expressed himself in regard to the Phocians. At any rate, however, quick decision was absolutely necessary, since Philip was in the meantime making war upon Cersobleptes, a king of Thrace, and since, in spite of his promises to spare the possessions of Athens in the Chersonesus, he might easily have been tempted to stretch out his hands after them: in order to prevent this, it was necessary that Philip, as soon as possible, should take his oath to the treaty of peace and alliance with Athens. It was on this occasion that the treacherous designs of Aeschines and his party became manifest, for notwithstanding the urgent admonitions of Demosthenes not to lose any time, the embassy to receive the king's oath (ἐπὶ τοὺς ὅρκους), of which both Aeschines and Demosthenes were again members (the statement in the article Aeschines, p. 37, that Demosthenes was not one of the ambassadors, must be corrected: see Newman in the Classical Museum, vol. i. p. 145), set out with a slowness as if there had been no danger whatever, and instead of taking the shortest road to Macedonia by sea, the ambassadors travelled by land. On their arrival in Macedonia they quietly waited till Philip returned from Thrace. Nearly three months passed away in this manner, and when at length Philip arrived, he deferred taking his oath until he had completed his preparations against the Phocians. Accompanied by the Athenian ambassadors, he then marched into Thessaly, and it was not till his arrival at Pherae that he took his oath to the treaty, from which he now excluded the Phocians. When the ambassadors arrived at Athens, Demosthenes immediately and boldly denounced the treachery of his colleagues in the embassy; but in vain. Aeschines succeeded in allaying the fears of the people, and persuaded them quietly to wait for the issue of the events. Philip in the meantime passed Thermopylae, and the fate of Phocis was decided without a blow. The king was now admitted as a member of the Amphictyonic league, and the Athenians, who had allowed themselves to act the part of mere spectators during those proceedings, were now unable to do anything, but still they ventured to express their indignation at the king's conduct by refusing their sanction to his becoming a member of the Amphictyonic league. The mischief, however, was done, and in order to prevent still more serious consequences, Demosthenes, in B. C. 346, delivered his oration " on the peace" (πεπὶ εἰρήνης), and the people gave way.

From this time forward the two political parties are fully developed, and openly act against each other; the party or rather the faction to which Aeschines belonged, was bribed by Philip to oppose the true patriots, who were headed by Demosthenes. He was assisted in his great work by such able men as Lycurgus, Hyperides, Polyeuctus, Hegesippus, and others, and being supported by his confidence in the good cause, he soon reached the highest point in his career as a statesman and orator. The basis of his power and influence was the people's conviction of his incorruptible love of justice and of his pure and enthusiastic love of his country. This conviction manifested itself clearly in the vengeance which the people took upon the treacherous Philocrates. (Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 79.) But this admiration and reverence for real and virtuous greatness soon cooled, and it was in vain that Demosthenes endeavoured to place the other men who had betrayed their country to Philip in their embassy to him, in the same light as Philocrates (Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 376), for the people were unwilling to sacrifice more than the one man, whom the Macedonian party itself had given up in order to save the rest. It was undoubtedly owing to the influence of this party that Aeschines, when after a long delay he consented to render an account of his conduct during the embassy, B. C. 343, escaped punishment, notwithstanding the vehement attacks of Demosthenes in the written oration περὶ παραπεσβείας. [Aeschines, p. 38.]

In the mean time Philip followed up his plans for the reduction of Greece. With a view of drawing the Peloponnesians into his interests, he tried to win the confidence of the Argives and Messenians, who were then perilled by Sparta; he even sent them subsidies and threatened Sparta with an attack. (Dem. Phil. ii. p. 69.) Sparta did not venture to offer any resistance, and the Athenians, who were allied with Sparta, felt unable to do anything more than send ambassadors to Peloponnesus, among whom was Demosthenes, to draw the Peloponnesians away from the Macedonian, and to caution them against his intrigues. (Dem. Philip. ii. p. 70, &c.) In consequence of these proceedings, ambassadors from Philip and the Peloponnesians met at Athens to complain of the Athenians favouring the ambitious schemes of Sparta, which aimed at suppressing the freedom of the peninsula, and to demand an explanation of their conduct. The Macedonian party at Athens, of course, supported those complaints; their endeavours to disguise Philip's real intentions and to represent them to the people in a favourable light, afforded an opportunity for Demosthenes, when the answer to be sent to the king was discussed in the assembly, B. C. 344, to place in his second Philippic the proceedings and designs of the king and his Athenian friends in their true light. The answer which the Athenians sent to Philip was probably not very satisfactory to him, for he immediately sent another embassy to Athens, headed by Python, with proposals for a modification of the late peace, although he subsequently denied having given to Python any authority for such proposals. (Dem. de Halones. p. 81.)

Philip had for some time been engaged in the formation of a navy, and the apprehensions which the Athenians entertained on that score were but too soon justified; for no sooner were his preparations completed, than he took possession of the island of Halonesus, which belonged to Athens. The Athenians sent an embassy to claim the island back; but Philip, who had found it in the hands of pirates, denied that the Athenians had any right to claim it, but at the same time he offered to make them a present of the island, if they would receive it as such. On the return of the ambassadors to Athens in B. C. 343, the oration on Halonesus (Περὶ Ἁλονήδον) was delivered. It is usually printed among the orations of Demosthenes, but belongs in all probability to Hegesippus. This and other similar acts of aggression, which at length opened the eyes of the Athenians, roused them once more to vigorous and energetic measures, in spite of the efforts of the Macedonian party to keep the people quiet. Embassies were sent to Acarnania and Peloponnesus to counteract Philip's schemes in those quarters (Dem. Phil. iii. p. 129), and his expedition into Thrace, by which the Chersonesus was threatened, called forth an energetic demonstration of the Athenians under Diopeithes. The complaints which Philip then made roused Demosthenes, in B. C. 342, to his powerful oration περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερροονήσ́ψ, and to his third Philippic, in which he describes the king's faithlessness in the most glaring colours, and exhorts his countrymen to unite and resist the treacherous aggressor. Soon after this, the tyrants whom Philip had established in Euboea were expelled through the influence and assistance of Demosthenes (Dem. de Coron. p. 254); but it was not till B. C. 341, when Philip laid siege to Perinthus and attacked Byzantium, that the long-sup-pressed indignation of the Athenians burst forth. The peace with Philip was now declared violated (B. C. 340); a fleet was sent to relieve Byzantium (Plut. Phoc. 14), and Philip was compelled to withdraw without having accomplished anything. Demosthenes was the soul of all these energetic measures. He had proposed, as early as the Olynthian war, to apply the theoricon to defray the expenses of the military undertakings of Athens (Dem. Olynth. iii. p. 31); but it was not till Philip's attack upon Byzantium that he succeeded in carrying a decree to this effect. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. 1.11.) By his law concerning the trierarchy (νόμος τριηραρχικός), he further regulated the symmoriae on a new and more equitable footing. (Dem. de Coron. p. 260, &c.) He thus at once gave a fresh impulse to the maritime power and enterprise of Athens, B. C. 340.

Philip now assumed the appearance of giving himself no further concern about the affairs of Greece. He carried on war with his northern neighbours, and left it to his hirelings to prepare the last stroke at the independence of Greece. He calculated well; for when in the spring of B. C. 340 the Amphictyons assembled at Delphi, Aeschines, who was present as pylagoras, effected a decree against the Locrians of Amphissa for having unlawfully occupied a district of sacred land. The Amphissaeans rose against this decree, and the Amphictyons summoned an extraordinary meeting to deliberate on the punishment to be inflicted upon Amphissa. Demosthenes foresaw and foretold the unfortunate consequences of a war of the Amphictyons, and he succeeded at least in persuading the Athenians not to send any deputies to that extraordinary meeting. (Dem. de Coron. p. 275; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 125, &c.) The Amphictyons however decreed war against Amphissa, and the command of the Amphictyonic army was given to Cottyphus, an Arcadian; but the expedition failed from want of spirit and energy among those who took part in it. (Dem. de Coron. p. 277.) The consequence was, that in B. C. 339, at the next ordinary meeting of the Amphictyons, king Philip was appointed chief commander of the Amphictyonic army. This was the very thing which he had been looking for. With the appearance of justice on his side, he now had an opportunity of establishing himself with an armed force in the very heart of Greece. He set out without delay, and when the Athenians received the news of his having taken possession of Elatea, they were thrown into the deepest consternation. Demosthenes alone did not give up all hopes, and he once more roused his countrymen by bringing about an alliance between Athens and Thebes. The Thebans had formerly been favoured by Philip, but his subsequent neglect of them had effaced the recollection of it; and they now clearly saw that the fall of Athens would inevitably be followed by their own ruin. They had before opposed the war of the Amphictyons, and when Philip now called upon them to allow his army to march through their territory or to join him in his expedition against Athens, they indignantly rejected all his handsome proposals, and threw themselves into the open arms of the Athenians. (Dem. de Coron. p. 299, &c.) This was the last grand effort against the growing power of Macedonia; but the battle of Chaeroneia, on the 7th of Metageitnion, B. C. 338, put an end to the independence of Greece. Thebes paid dearly for its resistance, and Athens which expected a similar fate, resolved at least to perish in a glorious struggle. The most prodigious efforts were made to meet the enemy; but Philip unexpectedly offered to conclude peace on tolerable terms, which it would have been madness to reject, for Athens thus had an opportunity of at least securing its existence and a shadow of its former independence.

The period which now followed could not be otherwise than painful and gloomy to Demosthenes, for the evil might have been averted had his advice been followed in time. The catastrophe of Chaeroneia might indeed to some extent be regarded as his work; but the people were too generous and too well convinced of the purity of his intentions, as well as of the necessity of acting as he had acted, to make him responsible for the unfortunate consequences of the war with Philip. It was, on the contrary, one of the most glorious acknowledgments of his merits that he could have received, that he was requested to deliver the funeral oration upon those who had fallen at Chaeroneia, and that the funeral feast was celebrated in his house. (Dem. de Coron. p. 320, &c.) But the fury of the Macedonian party and of his personal enemies gave full vent to itself; they made all possible efforts to humble or annihilate the man who had brought about the alliance with Thebes, and Athens to the verge of destruction. Accusations were brought against him day after day, and at first the most notorious sycophants, such as Sosicles, Diondas, Melanthus, Aristogeiton, and others, were employed by his enemies to crush him (Dem. de Coron. p. 310); but the more notorious they were, the easier was it for Demosthenes to unmask them before the people. But matters soon began to assume a more dangerous aspect when Aeschines, the head of the Macedonian party, and the most implacable opponent of Demosthenes, came forward against him. An opportunity offered soon after the battle of Chaeroneia, when Ctesiphon proposed to reward Demosthenes with a golden crown for the conduct he had shewn during his public career, and more especially for the patriotic disinterestedness with which he had acted during the preparations which the Athenians made after the battle of Chaeroneia, when Philip was expected at the gates. (Dem. de Coron. p. 266.) Aeschines attacked Ctesiphon for the proposal, and tried to shew that it was not only made in an illegal form, but that the conduct of Demosthenes did not give him any claim to the public gratitude and such a distinction. This attack, however, was not aimed at Ctesiphon, who was too insignificant a person, but at Demosthenes, and the latter took up the gauntlet with the greater readiness, as he now had an opportunity of justifying his whole political conduct before his countrymen. Reasons which are unknown to us delayed the decision of the question for a number of years, and it was not till B. C. 330 (Plut. Dem. 24) that the trial was proceeded with. Demosthenes on that occasion delivered his oration on the crown (περὶ στεφάνου). Aeschines did not obtain the fifth part of the votes, and was obliged to quit Athens and spend the remainder of his life abroad. All Greece had been looking forward with the most intense interest to the issue of this contest, though few can have entertained any doubt as to which would carry the victory. The oration on the crown was, in all probability, like that of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, revised and altered at a later period.

Greece had in the mean time been shaken by new storms. The death of Philip, in B. C. 336, had revived among the Greeks the hope of shaking off the Macedonian yoke. All Greece rose, and especially Athens, where Demosthenes, although weighed down by domestic grief, was the first joyfully to proclaim the tidings of the king's death, to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength against Macedonia, and to form new connexions in Asia. (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Clesiph. § 161; Diod. 17.3.) But the sudden appearance of young Alexander with an army ready to fight, damped the enthusiasm, and Athens sent an embassy to him to sue for peace. Demosthenes was one of the ambassadors, but his feelings against the Macedonians were so strong, that he would rather expose himself to the ridicule of his enemies by returning after having gone half way, than act the part of a suppliant before the youthful king. (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 161.) But no sooner had Alexander set out for the north to chastise the rebellious neighbours of Macedonia, than a false report of his death called forth another insurrection of the Greeks. Thebes, which had suffered most severely, was foremost; but the insurrection spread over Arcadia, Argos, Elis. and Athens. However, with the exception of Thebes, there was no energy anywhere. Demosthenes carried indeed a decree that succours should be sent to Thebes, but no efforts were made, and Demosthenes alone, and at his own expense, sent a supply of arms. (Diod. 17.8.) The second sudden arrival of Alexander, and his destruction of Thebes, in B. C. 335, put an end to all further attempts of the Greeks. Athens submitted to necessity, and sent Demades to the king as mediator. Alexander demanded that the leaders of the popular party, and among them Demosthenes, should be delivered up to him; but he yielded to the intreaties of the Athenians, and did not persist in his demand.

Alexander's departure for Asia is the beginning of a period of gloomy tranquillity for Greece; but party hatred continued in secret, and it required only some spark from without to make it blaze forth again in undiminished fury. This spark came from Harpalus, who had been left by Alexander at Babylon, while the king proceeded to India. When Alexander had reached the easternmost point of his expedition, Harpalus with the treasures entrusted to his care, and with 6000 mercenaries, fled from Babylon and came to Greece. In B. C. 325 he arrived at Athens, and purchased the protection of the city by distributing his gold among the most influential demagogues. The reception of such an open rebel could not be viewed by the Macedonian party otherwise than as an act of hostility towards Macedonia itself; and it was probably at the instigation of that party, that Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, and Olympias called upon the Athenians to deliver up the rebel and the money they had received of him, and to put to trial those who had accepted his bribes. Harpalus was allowed to escape, but the investigation concerning those who had been bribed by him was instituted, and Demosthenes was among the persons suspected of the crime. The accounts of his conduct during the presence of Harpalus at Athens are so confused, that it is almost impossible to arrive at a certain conclusion. Theopompus (apud Plut. Dem. 25, comp. Vit. X Orat. p. 846) and Deinarchus in his oration against Demosthenes state, that Demosthenes did accept the bribes of Harpalus; but Pausanias (2.33.4) expressly acquits him of the crime. The authority of his accusers, however, is very questionable, for in the first place they do not agree in the detail of their statements, and secondly, if we consider the conduct of Demosthenes throughout the disputes about Harpalus, if we remember that he opposed the reception of the rebel, and that he voluntarily offered himself to be tried, we must own that it is at least highly improbable that he should have been guilty of common bribery, and that it was not his guilt which caused his condemnation, but the implacable hatred of the Macedonian party, which eagerly seized this favourable opportunity to rid itself of its most formidable opponent, who was at that time abandoned by his own friends from sheer timidity. Demosthenes defended himself in an oration which Athenaeus (xiii. p.592) calls περὶ τοῦ χρυσιου, and which is probably the same as the one referred to by others under the title of ἀπολογία τῶν δώρων. (Dionys. de Admir. vi dic. Dem. 57, Ep. ad Amm. 1.12.) But Demosthenes was declared guilty, and thrown into prison, from which however he escaped, apparently with the connivance of the Athenian magistrates. (Plut. Dem. 26, Vit. X Orat. p. 846; Anonym. Vit. Demosth. p. 158.) Demosthenes quitted his country, and resided partly at Troezene and partly in Aegina, looking daily, it is said, across the sea towards his beloved native land.

But his exile did not last long, for in B. C. 323 Alexander died, and the news of his death was the watchword for a fresh rise of the Greeks, which was organized by the Athenians, and under the vigorous management of Leosthenes it soon assumed a dangerous aspect for Macedonia. (Diod. 18.10.) Demosthenes, although still living in exile, joined of his own accord the embassies which were sent by the Athenians to the other Greek states, and he roused them to a fresh struggle for liberty by the fire of his oratory. Such a devotedness to the interests of his ungrateful country disarmed the hatred of his enemies. A decree of the people was passed on the proposal of Demon, a relative of Demosthenes, by which he was solemnly recalled from his exile. A trireme was sent to Aegina to fetch him, and his progress from Peiraeeus to the city was a glorious triumph: it was the happiest day of his life. (Plut. Dem. 27, Vit. X Oral. p. 846; Justin, 13.5.) The military operations of the Greeks and their success at this time, seemed to justify the most sanguine expectations, for the army of the united Greeks had advanced as far as Thessaly, and besieged Antipater at Lamia. But this was the turning point; for although, even after the fall of Leosthenes, the Greeks succeeded in destroying the army of Leonnatus, which came to the assistance of Antipater, yet they lost, in B. C. 322, the battle of Cranon. This defeat alone would not indeed have decided the contest, had not the zeal of the Greeks gradually cooled, and had not several detachments of the allied army withdrawn. Antipater availed himself of this contemptible disposition among the Greeks, and offered peace, though he was cunning enough to negotiate only with each state separately. Thus the cause of Greece was forsaken by one state after another, until in the end the Athenians were left alone to contend with Antipater. It would have been folly to continue their resistance singlehanded, and they accordingly made peace with Antipater on his own terms. All his stipulations were complied with, except the one which demanded the surrender of the popular leaders of the Athenian people. When Antipater and Craterus thereupon marched towards Athens, Demosthenes and his friends took to flight, and, on the proposal of Demades, the Athenians sentenced them to death. Demosthenes had gone to Calauria, and had taken refuge there in the temple of Poseidon. When Archias, who hunted up the fugitives everywhere, arrived, Demosthenes, who was summoned to follow him to Antipater, took poison, which he had been keeping about his person for some time, and died in the temple of Poseidon, on the 10th of Pyanepsion, B. C. 322. (Plut. Dem. 29, Vit. X Orat. p. 846; Lucian, Encom. Dem.. 43, &c.)

Thus terminated the career of a man who has been ranked by persons of all ages among the greatest and noblest spirits of antiquity; and this fame will remain undiminished so long as sterling sentiments and principles and a consistent conduct through life are regarded as the standard by which a man's worth is measured, and not simply the success--so often merely dependent upon circumstances--by which his exertions are crowned. The very calumnies which have been heaped upon Demosthenes by his enemies and detractors more extravagantly than upon any other man--the coarse and complicated web of lies which was devised by Aeschines, and in which he himself was caught, and lastly, the odious insinuations of Theopompus, the historian, which are credulously repeated by Plutarch,--have only served to bring forth the political virtues of Demosthenes in a more striking and brilliant light. Some points there are in his life which perhaps will never be quite cleared up on account of the distorted accounts that have come down to us about them. Some minor charges which are made against him, and affect his character as a man, are almost below contempt. It is said, for example, that he took to flight after the battle of Chaeroneia, as if thousands of others had not fled with him (Plut. Dem. 20, Vit. X Oral. p. 845; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. §§ 175, 244, 253); that, notwithstanding his domestic calamity (his daughter had died seven days before) he rejoiced at Philip's death, which shews only the predominance of his patriotic feelings over his personal and selfish ones (Plut. Dem. 22; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 77); and lastly, that he shed tears on going into exile--a fact for which he deserves to be loved and honoured rather than blamed. (Plut. Dem. 26.) The charge of tergiversation which is repeatedly brought against him by Aeschines, has never been substantiated by the least evidence. (Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 173, c. Timarch. § 131, de Fals. Leg. § 165; Plut. Dem. 15.) In his administration of public affairs Demosthenes is perfectly spotless, and free from all the crimes which the men of the Macedonian party committed openly and without any disguise. The charge of bribery, which was so often raised against him by the same Aeschines, must be rejected altogether, and is a mere distortion of the fact that Demosthenes accepted'subsidies from Persia for Athens, which assuredly stood in need of such assistance in its struggles with Macedonia; but there is not a shadow of a suspicion that he ever accepted any personal bribes.

His career as a statesman received its greatest lustre from his powers as an orator, in which he has not been equalled by any man of any country. Our own judgment on this point would necessarily be one-sided, as we can only read his orations; but among the contemporaries of Demosthenes there was scarcely one who could point out any definite fault in his oratory. By far the majority looked up to him as the greatest orator of the time, and it was only men of such over-refined and hypercritical tastes as Demetrius Phalereus who thought him either too plain and simple or too harsh and strong (Plut. Dem. 9, 11); though some found those features more striking in reading his orations, while others were more impressed with them in hearing him speak. (Comp. Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Demosth. 22; Cic. de Orat. 3.56, Brut. 38; Quint. Inst. 11.3.6.) These peculiarities, however, are far from being faults; they are, on the contrary, proofs of his genius, if we consider the temptations which natural deficiencies hold out to an incipient orator to pursue the opposite course. The obstacles which his physical constitution threw in his way when he commenced his career, were so great, that a less courageous and persevering man than Demosthenes would at once have been intimidated and entirely shrunk from the arduous career of a public orator. (Plut. Dem. 6, &c.) Those early difficulties with which he had to contend, led him to bestow more care upon the composition of his orations than he would otherwise have done, and produced in the end, if not the impossibility of speaking extempore, at least the habit of never venturing upon it; for he never spoke without preparation, and he sometimes even declined speaking when called upon in the assembly to do so, merely because he was not prepared for it. (Plut. Dem. 8, Vit. X Oral. p. 848.) There is, however, no reason for believing that all the extant orations were delivered in that perfect form in which they have come down to us, for most of them were probably subjected to a careful revision before publication; and it is only the oration against Meidias, which, having been written for the purpose of being delivered, and being afterwards given up and left incomplete, may be regarded with certainty as a specimen of an oration in its original form. This oration alone sufficiently shews how little Demosthenes trusted to the impulse of the moment. It would lead us too far in this article to examine the manner in which Demosthenes composed his orations, and we must refer the reader to the various modern works cited below. We shall only add a few remarks upon the causes of the mighty impression which his speeches made upon the minds of his hearers. The first cause was their pure and ethical character; for every sentence exhibits Demosthenes as the friend of his country, of virtue, truth, and public decency (Plut. Dem. 13); and as the struggles in which he was engaged were fair and just, he could without scruple unmask his opponents, and wound them where they were vulnerable, though he never resorted to sycophantic artifices. The second cause was his intellectual superiority. By a wise arrangement of his subjects, and by the application of the strongest arguments in their proper places, he brought the subjects before his hearers in the clearest possible form; any doubts that might be raised were met by him beforehand, and thus he proceeded calmly but irresistibly towards his end. The third and last cause was the magic force of his language, which being majestic and yet simple, rich yet not bombastic, strange and yet familiar, solemn without being ornamented, grave and yet pleasing, concise and yet fluent, sweet and yet impressive, carried away the minds of his hearers. That such orations should notwithstanding sometimes have failed to produce the desired effect, was owing only to the spirit of the times.

Most of the critical works that were written upon Demosthenes by the ancients are lost, and, independent of many scattered remarks, the only important critical work that has come down to us is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, entitled περὶ τῆς τοῦ Δημοσθένους δεινότητος. The acknowledged excellence of Demosthenes's orations made them the principal subjects of study and speculation with the rhetoricians, and called forth numerous imitators and commentators. It is probably owing to those rhetorical speculations which began as early as the second century B. C., that a number of orations which are decidedly spurious and unworthy of Demosthenes, such as the λόγος ἐπιτάφιος and the ἐρωτικος, were incorporated in the collections of those of Demosthenes. Others, such as the speech on Halonesus, the first against Aristogeiton, those against Theocrines and Neaera, which are undoubtedly the productions of contemporary orators, may have been introduced among those of Demosthenes by mistake. It would be of great assistance to us to have the commentaries which were written upon Demosthenes by such men as Didymus, Longinus, Hermogenes, Sallustius, Apollonides, Theon, Gymnasius, and others; but unfortunately most of what they wrote is lost, and scarcely anything of importance is extant, except the miserable collection of scholia which have come down to us under the name of Ulpian, and the Greek argumenta to the orations by Libanius and other rhetoricians. Works

The ancients state, that there existed 65 orations of Demosthenes (Plut. Vit. X Orat. p. 847; Phot. Bibl. p. 490), but of these only 61, and if we deduct the letter of Philip, which is strangely enough counted as an oration, only 60 have come down to us under his name, though some of these are spurious, or at least of very doubtful authenticity. Besides these orations, there are 56 Exordia to public orations, and six letters, which bear the name of Demosthenes, though their genuineness is very doubtful. Editions

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

Editions of the Philippics were published by J. Bekker (Berlin, 1816, 1825 and 1835), C. A. Rüdiger (Leipzig, 1818, 1829 and 1833), and J. T. Vömel. (Frankfurt, 1829.) 1. The first Philippic

The first Philippic was delivered in B. C. 352, and is believed by some to be made up of two distinct orations, the second of which is supposed to commence at p. 48 with the words ἃ μὲν ἡμεῖς. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. 1.10.) But critics down to the present time are divided in their opinions upon this point. The common opinion, that the oration is one whole, is supported by the MSS., and is defended by Bremi, in the Philol. Beilräge aus der Schweiz, vol. i. p. 21, &c. The opposite opinion is very ably maintained by J. Held, Prolegomena ad Dem. Orat. quae vulgo prima Phil. dicitur, Vratislaviae, 1831, and especially by Seebeck in the Zeitschrift für d. Alterthumswiss. for 1838, No. 91, &c. 2-4. The first, second, and third Olynthiac Orations

The first, second, and third Olynthiac orations belong to the year B. C. 349. Dionysius (Ep. ad Amm. 1.4) makes the second the first, and the third the second in the series; and this order has been defended by R. Rauchenstein, de Orat. Olynth. ordine, Leipz. 1821, which is reprinted in vol. i. of Schaefer's Apparatus. The other order is defended by Becker, in his German translation of the Philippics, i. p. 103, &c., and by Westermann, Stüve, Ziemann, Petrenz, and Brückner, in separate dissertations. Edition

There is a good edition of the Olynthiac orations, with notes, by C. H. Frotscher and C. H. Funkhänel, Leipzig, 1834, 8vo. 5. On the Peace

The oration on the Peace, delivered in B. C. 346. Respecting the question as to whether this oration was actually delivered or not, see Becker, Philippische Reden, i. p. 222, &c., and Vömel, Prolegom. ad Orat. de Pace, p. 240, &c. 6. The second Philippic

The second Philippic, delivered in B. C. 344. See Vömel, Integram esse Demosth. Philip. II. apparet ex dispositione, Frankf. 1828, whose opinion is opposed by Rauchenstein in Jahn's Jahrb. vol. 11.2, p. 144, &c. 7. On Halonesus

On Halonesus, B. C. 343, was suspected by the ancients themselves, and ascribed to Hegesippus. (Liban. Argum. p. 75; Harpocrat. and Etym. M. s.v. Phot. Bibl. p. 491.) Weiske endeavoured to vindicate the oration for Demosthenes in Dissertatio super Orat. de Halon., Lubben. 1808, but he is opposed by Becker in Seebode's Archiv. for 1825, i. p. 84, &c., Philippische Reden, ii. p. 301, &c., and by Vömel in Ostenditur Hegesippi esse orationem de Haloneso, Frankf. 1830, who published a separate edition of this oration under the name of Hegesippus in 1833. 8. Περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερρσονήσῳ

Περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερροονήσῳ delivered in B. C. 342. 9. The third Philippic

The third Philippic, delivered in B. C. 342. See Vömel, Demosthenis Philip. III. habitant esse ante Chersonesiticam, Frankf. 1837; L. Spengel, Ueber die dritte Philip. Rede des Dem., Munich, 1839. 10. The fourth Philippic

The fourth Philippic, belongs to B. C. 341, but is thought by nearly all critics to be spurious. See Becker, Philip. Reden, ii. p. 491, &c.; W. H. Veersteg, Orat. Philip. IV. Demosth. aljudicatur, Groningae, 1818. 11. Πρὸς τὴν Ἐπιστολὴν τὴν Φιλίππου

Πρὸς τὴν Ἐπιστολὴν τὴν Φιλίππου refers to the year B. C. 340, but is a spurious oration. Becker, Philip. Reden, ii. p. 516, &c.

B. Other Political Orations. 12. Περὶ Συντάξεως

Περὶ Συντάξεως, refers to B. C. 353, but is acknowledged on all hands to be spurious. F. A. Wolf, Proleg. ad Leptin. p. 124; Schaefer, Apparat. Crit. i. p. 686. 13. Περὶ Συμμοριῶν

Περὶ Συμμοριῶν, was delivered in B. C. 354. See Amersfoordt, Introduct. in Orat. de Symmor. Lugdun. Bat. 1821, reprinted in Schaefer's Appar. Crit. vol. i.; Parreidt, Disputat. de Instit. eo Athen. cujus ordinat. et correct. in orat. Περὶ Συμμ. inscripta suadet Demosth., Magdeburg, 1836. 14. Ὑπὲρ Μεγαλοπολιτῶν

Ὑπὲρ Μεγαλοπολιτῶν, B. C. 353. 15. Περὶ τῆς Ῥοδίων ἐλευθερίας

Περὶ τῆς Ῥοδίων ἐλευθερίας, B. C. 351. 16. Περὶ τῶν πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον συνθηκῶν

Περὶ τῶν πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον συνθηκῶν, refers to B. C. 325, and was recognized as spurious by the ancients themselves. (Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Dem. 57; Liban. Argum. p. 211.) II. Judicial or Private Orations. 17. Περὶ Στεφάνου

Περὶ Στεφάνου, or on the Crown, was delivered in B. C. 330. Editions

There are numerous separate editions of this famous oration; the best are by I. Bekker with scholia, Halle, 1815, and Berlin, 1825, by Bremi (Gotha, 1834), and by Dissen (Göttingen, 1837). Further Information

Comp. F. Winiewski, Comment. Historica et Chronolog. in Demosth. Orat. de Coron., Monasterii, 1829. The genuineness of the documents quoted in this oration has of late been the subject of much discussion, and the most important among the treatises on this question are those of Droysen (Ueber die Aechtheit der Urkund. in Denmosth. Rede vonm Kranz, in the Zeitschrift für die Alterthumsw. for 1839, and reprinted separately at Berlin, 1839), and F. W. Newman (Classical Museum, vol. i. pp. 141-169), both of whom deny the genuineness, while Vimel in a series of programs (commenced in 1841) endeavours to prove their authenticity. Comp. A. F. Wolper, de Forma hodierna Orat. Demosth. de Coron. Leipzig, 1825 ; L. C. A. Briegleb, Comment. de Demosth. Orat. pro Ctesiph. praestantia, Isenac. 1832. 18. Περὶ τῆς Παραπρεδβείας

Περὶ τῆς Παραπρεδβείας, delivered in B. C. 342. 19. Περὶ τῆς ἀτελείας πρὸς Λεπτίνην

Περὶ τῆς ἀτελείας πρὸς Λεπτίνην, was spoken in B. C. 355. Editions

It has been edited separately by F. A. Wolf, Halle, 1789, which edition was reprinted at Ziirich, 1831. 20. Κατὰ Μειδίου περὶ τοῦ κονδύλου

Κατὰ Μειδίου περὶ τοῦ κονδύλου, was composed in B. C. 355. Editions

There are separate editions by Buttmann (Berlin, 1823 and 1833), Blume (Sund. 1828), and Meier (Halle, 1832). Further Information

Compare Böckh, Ueber die Zeitverhältnisse der Midiana in the Abhandl. der Berlin. Akadem. for 1820, p. 60, &c. 21. Κατὰ Ἀνδροτίωνος παρανόμων

Κατὰ Ἀνδροτίωνος παρανόμων, belongs to B. C. 355, and has been edited separately by Funkhänel, Leipzig, 1832. 22. Κατὰ Ἀριδτοκράτους

Κατὰ Ἀριδτοκράτους, B. C. 352. See Rumpf, De Charidemo Orita, Giessen, 1815. 23. Κατὰ Τιμοκράτους

Κατὰ Τιμοκράτους, B. C. 353. See Blume, Prolegom. in Demosth. Orat. c. Timocrat., Berlin, 1823. 24 and 25. The two orations against Aristogeiton

The two orations against Aristogeiton belong to the time after B. C. 338. The genuineness of these two orations, especially of the first, was strongly doubted by the ancients themselves (Dionys. de Admir. vi dic. Dem. 57; Harpocrat. s. vv. Θεωρίς and nealh/s; Pollux, 10.155) though some believed them to be the productions of Demosthenes. (Liban. Argum. p. 769; Phot. Bibl. p. 491.) Modern critics think the first spurious, others the second, and others again both. See Schmidt, in the Excursus to his edition of Deinarchus, p. 106, &c.; Westermann, Quaest. Demosth. iii. p. 96, &c. 26 and 27. The two orations against Aphobus

The two orations against Aphobus were delivered in B. C. 364. 28. Πρὸς Ἄφοβον ψευδομαρτυριῶν

Πρὸς Ἄφοβον ψευδομαρτυριῶν, is suspected of being spurious by Westermann, Quaest. Dem. iii. p. 11, &c. Comp. Schömann, de Jure Publ. Graec. p. 274. 29 and 30. The two orations against Onetor

The two orations against Onetor. See Schmeisser, de Re Tutelari ap. Athen., &c., Freiburg, 1829. The genuineness of these orations is suspected by Böckh, Publ. Econ. of Athens, Index, s. v. Demosthenes. 31. Παραγραφὴ πρὸς Ζηνόθεμιν

Παραγραφὴ πρὸς Ζηνόθεμιν, falls after the year B. C. 355. 32. Πρὸς Ἀπατούριον παραγρηραφή

Πρὸς Ἀπατούριον παραγρηραφή, is of uncertain date. 33. Πρὸς Φορμίωνα περὶ δανείου

Πρὸς Φορμίωνα περὶ δανείου, was spoken in B. C. 332. See Baumstark, Prolegom. in Orat Demosth. adv. Phorm., Heidelberg, 1826. 34. Προς τὴν Λακρίτου παραγραφήν

Προς τὴν Λακρίτου παραγραφήν, is of uncertain date, and its genuineness is doubted by some of the ancients. See the Greek Argumentum. 35. Ὑπὲρ Φορμίωνος παραγραφή

Ὑπὲρ Φορμίωνος παραγραφή, belongs to B. C. 350. 36. Πρὸς Πανταίνετον παραγραφή

Πρὸς Πανταίνετον παραγραφή, falls after B. C. 347. 37. Πρὸς Ναυσίμαχον καὶ Ξενοπείθη παραγραφή

Πρὸς Ναυσίμαχον καὶ Ξενοπείθη παραγραφή, is of uncertain date. 38. Πρὸς Βοιωτὸν περὶ του ὀνόμαατος

Πρὸς Βοιωτὸν περὶ του ὀνόμαατος, belongs to B. C. 351 or 350, and was ascribed by some of the ancients to Deinarchus. (Dionys. Deinarch. 13.) See Böckh, Urkund. über. das Att. Seewesen, p. 22, &c. 39. Πρὸς Βοιωτὸν ν̔πὲρ προικὸς μητρῴας

Πρὸς Βοιωτὸν ν̔πὲρ προικὸς μητρῴας, B. C. 347. 40. Πρὸς Σπουδίαν ὑπὲρ προικός

Πρὸς Σπουδίαν ὑπὲρ προικός, of uncertain date. 41. Πρὸς Φαίνιππον περὶ ἀντιδόσεως

Πρὸς Φαίνιππον περὶ ἀντιδόσεως, of uncertain date. The genuineness of this oration is doubted by the author of the argum. to it, Böckh, Index to Publ. Econ. of Athens, and Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 63. 42. Πρὸς Μακάρτατον περὶ Ἁγνίου κλήρου

Πρὸς Μακάρτατον περὶ Ἁγνίου κλήρου, of uncertain date. See de Boor, Prolegom. zu der Rede des Demosth. gegen. Makartatus, Hamburg, 1838. 43. Πρὸς Λεοχάρη περὶ τοῦ κλήρου

Πρὸς Λεοχάρη περὶ τοῦ κλήρου, of uncertain date.

44 and 45. The two orations against Stephanus, belong to the time previous to B. C. 343. The genuineness of the first is doubted by I. Bekker. See C. D. Beel, Diatribe in Demosth. Orat. in Stephan., Lugdun. Bat. 1825. 46. Περὶ Εὐέρλου καὶ Μνησιβούλου ψευδομαρτυριῶν

Περὶ Εὐέρλου καὶ Μνησιβούλου ψευδομαρτυριῶν, belongs to the time after B. C. 355. Its genuineness is doubted by Harpocr. s. vv. *)Ekaki/stroun and h)|thme/nhn, H. Wolf, Böckh (l.c.), and I. Bekker. See Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 216. 47. Κατὰ Ὀλυμπιοδώρου βλάβης

Κατὰ Ὀλυμπιοδώρου βλάβης after B. C. 343. 48. Πρὸς Τιμόθεον ὑπὲρ χρέεως

Πρὸς Τιμόθεον ὑπὲρ χρέεως, falls between B. C. 363 and 354, but is considered spurious by Harpocrat. s. v. Κακοτεχνιῶν, βöξκη, and Bekker (see Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 264). It is defended by Rumpf, de Orat. adv. Timothy , Giessen, 1821. 49. Πρὸς πολυκλέα περὶ τοῦ ἐπιτριηραρχήματος

Πρὸς πολυκλέα περὶ τοῦ ἐπιτριηραρχήματος, after B. C. 361. 50. Περὶ τοῦ Στεφάνου τῆς τριηραρχίας

Περὶ τοῦ Στεφάνου τῆς τριηραρχίας, after B. C. 361, is suspected by Becker, Demosth. als Staatsmann und. Redner, p. 465. 51. Πρὸς Κάλλιππον

Πρὸς Κάλλιππον, spoken in B. C. 364. 52. Πρὸς Νικόστρατον περὶ τῶν Ἀρεθουσίου ἀνδραπόδων

Πρὸς Νικόστρατον περὶ τῶν Ἀρεθουσίου ἀνδραπόδων, of uncertain date, was suspected by Harpocrat. s. v. Ἀπογραφή. 53. Κατὰ Κόνωνος αβἰκίας

Κατὰ Κόνωνος αβἰκίας, B. C. 343. 54. Πρὸς Καλλακλέα περὶ χωρίου

Πρὸς Καλλακλέα περὶ χωρίου, of uncertain date. 55. Κατὰ Διονυσοδώρου βλάβης

Κατὰ Διονυσοδώρου βλάβης, B. C. 329. 56. Ἔφεσις πρὸς Εὐβουλίδην

Ἔφεσις πρὸς Εὐβουλίδην, after B. C. 346. 57. Κατὰ Θεοκρίνου ἔνδειξις

Κατὰ Θεοκρίνου ἔνδειξις, belongs to B. C. 325, but is probably the work of Deinarchus. (Dionys. Deinarch. 10; Argum. ad Orat. c. Theocrin. p. 1321; Harpocrat. s. vv. ἀγραφίου and Θεοκρίνης; Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 473.) 58. Κατὰ Νεαίρας

Κατὰ Νεαίρας, refers to B. C. 340, but is considered spurious both by ancient and modern writers. (Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Dem. 57 ; Phrynich. p. 225; Harpocrat. s. vv. γἔρρα, δημοποίητος, διεγγύησεν, Ἵππαρχος, and Κωλιάς ; Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 527.) III. Show Speeches. 59. Ἐπιτάφιος

Ἐπιτάφιος, refers to B. C. 338, but is un questionably spurious. (Dionys. de Adnir. vi dic. Dem. 23, 44; Liban. p. 6; Harpocrat. s. tv. Αἰγεῖδαι and Κεκροιπίς; Phot. Bibl. p. 491; Suid. s. v. Δημοσθένης; Bekker, Anecd. p. 354; Westermann, Quaest. Dem. ii. p. 49, &c.) Its genuineness is defended by Becker (Demosth. als Staatsm. u. Red. ii. p. 466, &c.) and Kriiger (in Seebode's Archiv, 1.2, p. 277). 60. Ἐρωτικός

Ἐρωτικός, is, like the former, a spurious production. (Dionys. de Adnmir. vi dic. Dem. 44 ; Liban. p. 6; Pollux, 3.144; Phot. Bibl. l.c.; Westermann, Quaest. Dem. ii. p. 70, &c.) Lost Orations

Among the lost orations of Demosthenes the following are mentioned :-- 1. Διφίλῳ δημηγορικὰς αἰτοῦντι δωρεάς

Διφίλῳ δημηγορικὰς αἰτοῦντι δωρεάς. (Dionys. Deinarech. 11.) 2. Κατα Μέδοντος

Κατα Μέδοντος. (Pollux, 8.53; Harpocr. s. v. Δεκατεύειν.) 3. Πρὸς Πολύευκτον παραγραφή

Πρὸς Πολύευκτον παραγραφή. (Bekker, Anecd. p. 90.) 4. Περὶ χρυσίου

Περὶ χρυσίου (Athen. 13.592) is perhaps the same as the ἀπολογία τῶν δώρων. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. 1.12, who, however, in Demoosth. 57, declares it a spurious oration.) 5. Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐκδοῦναι Ἅρπαλον

Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐκδοῦναι Ἅρπαλον, was spurious according to Dionysius. (Demosth. 57.) 6. Κατὰ Δημάδου

Κατὰ Δημάδου. (Bekker, Anecd. p. 335.) A fragment of it is probably extant in Alexand. de Figur. p. 478, ed. Walz. 7. Προς Κριτίαν περὶ τοῦ ἐνεπισκήμματος

Προς Κριτίαν περὶ τοῦ ἐνεπισκήμματος. (Harpocrat. s. v. Ἐνεπίσκημμα, where Dionysius doubts its genuineness.) 8. Ὑπὲρ π̔ητόρων

Ὑπὲρ π̔ητόρων, probably not a work of Demosthenes. (Suid. s. v. Ἅμα.ʼ 9. Ὑπὲρ Σατύρου τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς πρὸς Χααρίδημον

Ὑπὲρ Σατύρου τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς πρὸς Χααρίδημον, belonged according to Callimachus (apud Phot. Bibl. p. 491) to Deinarchus. Further Information

Besides the ancient and modern historians of the time of Philip and Alexander, the following works will be found useful to the student of Demosthenes : Schott, Vitae Parallelae Aristot. et Demosth. Antwerp, 1603; Becker, Demosthenes als Staatsmann und Redner, Halle, 1816, 2 vols. 8vo.; Westermann, Quaestiones Demosthenicae, in four parts, Leipzig, 1830-1837, Geschichte der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, §§ 56, 57, and Beilage, vii. p. 297, &c.; Böhneke, Studien auf dem Gebiete der Attischen Redner, Berlin, 1843. [L.S]

Demo'sthenes

(Δημοσθένης).

1. The father of the orator. See above.

Demo'sthenes

2. A Bithynian, wrote a history of his native country, of which the tenth book is quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium. (s. vv. Κοσσός, Μαυσωωλοί; comp. s. vv. Τάρας, Ταρσός, Τευμησσός, Ἀλεξανδρεία, Ἀρτάκη; Etym. Mag. s. v. Ἠραία.) He further wrote an account of the foundations of towns (κτίσεις), which is likewise several times quoted by Stephanus. Euphorion wrote a poem against this historian under the title of Δημοσθένης, of which a fragment is still extant. (Bekker, Anecdot. p. 1383; comp. Meineke, de Euphorione, p 31.)

Demo'sthenes

3. A Thracian, a Greek grammarian, who wrote according to Suidas (s. v.) a work on the dithyrambic poets (περὶ διθυραμβοποιῶν), a paraphrase of Homer's Iliad and of Hesiod's Theogony, and an epitome of the work of Damagetus of Heracleia. (Westermann, Quaest. Dem. iv. pp. 38, 88.)

Demo'sthenes

4. Surnamed the Little (ὁ μικρός), a Greek rhetorician, who is otherwise unknown; but some fragments of his speeches are extant in Bekker's Anecdota (pp. 135, 140, 168, 170, 172). [L.S]

Demo'sthenes Massalio'tes

(ὁ Μασσαλιώτης), or Massiliensis, a native of Marseilles, and the author of several medical formulae preserved by Galen, must have lived in or before the first century after Christ, as he is by Asclepiades Pharmacion. (Gal. De Compos. Medicam. sec. Gen. 5.15. vol. xiii. p. 856.) By some persons he is supposed to be the same as Demosthenes Philalethes, which seems to be quite possible. He is sometimes called simply Massaliotes or rassiliensis. (Gal. l.c. p. 855; Aetius, 4.2. 58, p. 726.) See C.G.Kühn, Additam. ad El/ench. Msedicor. Veter. a J. A. Fabricio, §c., exhibitum, where he has collected all the fragments of Demosthenes that remain. [W.A.G]

Demo'sthenes Philale'thes

(Δημοσθένης ὁ Φιλαλήθης), a physician, who was one of the pupils of Alexander Philalethes, and belonged to the school of medicine founded by Herophilus. (Gal. De Differ. Puls. 4.4. vol. viii. p. 727.) He probably lived about the beginning of the Christian aera, and was especially celebrated for his skill as an oculist. He wrote a work on the Pulse, which is quoted by Galen (l.c.), and also one on Diseases of the Eyes, which appears to have been extant in the middle ages, but of which nothing now remains but some extracts preserved by Aetius, Paulus Aegineta, and other later writer [W.A.G]

Demosthĕnes

(Δημοσθένης). (1) A celebrated Athenian orator, a native of the deme of Paeania, in the tribe Pandionis. His father, Demosthenes, was a citizen of rank and opulence, and the proprietor of a manufactory of arms; not a common blacksmith, as the language of Juvenal (x. 130) would lead us to believe. The son was born about B.C. 383, and lost his father at the early age of seven years, when he was left to the care of his mother, Cleobulé. The guardians to whom his father had intrusted the administration of a large property proving faithless to their charge and wasting a large portion of his patrimony, the orator's early studies were seriously hampered by the want of sufficient means, to say nothing of the delicate state of his own health. When Demosthenes was some sixteen years of age his curiosity was attracted by a trial in which Callistratus pleaded and won a cause of considerable importance. The eloquence which gained, and the applause which followed, his success so inflamed the ambition of the young Athenian that he determined to devote himself thenceforward to the assiduous study of oratory. He chose Isaeus as his master rather than Isocrates; from Plato, also, he imbibed much of the richness and the grandeur which characterize the writings of that philosopher. At the age of seventeen he appeared before the courts and pronounced against his faithless guardians, and against a debtor to his father's estate, five orations, which were crowned with complete success. These discourses, in all probability, had received the finishing touch from Isaeus , under whom Demosthenes continued to study for the space of four years after he had reached his majority.

An opening so successful emboldened the young orator to speak before the people in the assembly; but, when he made the attempt, his feeble and stammering voice, his interrupted respiration, his ungraceful gestures, and his ill-arranged periods, brought upon him general ridicule. Returning home in the utmost distress, he was encouraged by the kindness of the actor Satyrus, who, having requested Demosthenes to repeat some passage from a dramatic poet, pronounced the same extract after him with so much correctness of enunciation and in a manner so true to nature that it appeared to the young orator to be quite a different passage. Convinced, thereupon, how much grace and persuasive power a proper enunciation and manner add to the best oration, he resolved to correct the deficiencies of his youth, and accomplished this with a zeal and perseverance which have passed into a proverb. To free himself from stammering he spoke with pebbles in his mouth, a story resting on the authority of Demetrius Phalereus, his contemporary. It also appears that he was unable to articulate clearly the letter R; but he vanquished that difficulty most perfectly, for Cicero says that he exercitatione fecisse ut plenissime diceret. He removed the distortion of features which accompanied his utterance by watching the movements of his countenance in a mirror; and a naked sword was suspended over his left shoulder while he was declaiming in private, to prevent its rising above the level of the right. That his enunciation might be loud and full of emphasis he frequently ran up the steepest and most uneven walks, an exercise by which his voice acquired both force and energy; and on the sea-shore, when the waves were violently agitated, he declaimed aloud, to accustom himself to the noise and tumult of a public assembly. He constructed a subterranean study, where he would often stay for two or three months together, shaving one side of his head, that in case he should wish to go abroad the shame of appearing in that condition might keep him within. In this solitary retreat, by the light of his lamp, he is said to have copied and recopied, ten times at least, the orations scattered throughout the history of Thucydides, for the purpose of moulding his own style after so pure a model.

Whatever may be the truth of these stories, Demosthenes got credit for the most indefatigable labour in the acquisition of his art. His enemies, at a subsequent period of his career, attempted to ridicule this extraordinary industry, by remarking that all his arguments “smelled of the lamp,” and they eagerly embraced the opportunity of denying him the possession of natural talents. This criticism of Demosthenes seems to have rested chiefly on his known reluctance to speak without preparation. The fact is, that though he could exert the talent of extemporaneous speaking, he avoided rather than sought such occasions, partly from deference to his audience and partly from apprehending the possibility of a failure. Plutarch, however, who mentions this reluctance of the orator, speaks at the same time of the great merit of his extemporaneous effusions.

Demosthenes reappeared in public at the age of twenty-five years, and pronounced two orations against Leptines, the author of a law which imposed on every citizen of Athens, except the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the exercise of certain burdensome functions. The second of these discourses, entitled “Of Immunities,” is regarded as one of his happiest efforts. After this, he became much engaged in the business of the bar, and these professional labours, added to the scanty portion of his patrimony which he had recovered from his guardians, appear to have formed his only means of support. But, whatever may have been the distinction and the advantages which Demosthenes acquired by his practice at the bar, his principal glory is derived from his political discourses. At the period when he engaged in public affairs the State was a mere wreck. Public spirit was at the lowest ebb; the laws had lost their authority; the austerity of early manners had yielded to the inroads of luxury, activity to indolence, and probity to venality. Of the virtues of their fathers there remained to the Athenians little save an attachment, carried almost to enthusiasm, for their native soil. On the slightest occasion this feeling of patriotism was sure to display itself; and, thanks to this sentiment, the people of Athens were still capable of making strenuous efforts for the preservation of their freedom. No one understood better than Demosthenes the art of exciting and keeping alive this enthusiasm. His penetration enabled him easily to divine the ambitious plans of Philip of Macedon from the very outset of that monarch's operations, and he resolved to counteract them. His whole public career, indeed, had but one object in view, and that was war with Philip. For the space of fourteen years this monarch found the Athenian orator continually in his path, and every attempt proved unavailing to corrupt so formidable an adversary. These fourteen years, which immediately preceded the fall of Grecian freedom, constitute the brightest period in the history of Demosthenes. And yet his courage was political rather than military. At Chaeronea (B.C. 338) he fled from the field of battle, though in the Athenian assembly no private apprehensions could check his eloquence or influence his conduct. But, though overpowered in the contest with the enemy of Athenian independence, he received after his defeat the most honourable recompense which, in accordance with Grecian customs, a grateful country could bestow. Athens decreed him a crown of gold. The reward was opposed by Aeschines (q.v.). The combat of eloquence which arose between the two orators attracted to Athens an immense concourse of spectators. Demosthenes triumphed, and his antagonist, not having received the fifth part of the votes, was, in conformity with the existing law, compelled to retire into exile. A short time after this splendid victory Demosthenes was condemned for having suffered himself to be bribed by Harpalus, a Macedonian governor, who, dreading the anger of Alexander, had come to Athens to hide there the fruit of his extortion and rapine, and had bargained with the popular leaders of the day for the protection of the Republic. Demosthenes, having escaped from imprisonment, fled to Aegina (B.C. 324), whence he could behold the shores of his beloved country, and earnestly and constantly protested his innocence. After the death of Alexander he was restored, and his entry into Athens was marked by every demonstration of joy. A new league was formed among the Grecian cities against the Macedonians, and Demosthenes was the soul of it. But the confederacy was broken up by Antipater, and the death of the orator was decreed. He retired, thereupon, from Athens to the island of Calauria, off the coast of Argolis, and, being still pursued by the satellites of Antipater, terminated his life there by poison, in the temple of Poseidon, at the age of about sixty years, B.C. 322.

Before the time of Demosthenes there existed three distinct styles of eloquence: that of Lysias, mild and persuasive, which quietly engaged the attention and won the assent of an audience; that of Thucydides, bold and animated, which awakened the feelings and powerfully forced conviction on the mind; while that of Isocrates was, as it were, a combination of the two former. Demosthenes can scarcely be said to have adopted any individual as a model, although he bestowed so much untiring labour on the historian of the Peloponnesian War. He rather culled all that was valuable from the various styles of his great predecessors, working them up and blending them into one harmonious whole. In the general structure of many of his sentences he resembles Thucydides, but is simpler and more perspicuous and better calculated to be quickly comprehended by an audience. On the other hand, his clearness in narration and his elegance and purity of diction remind the reader of Lysias. But the argumentative parts of the speeches of Lysias are often deficient in vigour; whereas earnestness, power, zeal, rapidity, and passion, all exemplified in plain, unornamented language and a strain of close, business-like reasoning, are the distinctive characteristics of Demosthenes. The general tone of his oratory, indeed, was admirably adapted to an Athenian audience, constituted as it was of those whose habits of life were mechanical, and of those whom ambition or taste had led to the cultivation of literature. The former were captivated by strong good sense, urged with masculine force and inextinguishable spirit, and by the forcible application of plain truths; while there was enough of grace and variety to please more learned and fastidious auditors. Another very remarkable excellence of Demosthenes is the collocation of his words. The arrangement of sentences in such a manner that their cadences should be harmonious, and to a certain degree rhythmical, was a study much in vogue among the great masters of Grecian composition. See Colon.

The question has often been raised as to the secret of the success of Demosthenes. The universal approbation will appear the more extraordinary to a reader who for the first time peruses the orations. They do not exhibit any of that declamation on which loosely hangs the fame of so many aspirants to eloquence. There appears no deep reflection to indicate a more than ordinary penetration, or any philosophical remarks to prove the extent of his acquaintance with the great moral writers of his country. He affects no learning; he aims at no elegance; he seeks no glaring ornaments; he rarely touches the heart with a soft or melting appeal, and when he does, it is only with an effect in which a third-rate speaker would have surpassed him. He had no wit, no humour, no vivacity, in our acceptance of these terms. The secret of his power is simple, for it lies essentially in this, that his political principles were interwoven with his very spirit; they were not assumed to serve an interested purpose, to be laid aside when he descended from the bema and resumed when he sought to accomplish an object, but were deeply seated in his heart and emanated from its profoundest depths. The more his country was environed by dangers, the more steady was his resolution. Nothing ever impaired the truth and integrity of his feelings or weakened his generous conviction. It was his undeviating firmness, his disdain of all compromise, that made him the first of statesmen and orators; in this lay the substance of his power, the primary foundation of his superiority; the rest was merely secondary. The mystery of his influence, then, lay in his honesty; and it is this that gave warmth and tone to his feelings, energy to his language, and an impression to his manner before which every imputation of insincerity must have immediately vanished. We may thus perceive the meaning of Demosthenes himself, when, to one who asked him what was the first requisite in an orator, he merely replied, “Delivery” (ὑπόκρισις); and when asked what were the second and third requisites, gave the same answer as at first ( Vit. X. Orat.). His meaning was this: a lifeless manner on the part of a public speaker shows that his own feelings are not enlisted in the cause which he is advocating, and it is idle for him, therefore, to seek to make converts of others when he has failed in making one of himself. On the other hand, when the tone of voice, the gesture, the look, the whole manner of the orator, display the powerful feelings that agitate him, his emotion is communicated to his hearers, and success is inevitable. Cf. Quintil. Inst. Or. xi. 3 init.

Of the orations we have sixty-one (half of them spurious), and fifty-six Introductions, or προοίμια δημηγορικά. In confining ourselves to the classification adopted by the ancient rhetoricians, we may arrange all these discourses under one of three heads. (I.) Deliberative discourses (λόγοι συμβουλεύτικοι), treating of political topics, and delivered either before the Senate or the assembly of the people. (II.) Judicial speeches (λόγοι δικάνικοι), having for their object accusation or defence. (III.) Studied or set speeches (λόγοι ἐπιδείκτικοι), intended to censure or praise.

Seventeen of the orations of Demosthenes belong to the first of these classes, forty-two to the second, and two to the third.

Of the seventeen discourses which compose the first class, five treat of various subjects connected with the Republic, and twelve of the quarrels between the State and Philip. Our limits allow an examination of only a few of these that are most important in their character. Of the twelve harangues that turn upon the quarrels of the Republic with Philip, the first was pronounced in B.C. 351; the second, third, and fourth in B.C. 349; the fifth in B.C. 347; the sixth in B.C. 346; the seventh in B.C. 344; the eighth in B.C. 343; the ninth in B.C. 342; the tenth and eleventh in B.C. 341; and the twelfth in B.C. 340. The order here given is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but no manuscript and no editions observe it. The manuscripts give the First, Second, Tenth, and Eleventh Philippics of Dionysius by name, and regard his fifth as forming the conclusion of the first. They give the title of Second, Third, and First Olynthiacs to his Second, Third, and Fourth. The remaining four (Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth) have the following titles: “Of Peace,” “Of Halonesus,” “Of the Chersonesus,” and “On the Letter of Philip.” We shall now speak of them in chronological order. The (1 and 2) Πρὸς Φιλίππον λόγος πρῶτος, the First Philippic. Demosthenes here exhorts his fellow-citizens to prosecute the war with the greatest vigour against Philip. This monarch had, after the defeat of the Phocians, assumed a threatening attitude, as if wishing to establish himself in their country. The discourse we are now considering has been divided into two parts, which, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, were pronounced at different times; but this opinion is contradicted by most critics. (3, 4, 5) Ὀλυνθιακός Α, Β, Γ—The three Olynthiacs. Their object is to stimulate the Athenians to succour Olynthus and prevent its falling into the hands of Philip.

(6) Περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης, “Of the Peace.” Philip having obtained a seat in the council of the Amphictyons, Demosthenes advises his countrymen to preserve the peace with this prince. Libanius thinks that this discourse, though written by Demosthenes, was never delivered. Modern scholars are, however, of a different opinion.

(7) Κατὰ Φιλίππου λόγος Β, the Second Philippic, pronounced after the return of Demosthenes from the Peloponnesus, where he had negotiated a peace between Sparta and Messenia.

(8) Περὶ τῆς Ἁλονήσου, “Of Halonesus,” or, rather, of a letter of Philip's, by which he makes a present to the Athenians of the island of Halonesus, which he had taken from the pirates, and demands of the Athenians to share with them the office of protecting the seas. Demosthenes strenuously opposes so insulting an offer; it is, however, far from certain whether he ever pronounced such a discourse as this. Libanius says that the ancient critics ascribed it to Hegesippus, the friend of Demosthenes. Suidas and the author of the Etymologicum Magnum agree with him.

(9) Περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερρονήσῳ πραγμάτων, ἤ ὁ περὶ Διοπείθεους, “Of the events in the Chersonesus, or of Diopithes.” That general, sent at the head of a colony into the Chersonesus, had committed hostilities against the city of Cardia, the only one which Philip had reserved for himself in the conditions of peace. Diopithes had even made an inroad into Macedonia. Philip insisted on his being punished. Demosthenes undertakes in this oration to justify the conduct of the Athenian commander.

(10) Κατὰ Φιλίππου λόγος Γ, the Third Philippic. The progress which Philip had made in Thrace, where he was preparing to lay siege to the cities of Perinthus and Byzantium, form the subject of this harangue.

(11) Κατὰ Φιλίππου λόγος Δ, the Fourth Philippic, pronounced at the time when Philip had raised the siege of Perinthus, in order to fall upon Byzantium. Valckenaer (Or. De Phil. p. 250), Wolf (Ad Lept. Proleg. p. lx.), and Bekker do not acknowledge this as a production of Demosthenes.

(12) Ὁ πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν Φιλίππου λόγος, “On the Letter of Philip.” The letter of the king, to which this harangue refers, still exists. It contains many complaints, but no declaration of war. Taylor, Reiske, Valckenaer, and Bekker consider this letter to be spurious.

We come now to the second class of the orations of Demosthenes, namely, those of a judicial nature; and here a distinction must be made between those which refer to affairs connected with the State and those which relate to individual interests: in the former case, the procedure was called κατηγορία; in the second, δίκη—words which may be translated by “accusation” and “pleadings.” Of the first species we have twelve harangues remaining, the most important one of which is that entitled Περὶ Στεφάνου, “On the Crown.” Demosthenes had been twice crowned in the theatre during the Dionysiac festival: the first time after the expulsion of the Macedonian garrisons from the island of Euboea, and again after the alliance with the Thebans. In the year B.C. 338, Ctesiphon, who was then president of the Senate, had a decree passed by this body that, if the people approved, Demosthenes should be crowned at the approaching Dionysiac festival, in the public theatre, as a recompense for the disinterested manner in which he had filled various offices, and for the services which he had never for a moment ceased to render the State. This matter had to be confirmed by a ψήφισμα, or decree of the people; but, before it was brought before them, Aeschines presented himself as the accuser of Ctesiphon. He charged him with having violated the laws in proposing to crown a public functionary before the latter had given an account of the manner in which he had discharged his office; and to crown him, too, in the theatre, instead of the senate-house or the Pnyx, where this could alone be done; finally, in having alleged what was false, for the purpose of favouring Demosthenes. He concluded by demanding that a fine of fifty talents be imposed upon Ctesiphon. The matter remained for some time pending, in consequence of the troubles that followed the battle of Chaeronea. When, however, the influence of the Macedonian party had, through the exertions of Antipater, gained the ascendency in Athens, Aeschines believed it to be a favourable moment for the revival of his accusation. It was brought forward, therefore, again, in B.C. 330, or eight years after the proposition of Ctesiphon had been made. Aeschines thereupon pronounced his famous harangue, to which Demosthenes replied. This speech of Demosthenes is regarded, and justly so, not only as his masterpiece, but as the most perfect specimen that eloquence has ever produced. It is said that after this discourse Demosthenes no longer appeared as a public speaker. Ulpian, in his commentary on the oration De Corona, relates an anecdote which has been often cited. Demosthenes is endeavouring to fix the charge of bribery on Aeschines, whom he represents as corrupted by Philip and by Alexander, and consequently their hireling and not their friend or guest. Of this assertion he declares his willingness to submit the truth to the judgment of the assembly. “I call thee,” says the orator, “the hireling, first of Philip and now of Alexander; and all these who are here present agree in opinion with me. If thou disbelievest it, ask them the question; but no, I will ask them myself. Athenians, does Aeschines appear to you in the light of a hireling or a friend of Alexander's?” In putting this question, Demosthenes purposely commits a fault of accentuation: he places the accent improperly on the antepenultima, instead of the last syllable, of μισθωτός—in the words of Ulpian, ἑκὼν ἐβαρβάρισεν—in order to draw the attention of the people from the question to the pronunciation. This had the desired effect: the accurate ears of the Athenians were struck with the mistake; to correct it, they called out μισθωτός, μισθωτός, “a hireling! a hireling!” from every part of the assembly. Pretending to receive the word as the expression of their sentiments on the guilt of Aeschines, he cried out, “Dost thou hear what they say?”

The simple pleadings (δίκαι) relative to matters of private interest, constitute the second class of judicial actions. Of these we have thirty remaining, which are as follows: (1) Discourses having relation to the proceedings instituted by Demosthenes against his guardians. They are five in number: of these, two are against Aphobus, and two against Onetor, his brother.

(2) Λόγοι παραγράφικοι, or, as Cicero (De Invent. 1, 8) calls them, constitutiones translativae. We have seven discourses of this class from the pen of Demosthenes, viz.: against Zenothemis, against Apaturius, against Lacritus, against Phormion, against Pantaenetus, against Nausimachus, and Xenopithaea.

(3) Discourses relative to the rights of succession and to questions of dower. These are four in number: against Macartatus, against Leochares, against Spudias, against Boeotus for his mother's dowry.

(4) Discourses in matters of commerce and of debt. These are three in number: against Calippus, against Nicostratus, against Timotheus.

(5) Actions for indemnity and for damages (βλάβη, αἰκία). The discourses under this head are five in number: against Boeotus, against Olympiodorus, against Conon , against Dionysiodorus, against Callicles.

(6) Actions for perjury: two discourses against Stephanus, and one against Euergus and Mnesibulus.

(7) Three discourses on the subject of the ἀντίδοσις (q. v.), or exchange of estates. The discourses under this head are the following: against Phoenippus, against Polycles, and respecting the crown of the trierarchia. It is unnecessary to speak of each of these thirty pleadings; a few remarks on some of them must suffice. The five discourses which Demosthenes pronounced against his guardians contain valuable details respecting his youth, his fortune, and the Athenian laws. Aphobus, one of the guardians, was condemned to pay Demosthenes the sum of ten talents. It does not appear whether he brought the two other guardians to trial or not. These discourses have some resemblance to those of Isaeus , his master. The παραγραφή for Phormio against Apollodorus has furnished occasion for a reproach to the memory of Demosthenes. We are told by Plutarch that Demosthenes “wrote an oration for Apollodorus, by which he carried his cause against the general Timotheus, in an action for debt to the public treasury; as also those others against Phormio and Stephanus, which formed a just exception against his character. For he composed likewise the oration which Phormio had pronounced against Apollodorus. This, therefore, was like furnishing the enemies with weapons out of the same shop.”

The discourse against Macartatus, respecting the succession of Hagnias, is interesting from the circumstance of our having the defence of Macartatus by Isaeus , and from our being thus able to compare the pupil with his former master. It remains to speak of the third class of Demosthenes's orations, the λόγοι ἐπιδεικτικοί, “studied or set speeches.” We have only two remaining, and these, very probably, are spurious. The one, ἐπιτάφιος λόγος, is a eulogy on the Athenians who had perished at Chaeronea; the other, ἐρωτικός λόγος, is written in praise of the beauty of the young Epicrates.

There are also six letters ascribed to Demosthenes; five of them are addressed to the people of Athens. All, however, are forgeries.

Good manuscripts of Demosthenes are rare, but several of them are as old as the eleventh century, and most of them contain a very large portion, if not the whole, of the extant works. In all, there are some 170 MSS. They are divided by editors into three groups, of which the first is headed by a Codex Parisinus (S or Σ) of the tenth or eleventh century, distinguished by remarkable omissions in the text; the second is headed by a Marcianus Venetus (F) and another Codex Parisinus (γ), both of the eleventh century; the third by a Codex Monacensis (A), also of the eleventh century, distinguished by curious simplifications of hard passages. Editors are not entirely agreed as to the value of S or Σ, some maintaining that it gives the authentic text, others believing that it gives an edition by a clever scholar. The scholia on Demosthenes are inferior, the best being those in C. Müller (Paris, 1846-47) and Scholia Graeca in Demosth. (Oxford, 1851). On the MSS. see Vömel's Prolegomena Critica to his edition (Halle, 1856-57).

Bibliography.—For the life of Demosthenes, the reader is referred to Schäfer's Demosthenes und seine Zeit (2d ed. Berlin, 1882); and for an exhaustive literary criticism, to Blass's Attische Beredsamkeit (1880). Butcher's Introduction to the Study of Demosthenes (London, 1881) and Brodribb's (1877) are useful. See also Croiset, Des Idées Morales dans l'Eloquence Politique de Démosthène (1871). The standard texts are those of Bekker (1866) and of L. Dindorf (Leip. 1878; rev. by Blass). For critical study of Demosthenes, the Apparatus Criticus of Schäfer in 5 vols. (London, 1824) is valuable, as are also the three volumes of Annotationes Interpretum of Dindorf (Oxford, 1849). The editio princeps of Demosthenes was that of Aldus (Venice, 1504). Good editions of the various orations with notes are as follows: De Corona, T. K. Arnold (London, 1860), Holmes (London, 1871), Drake (London, 1866), Simcox (Oxford, 1873), containing also the oration of Aeschines, D'Ooge (Chicago, 1875), Blass (Leipzig, 1890); De Falsa Legatione, Shilleto (London, 1874); Contra Leptinem, Beatson (London, 1864), King (London, 1880), and especially Sandys (Cambridge, 1890); In Midiam, Holmes (Buttmann), (London, 1868); of the Olynthiacs, Wilkins (London, 1860), T. K. Arnold (London, 1877); of the Philippics, Heslop (London, 1868), T. K. Arnold (London, 1868), Westermann (1825); of the First Philippic, Gwatkin (Rehdantz), (London, 1883); Adv. Timocratem, etc., Wayte (Camb. 1883); collections of Select Private Orations, Penrose (London, 1853), Sandys and Paley, in 2 pts., 9 orations (Camb. 1874-75), with French notes, Weil (Paris, 1877). See also Baiter and Sauppe's Oratores Attici, 8 vols. or one large quarto (1850); Bekker, 10 vols. with indices (Oxford, 1828); Dobson with variorum notes (London, 1828); and Jebb (London, 1882). Useful is Mitchell's Index Graecitatis, 3 vols. (London, 1828); and Westermann's Geschichte d. Beredsamkeit (1835) is to be commended for a general conspectus. The best translation into English is that of Kennedy in 5 vols. (London, 1852-63).

(2) An Athenian general, son of Alcisthenes, who obtained considerable reputation during a part of the Peloponnesian War. When the Spartan monarch Agis made an inroad into Attica, Demosthenes, on his part, harassed the coasts of the Peloponnesus, and seized upon and fortified the Messenian Pylos. This led to the affair of Sphacteria (q.v.), in which he had a conspicuous, or, rather, the principal share. He was afterwards sent with an armament to the relief of Nicias before Syracuse; but, by his precipitate measures there, brought defeat upon himself and the consequent ruin of the whole expedition. Demosthenes and Nicias were both put to death while in prison, notwithstanding the endeavours of the Spartan commander Gylippus to save their lives. Another account, alluded to by Plutarch, makes them to have been stoned to death (Thuc.iv. 3 foll.; Plut. Nic.).

(3) A Greek physician, a disciple of Alexander Philalethes, who obtained the same surname as his master—namely, Philalethes, or “Lover of Truth.” He flourished about the commencement of our era, and turned his attention particularly to diseases of the eye. We have some fragments remaining of his writings on this subject, which appear to have formed part of a work often cited by Galen, Oribasius, and Aëtius.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes (384-322 BC) has been recognized since at least the first century BC as the greatest of the Attic orators. Although the nationalistic and militaristic tenor of his message is less highly regarded today than in some earlier ages, his mastery of so many different rhetorical styles and his ability to blend them into a powerful ensemble cannot be denied. Long periodic sentences are sometimes thought to be the most characteristic feature of Demosthenes’ style, but his true greatness is his ability to write in any style and to vary his style both to suit the topic and to give variety and vigor to his speeches. To read Demosthenes is to put yourself in the hands of a self-assured master-craftsman of the fullest range of Greek prose. With the possible exception of Plato he has no equal.

Life

Demosthenes was born into a wealthy Athenian family, but his father died when he was seven and his guardians mismanaged (or perhaps defrauded) his estate, to the extent that when Demosthenes reached majority he received almost nothing. He thus launched a series of suits against the guardians to recover his patrimony, beginning with Against Aphobus (27). He won this suit, but he had to keep suing in order to collect. In the course of these trials he gained a reputation as a successful speaker and became sought after by others. He began to write speeches for (and presumably also give legal advice on) a wide range of private suits, including inheritance, shipping loans, assault and trespass. His clients included one of the richest men in Athens, the banker Phormio; the speech For Phormio (36) involves a dispute over twenty talents, equivalent perhaps to ten million dollars today. Demosthenes’ vivid characterization of the honest, hard-working Phormio and his malicious and extravagant opponent proved so convincing that the jurors refused to listen to the other side and took the highly unusual step of voting immediately for Phormio.

In 355 Demosthenes became involved in his first major public cases, involving legal charges against individuals on matters of public interest, such as proposing an illegal decree. Although these speeches, Against Androtion (22) and Against Leptines (20), addressed legal issues, it was clear to all that they formed part of ongoing political struggles between leading figures in the city. Public figures regularly found themselves in court on such matters and in these cases the Athenian courts were forums for discussion of public policy just as much as the assembly. About this time Demosthenes also began to publish speeches on public issues which he delivered in the assembly.

From this point on, although he continued from time to time to write speeches for private disputes, Demosthenes’ primary interest was public policy, especially relations between Athens and the growing power of Macedon. His strategy throughout was to increase Athens’ military readiness, to oppose Philip's expansion, and to support other Greek cities in their resistance to it. Most notable in support of these objectives were the three Olynthiacs (349 BC) urging support for the city of Olynthus (which soon fell to Philip) and the four Philippics (351-341 BC), urging greater opposition to Philip at various points. But Philip continued his conquest of Greece and in 338 the Greek forces were defeated at the battle of Chaeronea, usually taken to mark the end of the independence of the Greek cities.

After Chaeronea Demosthenes continued to urge resistance to Philip, but his efforts were largely ineffectual and his successes and failures during this period are more a matter of internal Athenian politics. Most notable are his decisive victory with On the Crown (330 BC) and his defeat and subsequent exile in the rather shadowy Harpalus affair (324-323 BC), from which no speech of his survives. On the Crownwas delivered on behalf of Ctesiphon, a minor figure who in 336 proposed that a crown be awarded Demosthenes for his service to the city. Aeschines then brought suit against Ctesiphon for proposing an illegal decree. The verdict was so one-sided that Aeschines was fined and went into exile. This was Demosthenes’ greatest triumph. The last years of his life, however, resulted in notable defeats, first in the Harpalus affair, and then in his final days when he was condemned to death (at the instigation of pro-Macedonian forces) and committed suicide.

Works

About sixty speeches and a collection of letters have come down to us under Demosthenes’ name, but the authenticity of many of these has been challenged. Sometimes it is alleged that a speech is of too poor quality to be by Demosthenes, though this reason is less often accepted today, and most of the public speeches and many of the private speeches are now thought to be authentic. The most significant exceptions are a group of speeches (45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59 and possibly 47 and 51) that were delivered by Apollodorus and are now commonly thought to have been composed by him (Trevett 1992).

Demosthenes’ best known works are his public speeches, especially the Philippics, the Olynthiacs, Against Meidias, and his masterpiece On the Crown. In the last of these he uses his entire repertory of rhetorical devices to defend his life and career. He dismisses the legal points briefly, as being of minor concern, and then ranges widely over recent Athenian history, arguing that on each occasion his policy was the best and Aeschines’ was disastrous. His direct personal attack on Aeschines life and family may be a bit harsh for modern taste, but the effectiveness of his blend of facts, innuendoes, sarcasm, rhetorical questions and other devices is undeniably skillful.

Demosthenes’ private speeches, though less often read, are still of great interest for the picture they give of many aspects of Athenian life as well as for their vigorous style and methods of argument. To mention just a few: For Phormio (see above) is one of several having to do with banking, Against Conon (54) alleges an assault by a several young rowdies spurred on by their father, and Against Neaira (59, often attributed to Apollodorus) recounts the life of a non-Athenian woman and her various relationships with different Athenian men.

Significance

Demosthenes played an important role in Athenian public affairs for some thirty years, and his advocacy of the vigilant defense of Greece against foreign invaders has given inspiration to many others in later times. Cicero pays tribute to his predecessor by borrowing the title Philippicsfor his attacks on Marc Antony. But Demosthenes’ rhetorical accomplishments have had the greatest influence on posterity. There has been a reaction in recent times against the tendency to see all Attic oratory as inferior preparation for Demosthenes; other orators are now being assessed more in their own terms. And because of the relatively low standing of rhetoric in our time, Demosthenes is less read than formerly. But he still represents the greatest achievement of Greek oratory and stands as one of the greatest orators of any time.

Blass, Friedrich, Die attische Beredsamkeit. 3rd ed. vol. 3.1 Leipzig 1893. Bonner, Robert J. Lawyers and Litigants in Ancient Athens. Chicago 1927. Carey, C. & R. A. Reid, Selected Private Speeches. Cambridge 1985. Carey, Christopher, Greek Orators VI: Apollodorus Against Neaira: [Demosthenes] 59. Warminster 1992. Goodwin, William Watson, Demosthenes, On the Crown. Cambridge 1904. Jackson, Donald F. & Galen O. Rowe, “Demosthenes 1915-1965,” Lustrum14 (1969) 5-109. Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton 1963. Kennedy, George, “Oratory” in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature I: Greek Literature. Ed. by P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (Cambridge 1985), pp. 498-526. MacDowell, Douglas M. Demosthenes, Against Meidias (Oration 21). Oxford 1990. Pearson, Lionel, Six Private Speeches. Norman, OK 1972. Pearson, Lionel. The Art of Demosthenes.Meisenheim am Glan 1976. Ronnet, Gilberte, Etude sur le style de Demosthene dans les discours politiques. Paris 1951. Schindel, Ulrich, ed. Demosthenes.Darmstadt 1987. Sealey, Raphael, Demosthenes and his time a study in defeat. New York 1993. Trevett, J. C. Apollodorus the son of Pasion. Oxford 1992. Michael Gagarin

• hated by Alexander: Paus. 2.33.5
• not bribed by Harpalus: Paus. 2.33.3
• banished from Athens, then recalled: Paus. 1.8.2
• second exile and death: Paus. 1.8.3
• his tomb in Calauria: Paus. 2.33.3
• honoured in Calauria and other parts of Greece: Paus. 2.33.5
• his statue: Paus. 1.8.2

• Aeschines
• Dinarchus
• Hyperides

Demosthenes(2), Athenian general

• commands Athenians at Sphacteria: Paus. 1.13.5
• sails for Syracuse: Paus. 1.23.3
• taken prisoner in Sicily: Paus. 1.29.12