previous next

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 Χερροονήσ´ψ, 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 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.᾿

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]

hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
355 BC (7)
353 BC (7)
343 BC (6)
340 BC (5)
354 BC (4)
342 BC (4)
364 BC (3)
361 BC (3)
352 BC (3)
346 BC (3)
338 BC (3)
325 BC (3)
385 BC (2)
351 BC (2)
349 BC (2)
347 BC (2)
344 BC (2)
341 BC (2)
330 BC (2)
322 BC (2)
384 BC (1)
383 BC (1)
381 BC (1)
366 BC (1)
363 BC (1)
358 BC (1)
356 BC (1)
350 BC (1)
339 BC (1)
336 BC (1)
335 BC (1)
332 BC (1)
329 BC (1)
323 BC (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: