fC>A 
 
 ■ '■« ..... ■'•'■■ =■.:■'■ • ' • , . •: . *. • - ’ ■■ 
 ...... ... . .« « , • 
 
 . •« • * . . . . . ■ * * 
 
 . . ■ ■ • . . ’ . . * . 
 
 ... • ♦ v *• • . . • * • * • ' . ' . . • • ; r *». 
 
 L B.'(| *; i “ • ' ; *.•_* *• * * | « ’ <tf 
 
 r ’ ’ ■ ' ' '* * ; • • •, « i 1 . • '. ‘ ?• 
 
 . 
 
 ** • » ■ . , * " ' 
 
 • - • I .* ■ • r . . ' ’ . • ■ : ■ . 
 
 . : - * ' ■ ■: f . 
 
 V:":-- , ' v •■■■ . "!•' ■ : 
 
 ' ■ -.V ' 
 
 ' ’ ; • V ' ; . - ■ • 
 
 ? •• ■ : ■■" ' * • ■ , . ' * 
 
 '/ - ' ■ ' » . • "" ' ' ■ - ' 1 *' ' . •• • ' - ■ 1 
 
 « i v - > i *• \ » . •. • \ 
 
 * -y M . J * ..... * < * ~ - „*> » • , 
 
 . “ «Ç? a' v * ,V-. <•>:*’<. 4- * 
 
 v *£;* 4 aV*V Vi • ■' 
 
 • . > • - ; - •< "1 *• •♦ , 4 .« ; v « *•* V * . 
 
 :VV« .. ,1 
 
 1 ** ” . W ; ■ . r. v ... • ■ r •• ■ ■ 
 
 « *•**»•’• v. - t. . _ ■ / • V . ». - , * • : * - 
 
 *' ' • — - • K v .f : • : ■ : 
 
 * 'i '. 1 ' . 
 
 | i **k ' 4 4 * ’ i „ . • . 
 
 ».*♦ . , » . . ■* • . ' ■ .. • 
 
 *•*?¥»! 
 
FROM THE 
 
 LIBRARY 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 », 
 

 

POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE 
 
 DEMOSTHENES. 
 
 WITH EXTRACTS FROM IIIS ORATIONS, AND A CRITICAL 
 DISCUSSION OF THE “ TRIAL ON THE CROWN.” 
 
 BY 
 
 L. BHÉDIF, 
 
 FORMER MEMBER OF THE SUPERIOR NORMAL SCHOOL OF FRANCE, DOCTOR IN THE 
 FACULTY OF LETTERS AT PARIS, PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF LETTERS 
 AT TOULOUSE. RECTOR OF THE CHAMBERY ACADEMY, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF FRANCE, ETC. 
 
 TRANSLATED BY 
 
 M. J. MAC MAHON, A.M. 
 
 BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY 
 CHESTNUT HILL. MASS. 
 
 CHICAGO: 
 
 S. C. GRIGGS AND COMPANY, 
 
 1881 . 
 
J p ^ 
 
 Copyright, 1881, 
 
 By S. C. GRIGGS & COMPANY. 
 
 204846 
 
 I XHIGHT Si LEONARD I 
 
 DONOHUE & HENNEBERRY, BINDERS. 
 
\ 
 
 TO 
 
 HOK GEORGE H. PAUL, 
 
 OF MILWAUKEE, WIS., 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF WISCONSIN 
 
 UNIVERSITY, 
 
 $ 
 
 AS A TRIBUTE OF RESPECT FOR EMINENT ABILITY AND OF 
 GRATITUDE FOR VALUABLE SERVICE IN BEHALF 
 OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, 
 
 THIS VOLUME IS 
 
 RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED. 
 
 
 \ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 HE author of this work has devoted twenty-two years 
 
 \ 
 
 to the study and teaching of Ancient Letters, and 
 has particularly studied Demosthenes and his contemporary 
 orators. If this were the only recommendation for the 
 appearance of “ Political Eloquence in Greece ” in the 
 English language, it would not, we think, be a slight one; 
 but from the author's comparative study of ancient and 
 modern eloquence, from his exposition of the passions, in¬ 
 centives and convictions underlying those remarkable out¬ 
 bursts of eloquence which culminated in a Demosthenes 
 and an Æscliines, in a Cicero and a Cæsar, in a Mirabeau 
 and a Bossuet, the student of history, oratory and philoso¬ 
 phy will find this volume instructive. 
 
 “ To animate a people renowned for justice, humanity 
 and valor, yet in many instances degenerate and corrupted; 
 to warn them of the dangers of luxury, treachery and 
 bribery; of the ambition and perfidy of a powerful foreign 
 enemy; to recall the glory of their ancestors to their- 
 thoughts, and to inspire them with resolution, vigor and 
 unanimity ; to correct abuses, to restore discipline, to revive 
 and enforce the generous sentiments of patriotism and pub¬ 
 lic spirit,”—these were the purposes for which Demos¬ 
 thenes labored, and they may possibly recommend them¬ 
 selves to the orator, the statesman, and the citizen of the 
 nineteenth century. 
 
 To the classical student who has read or is to read the 
 Oration on the Crown and the Oration Against Ctesiplion , 
 
6 translator’s preface. 
 
 Chapter XI will possess a particular interest. In it Pro¬ 
 fessor Brédif has drawn, with a masterly and impartial 
 pen, a picture of the two great adversaries, of their times 
 and their acts, their abilities and their failings, their rise 
 and their fall. 
 
 A love for the Greek language and literature, and a 
 strong admiration for the scholarly manner in which the 
 author has treated the king of the ancient tribune, might 
 also be mentioned as incentives which induced the trans¬ 
 lator to undertake this task. That the work is free from 
 errors and worthy of the admirable original, we can by 
 no means vouchsafe. So vast is the field of ancient litera¬ 
 ture from which the author has gathered his rich mate¬ 
 rial, that it has been difficult at all times to consult the 
 
 * 
 
 original texts. Of the numerous extracts from the classical 
 writers of antiquity, we have translated some from the 
 original Greek and Latin, others we have taken directly 
 from the author’s faithful version, and in the orations 
 of Demosthenes and Æschines we have availed ourselves 
 of the excellent translations made by Dr. Leland and Mr. 
 Kennedy. 
 
 The special thanks of the translator are due: first to 
 the author himself, then to Major Geo. M. McConnel, of 
 Chicago, for valuable critical assistance, to Alfred Flinch, 
 Ph.D., for advice on the last chapters, to the publishers 
 and printers for their pains to issue the volume in its 
 present form, and to many friends for their interest in 
 the progress of the work and for their appreciated criti¬ 
 cisms and suggestions. 
 
 M. J. MacMahon. 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, March 1881. 
 
AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 “rpHAT which distinguishes man from the lower animals, 
 -A- and the Greek from the Barbarian, is his superiority 
 of intelligence and utterance.” Isocrates might have added 
 that the best use to which speech can be put is the examina¬ 
 tion and defense of civic interests. Political eloquence was 
 one of the essential elements and one of the least disputed 
 glories of Athenian democracy. We cannot attempt to study 
 in detail its various developments. 
 
 The political eloquence of Greece, during the Persian inva¬ 
 sions and the Peloponnesian war, left no original monument 
 of itself. It has been necessary to trace it through second¬ 
 hand productions,—sometimes rendered faithfully enough (as 
 in Thucydides), but all rare and insufficient. On the other 
 hand, during the forty years which elapse between the cap¬ 
 ture of Athens by Lysander and the appearance of Philip on 
 the borders of Greece (404-359 b.c.), Attic eloquence is 
 especially judicial, — political eloquence merely incidental. 
 Hence, while profiting by the writers whose recollections of 
 early ages illuminate, in a general manner, the history of 
 political eloquence, we have particularly sketched the image 
 of that eloquence which rendered the Macedonian epoch so 
 illustrious. Demosthenes and his contemporaries do not 
 constitute the entire eloquence of Greece, but they represent 
 it with the greatest éclat at one of the most impressive 
 moments in the life of the Greek world. 
 
 Two great personages eclipse all others in the middle of 
 the fourth century of Hellenic history (362-336 b.c.): Philip 
 and Demosthenes. They and the Athenians are the three 
 
8 
 
 author’s preface. 
 
 actors in the national drama unfolded in Greece. We have 
 drawn a picture of the Macedonian king and the city against 
 which he contended. 
 
 In regard to Demosthenes, his achievements as a statesman 
 and as an orator fill and animate this entire work. At every 
 moment he appears upon the scene as an actor or witness. 
 Happy would it be if the reader found as much delight in 
 listening to his eloquent testimonies as the heliasts experi¬ 
 enced in hearing those of Homer and Solon, Sophocles and 
 Euripides, read by the court clerk. We have thought it 
 possible to dwell upon the judicial eloquence of Athens with¬ 
 out inconformity to the title of this work. The -functions of 
 advocate and political orator were so closely interlaced among 
 the ancients that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate 
 them. Private interests and political tendencies incessantly 
 commingled in the cities where the retired and private man 
 was but little separated from the active citizen. 
 
 Thus the bar was converted into a political arena. The 
 passions which agitated the assembled people might also move 
 the tribunal. The debates presented a doubly interesting 
 spectacle of opponents defending their life or their honor, 
 while at the same time they took sides on affairs of state, — a 
 public deliberation grafted upon a duel. Under such condi¬ 
 tions, it is not surprising to hear an ex-consul, the prince of 
 the political rostrum at Rome, assert the priority of judicial 
 eloquence,— the most difficult, perhaps, of human accomplish¬ 
 ments, but also the grandest.* A political trial was the 
 origin of Cicero’s masterpiece in oratory, Oratio pro Milone. 
 
 One particular cause consolidated the union of deliberative 
 and judicial functions at Athens: public administration was 
 extended to the entire people. The accorded right, not to 
 say the duty, imposed upon every citizen of investigating 
 
 * In causarum contentionibus magnum est quoddam opus, atque 
 baud scio an de humanis operibus longe maximum. (De Oratore , ii, 
 17.) 
 
author’s preface. 
 
 9 
 
 political crimes and misdemeanors, favored the perpetual 
 confusion of the tribune and the bar by inciting accusations 
 in which private pique was too often armed under the guise 
 of public interests. 
 
 The only three orations of Æschines which remain to us 
 are three political speeches. With the exception of the 
 Philippics and the Olynthiacs , the finest harangues of Demos¬ 
 thenes* are composed in about an equal measure of the 
 deliberative and judicial element. Add to this that the 
 Athenians did not have special judges for special cases. 
 When there was a question of civil claims or a political 
 debate, the tribunal was always a part, more or less respect¬ 
 able, of the Athenian multitude,— a popular audience, whose 
 minds the orator ruled and whose passions he swayed by 
 appropriate arts. Whence among the Attics the affinity of 
 oratorical customs at the tribune and bar, and the necessity, 
 in order to thoroughly comprehend the political orators of 
 Athens, of seeing her advocates at work. 
 
 A witness, to be proof against suspicion, should neither 
 be a partisan nor a dependent of the litigant. To these 
 conditions the tribunal of Letters might add another, that 
 of not being his translator or his critic. There is a com¬ 
 mon inclination to become over-zealous in our admiration 
 of a writer whom long and sympathetic communion has 
 apparently made our own; the exact truth sometimes suffers 
 from this excess of good will. Great names add to this 
 interested affection a prestige which favors illusion. Un¬ 
 doubtedly, one should not speak lightly of such eminent 
 personages; but if respect is due to their glory, the whole 
 truth is due to the reader. We believe that we have studied 
 the king of the ancient tribune with a veneration that is 
 free from partiality. The citizen, the statesman, and the 
 orator are sufficiently strong in him to sustain the re- 
 
 * Contra Leptinein, In Midiam, In Aristocratem, On the Affairs of 
 the Chersonese , On the Embassy , and On the Crown. 
 
1 ) author’s preface. 
 
 / - . pH 
 
 proaches which the man and the polemic did not always 
 escape. 
 
 Brébœuf has been reproached for being more Lucian 
 than Lucian himself (Lucano Lucanior). Many an inter¬ 
 preter of Demosthenes, undoubtedly dissatisfied with his 
 original eloquence, contributes to it what pleases his own 
 taste. Unfortunately the Attics were not eloquent in the 
 Gallic view; to adorn Demosthenes amounts to parodying 
 him; to make him bombastic, does not render him more 
 recognizable. When he recounts wrongs , the translator, 
 with the best intention imaginable, denounces crimes. “ Rest 
 in repose, confident and armed,” becomes “Await without 
 noise, confidence in your hearts, and your sword in hand.” 
 “I will speak with frankness,” is cold; a substitute is made: 
 “ Nothing will enchain my tongue.” These scruples are 
 given with good intention, but they miss the mark. For 
 want of stones, an indiscreet tenderness throws flowers and 
 metaphors at this colossus. The greatest service which 
 Demosthenes’ friends can render him is to refrain from 
 obliging him with this affectation. Do vou wish that his 
 beauty should enrapture? Then display him simply as he 
 is. You will thus spare him the “ calumnies ” of which 
 Addison * complained, and you will avert from yourself 
 the application of the adage, Traduttore , traditore. The 
 translator should be the prime auxiliary of the critic; an 
 ancient orator well translated has his commentaries half 
 written. 
 
 During long years devoted to secondary and higher in¬ 
 struction, we have collected from the study of ancient liter¬ 
 ature rich materials, which is to-day distributed into four¬ 
 teen different courses. We offer the most recent of these 
 courses to the public; it is also one of the most modern. 
 May it be hoped that this conscientious study in which moral 
 
 * I have keen traduced in French. (The French word meaning 
 translated is traduit.) 
 
author’s preface. 
 
 11 
 
 philosophy, politics and literary criticism naturally lend 
 their aid, will prepare the way for its seniors by meriting 
 the indulgent approbation of its readers. 
 
 Demetrius, the Phalerian, said of eloquence that in free 
 states it is like the sword in combat. Well organized re¬ 
 publics should know no other civil battle-field than that 
 of the tribune — a peaceful and fruitful arena where the 
 issue is joined between intelligence and intelligence on a 
 common ground of national devotion. 
 
 When recalling the oratorical and sanguinary conflicts 
 of the patricians and plebeians, at periods reputed the most 
 flourishing of the Roman Republic, the author of the Dia¬ 
 logue of Orators charges eloquence with living upon sedi¬ 
 tions. Free and united France nurtures eloquence with 
 better aliments. The era of social seditions will never a^ain 
 
 O 
 
 interrupt her, and, thanks to the Constitution which has 
 made her her own sovereign, she will avoid errors which 
 might cause her to launch words of iron, as did Athens 
 and Demosthenes, against foreign enemies. 
 
 Far more fortunate in our day is the mission of the 
 French forum. In profound peace its sole impulse is for 
 good; it exhibits with pride the dearest interests of the 
 country to all eyes. Assisted by its powerful ally the 
 press, it has become, by wise considerations, the political 
 preceptor of the people; and by the dignity of its sentiments 
 it nobly maintains the proud soul of France. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Translator’s Preface, - 5-6 
 
 Author’s Preface, ----- 7-11 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction — The Three Ages of Attic Eloquence, 15-51 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 v ' ‘ ; . t ■ ‘ , '* . 
 
 Philip — The Athenians, - - - 52-82 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Demosthenes — The Man — The Citizen, - - 83-117 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Demosthenes — The Statesman, - *• 118-166 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Analysis of the Principal Elements and Charac¬ 
 teristics of Demosthenes’ Eloquence, - 167-198 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Analysis of the Principal Elements and Charac¬ 
 teristics of Demosthenes’ Eloquence (con¬ 
 tinued), 
 
 199-263 
 
 13 
 
14 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Oratorical Contests in Political Debates at 
 
 Athens, ----- 264-289 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Invective in Greek Eloquence, - - 290-337 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Greek Eloquence in the Light of Truth and 
 
 Morality, ----- 338-371 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 I. Demosthenes as a Moralist — II. Relations of 
 Justice and Politics 1 — III. Religious Senti¬ 
 ment in Demosthenes, - 372-411 
 
 • * 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The Trial on the Crown, - - - 412-464 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Conclusion, ----- 465-488 
 
 Analytical Table of Contents, - - 489 
 
POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I N the seventeenth century, when public speaking 
 was restricted principally to the pulpit and bar, 
 Fénelon restored the omnipotence of Grecian eloquence. 
 To-day our assemblies are manifestly unceremonious; 
 they exhibit great examples of the efficiency of elo¬ 
 quence, but still they are far from those triumphs 
 familiar to Greek antiquity. And so we can share 
 even in these days the admiration of the author of The 
 Letter to the Academy. 
 
 Eloquence will never exercise over us the sovereignty 
 which it enjoyed at Athens. This is attributable to the 
 different conditions of public life among the ancients and 
 moderns. From her cradle Greece grew up and waxed 
 strong in the warm light of liberty. As long as her 
 independence lasted she breathed the public life of the 
 Pnyx and the Agora. In the popular assemblies, 
 where the nation met for deliberation, eloquence was 
 naturally called upon to play an important rôle. Polit¬ 
 ical discussions took place in the open air; each delib¬ 
 eration was like a drama played by a thousand actors, 
 whose passions and votes depended on the master of 
 the tribune. In the midst of democratic cities, justly 
 jealous of governing themselves and examining care- 
 
 15 
 
16 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 fully their own affairs, u all could do everything.”* 
 The majority decided without appeal most important 
 questions: the choice of alliances, peace or war, the 
 life or death of the vanquished. 44 In a democratic 
 state” says Æschines, u the private individual is a 
 king by right of law and suffrage” f Sometimes a 
 great citizen appears to he king of a city; but this 
 fragile royalty dej)ends upon the favor of the people: 
 the people have instituted it, and the people at their 
 will overthrow it, according to the impulse of the mo¬ 
 ment. What ally will aid the statesman in preserving 
 the confidence of the city whose will he must obey?— 
 Eloquence. In former times, says Aristotle, J the 
 usurpers to whom the citizens submitted were generals. 
 For then the sword was more skillfully handled, and 
 was more powerful than speech ; 4 4 but in our days, 
 thanks to the progress of eloquence, the faculty of 
 speaking well will suffice to place a man at the head of 
 the people. Orators are not usurpers on account of 
 their ignorance of military art, or at least such an 
 occurrence is very rare.” Thus among the Greeks the 
 multitude was master of everything, and oratory was 
 master of the multitude. 
 
 This power of eloquence produced surprising effects. 
 The Athenian army falls into the hands of the victori¬ 
 ous Sicilians. Diodes, a favorite orator, advises the 
 Sicilians to kill the generals, to sell or throw the sol¬ 
 diers into prison. The Sicilians applaud these vigorous 
 measures. A citizen, Nicolaus (although the war has 
 deprived him of his two sons) exhorts the victors to 
 
 * Tacitus, Dialogue of Orators, 40. 
 
 t ’ E> -oAsc drjfjLOxpaTou/JLêyfl cvjgp lot dirge; vo/ioj za) (pg<f(p ftaat- 
 husc. (Against Ctesiphon). 
 
 X Politics, viii, 4. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 17 
 
 clemency. The people are touched, and are about to 
 pardon them. Gylippus, a Spartan general, alarmed 
 at this impolitic weakness, speaks in his turn: the mul¬ 
 titude is exasperated, and votes the punishment. * 
 Once, at Athens, the Mityleneans, having revolted, 
 were condemned to death in mass by the advice of 
 Cleon. The next day Diodotus made the people blush 
 at such thoughtless barbarity, and the Mityleneans 
 were spared, f Eloquence also reigned in the Amphict¬ 
 yonie assemblies: a council of the states general of 
 Greece, in which the interests, as well as the political 
 and religious debates of the Hellenic family were dis¬ 
 cussed. Thus public speaking was the main-spring of 
 Greek society. 
 
 From its origin eloquence flourished in Greece with¬ 
 out effort or study, as if on a soil best adapted to it. 
 This spontaneity sprang from qualities indigenous to 
 the Hellenic race: customs and institutions nourished 
 and bore it into full maturity. Sensibility, lively im¬ 
 agination, flexible and delicate organs, electric sympa¬ 
 thies,— nothing prevented the Hellenes from acquiring 
 the gift of speech without seeking it. The Grecian 
 was born an orator (pyjzwp^ and the social center in 
 which he lived, since the heroic age, compelled him to 
 provide himself with convincing and persuasive power. 
 In his Théâtre des rhéteurs Father Cressolius, of the 
 . Society of Jesus, quotes a verse of the Odyssey (xix, 
 179) to trace the art of oratory, not to the deluge of 
 Deucalion, but anterior to it: to Deucalion’s father, 
 Minos, who was converted into a profound sage and 
 consummate reasoner by lessons drawn from conversa¬ 
 tions with Jupiter. Without tracing it so far back, the 
 
 * Diodorus Siculus, xiii, 19 et seq. 
 f Thucydides, iii, 35 et seq. 
 
 1 * 
 
18 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ingenious scholar might have been satisfied with the 
 story of Peleus confiding Achilles to Phoenix that he 
 might learn how u to speak and to act or with those 
 verses of the Iliad which describe the oratorical con¬ 
 tests with which the Achæan youth diverted the assem¬ 
 blies.* This twofold influence of natural gifts and 
 customs appears manifest in Homer. Heroic feudalism 
 discloses democratic inclinations in which the future 
 institutions of popular government are foreshadowed. 
 The counsel-bearing (PouXrjyôpot) orators are but har¬ 
 bingers of the ordinary counsellors and ministers of 
 Athens; even then we behold in Thersites the dawn of 
 demagogism. The council of chiefs ( f3aatXeU. r) deliber¬ 
 ating upon public interests, and the assembly of the 
 people open to eloquence a vaster field on which 
 
 glories equal to those of the battle-field are acquired; 
 the whole is but a representation of the assemblies of 
 the gods on Olympus, when they harangue one another 
 in the hope of effecting a better understanding. Achil¬ 
 les is the first hero of the Iliad; Ulysses is the next 
 in rank. The lance of Thetis’ son is most effective in 
 combat; the oratory of Sisyphus’ son is most effective 
 in council.f An irresistible orator, his voice is power¬ 
 ful, his concise and weighty sentences demolish and 
 sweep all before them like a torrent. He has well 
 shown how eloquence, like Achilles’ javelin, can cure 
 the evils which it has inflicted. £ Outside of political 
 life what a part eloquence is made to play in the drama 
 
 * Uiacl, ix, 443; xv, 283. 
 
 f Iliad, ix, 441 ; iii, 221 ; Odyssey, xiii, 297 ; ix, 441. 
 
 X The second book of the Iliad affords a memorable example of 
 this (verse 144 et seq.) Agamemnon wishes to test the army; he 
 advises it to return home. His discourse, more persuasive than even 
 the orator himself had anticipated, is too effective ; the Acliæans rush 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 19 
 
 of the Iliad, teeming with sudden passion to' be ex¬ 
 haled, with impetuosities to be governed, resistances to 
 be overcome! If the immortals laugh to their hearts’ 
 content, the kings below rival them in cursing each 
 other. With great difficulty Nestor calms the tumults 
 of this stormy parliament. At one moment the stub¬ 
 born wrath of Achilles draws forth the most eloquent 
 supplications; at another old Priam’s tears moisten the 
 crimsoned hands of his last son; in still another place 
 the tenderness of Andromache would disarm the rash 
 valor of her husband: all pathetic inspirations which 
 tragedy and eloquence have never surpassed. 
 
 The power of public* speaking and its important 
 office in Homeric times explain the care with which 
 the poet has drawn the characters and even the atti¬ 
 tudes of his orators.* It also bears witness to these 
 significant verses: 
 
 “With partial hands the gods their gifts dispense; 
 
 Some greatly think, some speak with manly sense; 
 Here Heaven an elegance of form denies, 
 
 But wisdom the defect of form supplies: 
 
 This man with energy of thought controls, 
 
 And steals with modest violence our souls; 
 
 He speaks reserv’diy, but he speaks with force, 
 
 Nor can one word be changed but for a worse; 
 
 In public more than mortal he appears, 
 
 And, as he moves, the gazing crowd reveres.”! 
 
 to their boats with joyful shouts. Ulysses intervenes opportunely, 
 and prevents the execution of Agamemnon’s test, which proved too 
 successful. 
 
 “ He said. The shores with loud applauses sound, 
 
 The hollow ships each deafning shout rebound.” 
 
 * Iliad, iii, 209. 
 
 f Odyssey, viii, 1G7. This apotheosis of eloquence is found in De 
 Oratore , iii, 14. The eulogy of oratory was natural to a poet of whom 
 
20 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 The power and necessity of eloquence increased in 
 proportion as the spirit of aristocratic feudalism in the 
 early ages gave place to democratic institutions, and 
 consequently, that Greek race which became the most 
 warmly attached to free government was destined to 
 behold the art of eloquence flourishing most vigorously 
 in it. 
 
 This was the peculiar privilege of the Ionic family 
 established in Attica, and became the treasure of 
 Athens. 
 
 The ancients were unanimous in rendering to her 
 this testimony: u The taste for eloquence was not 
 common to all Greece, but it was the exclusive attri¬ 
 bute of Athens. In verity, who knows any orator of 
 Argos, of Corinth, or of Thebes, during this epoch ? 
 As to Lacedaemon, I have never heard it stated that 
 up to our days she produced a single one.”* 
 
 A Lacedaemonian system of rhetoric, like that of the 
 Stoics, would have taught the art of silence. Could 
 this singular faculty be peculiar to the very atmos¬ 
 phere of Attica, and an omen of some mysterious link 
 between the nature of the soil and the genius of its 
 people ? u Scarcely issued from the Piraeus, eloquence 
 sped over all the Grecian isles and spread throughout 
 Asia; but, adulterated by foreign customs, it lost the 
 pure and wholesome diction it brought from Attica, 
 
 Quintilian could say: “Rivers and fountains find their source in the 
 ocean, thus Homer is the father and model of all kinds of eloquence.” 
 
 * Brutus, 13. Brasidas, however, was not deficient in eloquence, 
 “ for a Lacedæmonian.” Thucydides iv, 84. The Spartans gen¬ 
 erally mention Menelaus. Iliad, iii, 213. 
 
 “When Atreus’ son harangued the listening train, 
 
 Just was his sense, and his expression plain, 
 
 Ilis words succinct, yet full, without a fault; 
 
 He spoke no more than just the thing he ought.” 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 21 
 
 and nearly forgot its mother idiom. 5 ’ Eloquence in 
 the East, even at Rhodes, divested itself of those quali¬ 
 ties drawn from its natal soil, and Athens remained 
 the privileged abode, the classical ground of oratorical 
 talent. 
 
 This predilection on the part of eloquence for the 
 city of Minerva is explained by the nature of Athenian 
 institutions. In Rome the patricians were not satisfied 
 with having laid hands upon history which had been 
 converted from the first into a pontifical code and par¬ 
 tial guardian of the renown and privileges of their 
 order, but they reserved to themselves the monopoly 
 of legal knowledge and the forms of court procedure; 
 so that when prosecuted, a plebeian client was at the 
 mercy of his patron. At Athens there existed nothing 
 like this pernicious guardianship. The law of Solon 
 whiled that every citizen should be as competent to 
 defend his rights by speech as by arms on the field of 
 battle. The law enjoined upon him that he should 
 create, by the practice of public speaking, a new guar¬ 
 antee of his independence,— a pledge and warrant of 
 his dignity. “If incapacity to defend one’s person is 
 shameful, it would be strange if the inability to defend 
 one’s self with speech were not equally so, for speech 
 is befitting a man much more than corporal qualities.”* 
 
 Imbued with this spirit of democratic liberty and 
 strong personality, the constitution of Solon gave to 
 political life and open speech an impulse which the 
 authority of the Pisistratidæ might weaken but could 
 not arrest. The four qualified classes established by 
 the legislator constituted the assembly of the people, 
 and furnished the tribunals with judges or heliasts. 
 Thus all citizens, rich and poor, were admitted with 
 
 * Aristotle, Ilhetor'ic, i, 1. 
 
22 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the arclions and areopagus to share the sovereignty 
 and to scrutinize public affairs. Persons of importance 
 were obliged to give their logical advice in these 
 assemblies. On opening the sessions a herald de¬ 
 manded, in a loud voice, u Who of the citizens above 
 the age of fifty years will address the assembly? ” The 
 u most virtuous and sage” obligation of fifty years, 
 regretted by _/Escliines,* soon fell into disuse, and the 
 right of all to mingle in public matters before the tri¬ 
 bunal was developed every day along with the progress 
 of liberty and the aggrandisement of the state, f 
 
 The democratic^ reforms introduced into the con¬ 
 stitution of Solon by Clisthenes, chief of the Alcme- 
 onidæ, after the final expulsion of the Pisistratidæ, 
 impressed upon the political activity of Athens a de¬ 
 cided impulse, which exalted the conceptions of her 
 citizens and the mission of eloquence. From that time 
 freedom rendered Athens capable of conceiving and of 
 executing great things, as well as of transmitting them 
 
 * Against Gtesiphon. 
 
 f “ The laws instruct the orator and the strategus , who wish to be held 
 in good repute with the people, to have children conformably to the 
 law, to possess real estate in the territory, and to merely direct the 
 people after having given all legitimate pledges.” (Dinarclius, Against 
 Demosthenes.) Plutarch (On the Love of Children) attributes to Lycurgus 
 and Solon a law against bachelors, which was in force at Sparta, but 
 the Attic orators have not left in their works a trace of its application 
 at Athens. This obligation of being married, father and proprietor, 
 conditions formerly exacted by the theorists of a civilized country, 
 but poorly conforms to the spirit of tolerant liberty in Athens, and 
 the indulgent ease of its manners. Bachelors might there be of 
 little importance, even ridiculed. Upon their tomb was placed a 
 particular figure,—that of the lourpo<popo<; ; but the law respected 
 toward them the fundamental principle of the equal rights of all 
 citizens. 
 
 X Aristotle, Politics, iii, 1; viii, 2. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 23 
 
 to posterity in standard literature.* Fame and honor 
 were more than ever assured; not to the most noble 
 and opulent, but to those most capable of persuasive 
 appeals. The magistrates became responsible to the 
 people, and appeared before their tribunal. Their ren¬ 
 dition of accounts initiated the people in the adminis¬ 
 tration of government and jurisprudence, and familiar¬ 
 ized them with contradictory debates. The Athenians 
 from that moment knew no other school than the 
 Pnyx. It was indeed the best school, and by far the 
 best. 
 
 The Median wars, in this respect as in many others, 
 aroused Athens to action. The evils of foreign inva¬ 
 sions are sometimes compensated by the benefits which 
 an enemy unconsciously brings with the invasion. To 
 the passion of the Persian kings for conquest Athens 
 (not to mention the immediate union of nearly the en¬ 
 tire Hellenic family) owed the subsidence of its domes¬ 
 tic rivalries, and a maritime supremacy destined to 
 remain its characteristic and dominant power. Hence¬ 
 forward she could intone her Rule Britannia, Britannia 
 rules the waves /j* her maritime vocation was fixed; the 
 democratic movement springing suddenly from the mix¬ 
 ture of all classes on the ships, a last and fragile hope 
 of the commonwealth; the recurrent outgrowth of that 
 sentiment of equality so active at all times among the 
 Athenians, and still more quickened by common trials 
 and victories; the expansion of the authority of Athens, 
 now at the head of the hegemony by right of moral 
 conquest, and the political and intellectual focus of the 
 Hellenic world; this meritorious exaltation of the 
 
 * Herodotus, v, 78, 91. G rote's History of Greece , iv, 107 ; v, 358. 
 
 f Tins is the y.w~aç avaaatnv (the royalty of the oar) of Euripides; 
 Aristotle, Rhetoric , iii, 2. Le trident de Neptune est le sceptre du monde. 
 
24 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 land of Miltiades, Themistocles, Cimon, and tlieir com¬ 
 peers, communicated animation to the genius of Athens, 
 and prepared her for the age of Pericles. 
 
 Thereafter the constitution of Clisthenes, which had 
 been in vogue for nearly thirty years, had to be enlarged. 
 Of the four classes established by Solon, and recog¬ 
 nized by Clisthenes, the first three alone had access to 
 the magistracies. The force of the democratic current 
 was such, after the expulsion of the barbarians, that 
 Aristides, a man little suspected of demagogism, was 
 the first to propose extending the eligibility to all citi¬ 
 zens. This recognition of equal rights was consecrated 
 by the adoption of the custom of drawing lots for all 
 posts save that of strategus. All Athenians, after 
 honorably passing the examination of the dokimcisia , 
 a preliminary inquiry into their morality and capacity, 
 could be summoned by the impartial bean to the high¬ 
 est dignities: to the archonship and senatorship.* 
 
 * The drawing of lots, ridiculed by Socrates ( Memorabilia, i, 2), 
 is, in Aristotle’s ej^es, the essential character of popular government. 
 In a democratic state “ all citzens ought to be electors and eligible to 
 every office; all ought to command each, and each all in turn. All 
 offices ought to be assigned by lot, or at least all that require neither 
 experience nor special talent.” [Politics, viii, 1.) Montesquieu is also 
 favorable to this method of appointment. “ Suffrage by lot is natural 
 to democracy; suffrage by choice is characteristic of aristocracy. 
 The lot is a mode of election which affects no one; it leaves a reason¬ 
 able expectation to every citizen.” (Esprit des Lois, ii, 2.) This 
 equalizing procedure cuts out more than one abuse by the roots; it 
 simplifies in a wonderful manner the electoral law. Republican 
 Rome, armed for all emergencies and weak against intrigue; imperial 
 Rome, with her official candidates, might often envy Athens her can¬ 
 didates of chance. “At Heræum the usual way of election was 
 abandoned for that of the lot; election had placed in power only in¬ 
 triguers.” ( Politics, viii, 2). Perfection is ignorant of human things; 
 even in Athens fraud found place. Euxitheus, a client of Demosthe¬ 
 nes complains of the electorial operation, which excluded him from 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 25 
 
 This reform, so favorable to the extension of popular 
 government, was equally so to eloquence. It enforced 
 the practice of .public speaking by all classes of citi¬ 
 zens, even that mob of sailors (according to a rather 
 scornful phrase of Aristotle) which had saved the state 
 at Salamis, and had placed the democracy on founda¬ 
 tions indestructible by any power except democracy 
 it self A 
 
 One of the most important public functions in Ath¬ 
 ens, although without any administrative character or 
 special power, was that of orator. The orators of 
 Athens were ministers, without governmental depart¬ 
 ments. Now these ministers, neither elected nor 
 
 liis canton. “We were in the darkness ; Eubulides supplied each of 
 his accomplices with two or three ballots. * * * There were not more 
 than thirty voters, and the number of votes in the urn exceeded sixty. 
 Judge of our astonishment! ” ( Against Eubulides.) 
 
 * This democratic expansion, according to Aristotle, was not ex¬ 
 empt from dangers. It destroyed the wise equilibrium of Solon’s in¬ 
 stitutions. Hitherto the people had “ neither been slavish nor hostile.” 
 Salamis gave them a pride which they abused. The sailors of the 
 Piræus, warmer democrats than the inhabitants of the city, were 
 undisciplined, and rebelled against the police of a well organized 
 state. ( Politics , ii, 9; iv, 5; viii, 3.) According to Montesquieu {Es¬ 
 prit des Lois , viii, 4), “Salamis corrupted the Athenian republic”; a 
 disputable estimation, but at all events more acceptable than Plato’s 
 paradox. This philosopher {Laws, book iv) has only virtue in 
 view, and he declares that the battles of Marathon and Platæa alone 
 saved Greece; Salamis and Artemisium were injurious to her. “ The 
 most important point for men is not, as the majority imagine, to save 
 their lives and simply exist, but to become as virtuous as possible, 
 and remain so as long as they live.” The practical sense of Aristotle 
 warranted him in these extreme speculations. Plato places a low 
 estimate on the pilots, captains, and oarsmen themselves; crowds 
 gathered together from one place or another who are of little import¬ 
 ance. But was this a sufficient reason to regret victories which pre¬ 
 served the life if not the ancient valor of the Hellenic world? 
 
 Primo vivere , delude philosophari. 
 
 2 
 
26 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 drawn by lot, but indebted for their investitures to 
 themselves, and constituting themselves counsellors of 
 the people by dint of their ambition or talent, were far 
 from descending as a whole from families of the Eupa- 
 tridæ. Cleon was a currier, Hyperbolus a lamp- 
 maker, Cleophon a lyre-maker, Encrâtes a junk-seller, 
 Lysicles a cattle-drover, Isocrates was the son of a lute- 
 maker, Demosthenes of an armorer, Iphicrates of a 
 shoe-maker, Pytheas of a miller, JEschines a school¬ 
 master’s assistant; Demades, the son of a common 
 sailor, was at first a sailor himself. The participation 
 by the most modest artisans in the government of Ath¬ 
 ens should inspire neither surprise nor distrust. The 
 offices do not seem to have been the worse filled for all 
 this. “ In despotic governments, where they abuse 
 equally honor, position and rank, a prince becomes a 
 blackguard, and a blackguard a prince, indifferently.”* 
 There were no blackguards nor fools at Athens. The 
 level of intellectual culture was more uniform in Gre¬ 
 cian cities than it is to-day in our modern communi¬ 
 ties; and the Athenians especially, gifted with most 
 various aptitudes, were fitted for everything, f Ho 
 one was astonished at seeing a courier (Diodorus) 
 charged with an embassy, a comedian (Aristophanes) 
 a diplomate, a shoemaker a publicist, (Simon, Socrates’ 
 friend;):). Let us leave historians and comic poets to 
 become the echoes of aristocratic malice, and to rail at 
 
 * Esprit des Lois , v, 19. 
 
 f Their liveliness, eorpa-eXta, permitted them to do everything 
 “with grace,” giro. yapixunj, without even being obliged to exert 
 their talent. (Thucydides, ii, 41.) The sophist Hippias is a curious 
 type in this respect (Plato, Second Hippias). Cf. Juvenal, satire iii, 74. 
 
 t Simon composed a political treatise On the Late; another On 
 Demagogism. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 27 
 
 these orators and statesmen “who were brought up on 
 the public market.” The constitution which permitted 
 the various strata of society to unite in a single one, 
 and gave the humblest the right to raise himself to the 
 head of the government by the ascendency of his merit 
 or eloquence, was certainly most favorable, not only to 
 the cultivation of eloquence, but to the expansion of 
 individual energies,— the real strength of a state. “In 
 war a narrow ditch will break a phalanx; in the state 
 the least line of demarkation (contrary to the fusion of 
 classes) may breed discord. ”* Athens leveled the polit¬ 
 ical ground, and filled up the pits into which peace 
 sometimes stumbles. 
 
 Pericles and Ephialtes completed the work of Solon, 
 Clisthenes and Salamines. They reorganized the courts 
 of justice ( dicasteria ) upon an enlarged basis, and, as 
 Amvot says, “they arranged themselves in line with 
 the popular mass, preferring a multitude of poor com¬ 
 moners to a small number of the noble and opulent.” 
 The archons and the areopagus, formerly vested with 
 judicial power, both civil and criminal, were almost 
 entirely deprived of it in favor of the popular tribunals, 
 where jurors drawn by lot w T ere impaneled to the num¬ 
 ber of six thousand per annum. The assiduous dis¬ 
 charge of political duties demands .rest and relaxation. 
 The judges receive a daily stipend of two oboles, after¬ 
 ward increased by Cleonf to three. This was a means 
 of attracting the poorer classes to the tribunals, and of 
 making democratic influences prevail there. The di¬ 
 castes not only had to decide on questions of fact, like 
 modern jurors, but to settle questions of law. And 
 
 * Aristotle, Politics , viii, 3. 
 
 f For the political consideration of three oboles (about nine cents). 
 Cf. Aristotle, Politics , ii, 9; vi, 10. 
 
28 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 we can easily imagine liow numerous these questions 
 were in a city, chosen, ever since My cale, director of 
 the confederation of Delos, and abundantly provided 
 with the manifold interests of her subjects and allies. 
 Is it surprising that Athens, thus transformed into a 
 court of justice for Ionic Greece and the islands, should 
 become the radiating point of eloquence, and as it 
 were an immense bazaar richly stocked with ideas and 
 expressions \ * 
 
 In this respect natural dispositions had singularly 
 aided the institutions. Pericles extols the Athenians 
 for not believing, as did the Spartans, that public dis¬ 
 cussions enfeeble action.f In a panegyric on Athens 
 before the tombs of warriors who had fallen for their 
 country, the grave orator could not use the license of 
 Cleon. This favorite of the people reproves them un¬ 
 sparingly. He does not call his auditors (jobe-mouches 
 (gawks), with the recklessness of Aristophanes, but he 
 advances the strong reprimands of the Philippics. The 
 Athenians, subtle wranglers, voluntarily exhibited their 
 adroitness in oratorical jousts: “governed by whatever 
 tickles your ears, you resemble spectators seated to 
 hear sophists rather than citizens deliberating on state 
 interests.”;}: Cleon points out the superabundance of 
 their gifts, but he gives us a glimpse at the cost of 
 these very qualities. The Athenians, vivacious and 
 impressive, are naturally fluent and very sensitive to 
 oratorical beauties. They are born for oratory, and 
 they permit themselves to be carried away by it. 
 
 We have followed the correlative progress of the 
 constitution and the * eloquence of Athens; then de¬ 
 scribed the resources that were ‘found in the native 
 
 * 'E/ixopta Xôyœv. f Thucydides, ii, 40. f Ibid, iii, 37, 38. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 29 
 
 institutions and dispositions. The time has come to 
 determine the transformation of spoken eloquence, 
 not as jet a literature, into written and scholarly elo¬ 
 quence, and the developments which the art of rheto¬ 
 ricians and logograpliers effected. 
 
 During several centuries after the Homeric age prose 
 was merely used as an instrument in the social rela¬ 
 tions of the Greeks, hut did not succeed in supplanting 
 poetry as a literary language. On this account elo¬ 
 quence is first and solely found in the poets. At the 
 time of the first historians of the fifth century (Ileca- 
 tæus of Miletus), prose in turn rose to the dignity of 
 a scientific and literary element. In like manner elo¬ 
 quence was at first employed artlessly and without 
 oratorical devices, as a natural instrument of defense 
 and attack amid the various occurrences of civil and 
 political life in Greece; then as an art, wisely prac¬ 
 tised with a just conception of its elements, its rules, 
 and its effects. Undoubtedly eloquence had represen¬ 
 tatives previous to the beginning of the fifth century, 
 but it awaited its masters until the age of Pericles. 
 Although practiced for a long time before that epoch, 
 it was cultivated and taught only then. After the 
 Median wars, and during the Peloponnesian war, rheto¬ 
 ric became allied to eloquence; sophistry aided and 
 sometimes corrupted it. In the Macedonian period, 
 provided expressly for passion and action with the 
 arms accumulated in her arsenal for past ages, she 
 sent forth her most magnificent masterpieces. 
 
 Thus three principal ages are unfolded. The first 
 is that of ancient political eloquence with Aristides, 
 Themistocles, and Pericles; the second shows us this 
 art for awhile in the hands of Pericles’ successors, 
 not, it is true, irreproachable statesmen, but still gen- 
 
POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 CO 
 
 orally faithful to ancient traditions. Again, we de¬ 
 tect it professed and 'practiced by artists, tradesmen, 
 sophists, and scribes, who enrich themselves by their 
 knowledge and sagacity.* The third age is that of 
 its consummated maturity and its most resplendent 
 triumphs under Demades, Lycurgus, Hyperides, AEs- 
 chines, and Demosthenes. Eloquence appears to have 
 then laid aside the pen for the sword, and to have 
 thrown all its science, all its energies, into the tumult 
 of the time. 
 
 Cultivated eloquence was backward in Greece. Cic¬ 
 ero was struck with the slowness of its advent. Greece, 
 says he,f is infatuated with eloquence. She has long 
 excelled in it, nevertheless other arts are more ancient 
 than it; she brought them to perfection long before her 
 study of this splendid art of speech. The author of 
 Brutus explains this tardy flight of eloquence by the 
 exceptional difficulties with which it was hampered, 
 rem unam omnium diffioillimam. To this reason he 
 might have added another. In Greece fine arts ap¬ 
 peared each in its turn by an order of natural succes¬ 
 sion, as in the history of man the phenomena peculiar 
 to different periods of his life introduce themselves. 
 At first eloquence saw the sacred hymn unfold, and the 
 epic poem, which for more than a century reigned su¬ 
 preme over the Hellenic world; then didactic and lyric 
 poetry in their various forms, and finally the drama. 
 When the poetic inspiration which had animated the 
 seventh and sixth centuries began to wane, prose was 
 born, and with it history, eloquence, and philosophy. 
 
 * Without mentioning the price realized from his lessons, Isocrates 
 received, we are told, from Nicoles, the son of Evagoras, twenty talents 
 ($21,666.60) for one discourse. 
 
 Brutus, 7. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 31 
 
 Tims Greek genius pursued, and with what splendor, 
 the circle of its intellectual creations by a natural suc¬ 
 cession of regular births, and with a logical connec¬ 
 tion: the manifest proof of spontaneous generation. 
 
 At Rome, on the contrary, where Greece sometimes 
 presented her masterpieces in every branch at the same 
 time to the unpolished sons of Latium for imitation, 
 the production of literary works during the early cen¬ 
 turies was tarnished by a strange confusion and pell- 
 mell.* In the presence of such fair fruits which were 
 borne at different seasons from Greek genius, the Ro¬ 
 man translator, embarrassed by the choice, and aston¬ 
 ished at their wealth, seized with avidity the treasures 
 spread before him, according to the fancy of his appe¬ 
 tite. Then appeared reproductions, sometimes artifi¬ 
 cial, capricious grafts attempted on original plants at 
 each one’s fancy, but indebted for one part of their sap 
 to that law of progressive beings so well illustrated by 
 Aristotle,f and which human genius, left to its own 
 creative power, follows with the fidelity of nature. 
 
 When its hour came (which was the advent of prose), 
 the eloquence of Greece followed, in its developments, 
 the successive evolutions of the city. It had no other 
 alternative. The arts of the Greeks were always inti¬ 
 mately connected with practical life: their works adapted 
 to a certain end.;j; This adaptation was, in their eyes, 
 an essential quality. Occasionally they converted it 
 
 * Ennius, for example, borrowed from Greece tragedies, come¬ 
 dies, a philosophical poem ( Epicharma ), a treatise in prose (. Euhemera), 
 and a poem on didactic gastronomy ( Phagetica). The whole of his 
 work is a true satura. 
 
 f History of Animals. 
 
 X E. Bout my, Philosophy of Architecture in Greece. 
 
32 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 into an element of beauty, confounding the beautiful 
 and the useful. And so, said Socrates, a body, an 
 edifice, an armor, any object whatever, is only beauti¬ 
 ful so far as it conforms to its purpose, to its proper 
 use.* This merit of fitness exacted of the plastic arts 
 should be, for a stronger reason, imposed upon elo¬ 
 quence, an indispensable agent in the civic and political 
 life of the Greeks, and constantly exercised as an 
 object of primary necessity, and for this very reason 
 modified according to the characters and wants of the 
 times: at first the plain weapon in which weight and 
 edge are alone important, then a u fencing-foil, ”f a 
 dress-sword, adorned with art for display, and adroitly 
 adjusted by logograpliers in the hand of whosoever 
 had bespoken it; finally a falchion, at once sjflendid 
 and murderous, its plain ornaments not blunting its 
 edge, it darts in the face of Philip incomparable flashes. 
 
 * Memorabilia, iii, 8, 10 ; iv, 6. A narrow theory, refuted by Plato 
 in his First Hippias. Let us also observe the half utilitarian defini¬ 
 tion which Aristotle gives of beauty in a young man, a perfect man, 
 and an old man. (He says nothing of woman’s beauty.) “ Beauty 
 is of a particular kind for each age. A youth’s beauty consists in 
 having a body capable of enduring the fatigues of the race, and every 
 exercise requiring strength; his limbs should be so symmetrical and 
 attractive as to charm the eye. Consequently the athletes who carry 
 away the prize of the pentaihlum are the most beautiful, inasmuch 
 as they unite the advantages of strength and agility. With the 
 grown man, beauty consists in being able to endure the fatigue of 
 war, to please the sight, and to inspire fear. The beauty of old men 
 consists in enduring the necessary toils of life, and not being cha¬ 
 grined at any of the infirmities which accompany old age.” ( Rhetoric , 
 i, 5.) 
 
 f A saying attributed to Philip in comparing the eloquence of 
 Isocrates and Demosthenes. (Cf. Cicero, On the Best Kind of Eloquence.) 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 33 
 
 First Period.—Let us now cite the principal charac¬ 
 ters and most illustrious representatives of the three 
 ages of Greek eloquence. Themistocles, the greatest 
 man of Athens before Pericles, was also a great orator. 
 He established the greatness of his country by obtain¬ 
 ing, through his heroism, the sacrifice of Athens, which 
 was abandoned as a prey to the barbarians that the 
 Athenians might boldly sail out upon an unknown 
 future. Such a victory, won over the natural resist¬ 
 ances of private interests, excels that of the Roman 
 orator who compelled the tribes to renounce the agra¬ 
 rian law instituted to support them, and more than 
 justifies the eulogy of Lysias: u Themistocles was very 
 capable of speaking, conceiving and acting.” What 
 were the characteristics of his eloquence ? Undoubt- 
 edly those which Cicero recognized in the ancient 
 school,— precision and simplicity, penetrating acute¬ 
 ness, rapidity and a fertility of thought, rather than 
 abundant expressions. 
 
 Pericles is the most finished type of this school, — an 
 orator “almost perfect,” says the author of Brutus. 
 This eulogy is confirmed by three production's which 
 Thucydides'* puts in his mouth, an admirable trilogy, 
 full of the soul of a great citizen who was worthy of 
 having governed for forty years a people most scep¬ 
 tical of merit and most jealous of their liberties. Peri¬ 
 cles would not have been such if he had been the 
 pupil of those rhetoricians who “instructed how to 
 bark ( latrare ) to the clepsydra.” He had other in¬ 
 structors. At first Pericles called science to his aid, 
 but the science of things, not of words. Two philoso¬ 
 phers moulded him: Zeno of Elea, a consummate dia¬ 
 lectician, and, above all, Anaxagoras of Clazomenæ, 
 * J. Girard, Study on Thucydides. 
 
34 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 whom his contemporaries called “Intelligence,” be¬ 
 cause he was the first who recognized it in the universe 
 and adopted it as the first element of the Cosmos, 
 which was regulated and embellished by it. These 
 two minds, eminent by their elevation and searching 
 acumen, were the Chiron foster-fathers of this Achilles, * 
 rather than the learned musician Damon. This is 
 apparent in the essence, the marrow of his speeches. 
 Ilis mode of arguing, strong and simple, is that of 
 truth made conspicuous by lofty, sententious thoughts, 
 by picturesque vivacity, or by a logical network of ex¬ 
 pressions. His dignified familiarity is combined with 
 daring contrasts, which from time to time burst into 
 flashes of eloquence like the radiance of lightning. 
 With him logical strength was bound to that concen¬ 
 trated emotion which was born of high conceptions 
 and magnanimous sentiments, a serious eloquence, 
 whose irresistible weight made all wills succumb. Full 
 of imposing grandeur in its gravity, it left the impres¬ 
 sion of a Doric temple. When expedient, Pericles 
 could use playful figures, f sometimes witty ones, but 
 those were fugitive smiles, for he was a stranger to 
 
 * Plutarch, Life of Pericles. Isocrates, who has his reasons for 
 exalting the art of speech, complacently confounds it with philoso¬ 
 phy, and divides the honor of having molded Pericles between Anax¬ 
 agoras and Damon, “the wisest man of that epoch” (< ppovtiuoTaruu ). 
 
 f He said of Ægina, a rival island situated in the face of the 
 Piræus, “We must remove that blot from the eye of the Piraeus (lit¬ 
 erally, that blearedness). The oaks break themselves to pieces by 
 striking against one another; the Boeotians do likewise by fighting 
 one another.” He compared the Samians undergoing the Athenian 
 yoke against their will to “little children who, while weeping, eat 
 their soup.” One of his funeral orations contains this graceful and 
 touching passage: “The republic, deprived of its youth, who have 
 been cut down in war, is like the year deprived of its spring-time.” 
 Aristotle, Rhetoric , iii, 4, 10. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 35 
 
 Roman urbanity. Everything in him breathed auster¬ 
 ity. Ilis aspect was as staid as his oratory. Ilis walk 
 was easy, the sound of his voice always the same; in 
 ]iis gestures and address he preserved a moderation 
 that the most vehement animation never shook. Peri¬ 
 cles in this aspect is a faithful image of Greek art, 
 always self-possessed, even in his most energetic in¬ 
 tentions. Ho rival could have said of him, “Ah, what 
 would you have thought had you heard the lion him¬ 
 self roar?” As motionless as Homer* describes Ulys¬ 
 ses holding his sceptre, by the sole might of language 
 and without gesticulation he- inspired respect, even ter¬ 
 ror. f These testimonies received from the ancients 
 should prevent all misconceptions of the real meaning 
 of characteristics often cited by Eupolis and Aris¬ 
 tophanes. When these two writers of comedy speak of 
 the lightnings, the thunders of Pericles at the tribune, 
 they wish to express, not a clamorous vehemence nor 
 oratorical bursts of startling impetuosity, but the timid 
 admiration which a dignified eloquence inspires in the 
 multitude, and in which the dreadful majesty of the 
 Olympian ruler seems to shine forth. 
 
 Pericles, who was a statesman, and not a professional 
 orator, never wrote his orations. Like Aristides, The- 
 mistocles, and the ancient orators, he improvised after 
 a laborious meditation. The impression produced was 
 immediate and lasting; “lie left the goad in the minds 
 of his hearers.” But powerful as was his voice, an¬ 
 tiquity has scarcely transmitted a feeble echo. Neither 
 Pericles nor his contemporaries thought of preserving 
 such touching harangues. Only a few specimens of 
 these masterpieces have been saved from oblivion. 
 They are like detached fragments of the eloquent mar- 
 
 * Iliad, iii, 219. f Vim dicendi terroremque timu&runt. (Brutus, xi, 9.) 
 
36 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ble which Pericles fashioned by inspiration and with¬ 
 out forethought. But where is the statue itself? Where 
 is the Minerva of Phidias ? Contemporaries saw it ap¬ 
 pear in a day. Its majesty touched them; they obeyed 
 its orders and permitted it to vanish. Why have the 
 authors or witnesses of the Attic masterpieces deprived 
 us of contemplating their works ? In their eyes the 
 sole object of such works was practical use. Political 
 eloquence seemed to them created for action alone, not 
 for the admiration of future readers. Stenography was, 
 perhaps, known about this epoch; no one, however, 
 deigned to make use of it. Pericles spoke for the dig¬ 
 nity or safety of the city. He disregarded the estab¬ 
 lished rule that all speeches should be written; and 
 yet, what must that eloquence have been which is still 
 so forcible and grand, half concealed under the veil of 
 his historian and interpreter? 
 
 Second Period. — This disinterestedness, regretted 
 by the learned, lasted until the time of Antiphon, the 
 author of the first written discourse, which proved an 
 innovation favorable to the perfection of eloquence. 
 
 The age of Pericles ignored rich developments or 
 the effects of style in the structure of composition. 
 On the day when orators aspired to the glory of writers 
 eloquence became enriched with precious gifts. The 
 pen, says Cicero, is’an excellent master of eloquence. 
 Stylus optimus clicendi magister et effector. After 
 leaving Antiphon, it becomes necessary to distinguish 
 the orator of action from the orator who merely com¬ 
 poses. The first is a political personage, who speaks 
 at the ecclesia when circumstances invite him. The 
 second does not appear, or rarely appears, before the 
 people; he is an advocate of a new character,— an 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 37 
 
 advocate who does not speak; hut he writes. In his 
 cabinet he composes treatises on rhetoric ( rlyvai ), or 
 orations on fancy subjects. He becomes in turn the 
 accuser and defender in the same cause. Sometimes 
 even to these two pleadings, which were already a 
 sufficient proof of the extent of his talent, he joins the 
 instance and reply, all in the same suit. Such are the 
 tetralogies of Antiphon. 
 
 Very often these school exercises served to train him 
 for the occupation of logographer , or dicographer ,— 
 that is, a writer of pleas for the use of another. The 
 Athenian law required the parties in civil and criminal 
 cases to appear in person. For a long time the sim¬ 
 plicity of manners rendered the observation of the law 
 easy. But when speech became an art, and eloquence 
 an obligatory requisite, the majority of those interested 
 in the proceedings freed themselves from their dangers. 
 They had recourse to advocates whose talent increased 
 their chances of gaining their causes. Thus the banker, 
 Phormio, not desirous to amuse his audience with his 
 “solecisms,” esteemed it safer to be an able speaker 
 by proxy. The client paid for his harangue as one 
 pays for a consultation, and he went to the tribunal to 
 deliver it with all possible naturalness, feigning an 
 improvisation, as if he were speaking extempore, and 
 not from memory. 
 
 The rhetorician did not write soffily for the school or 
 tribunal. Sometimes extracts for display, in which he 
 was wont to exhibit the fruits of his art, were destined 
 for assemblies,* or read in the solemn reunions at the 
 great games. Such was the Olympiac of Lysias, the 
 Olympic of Gorgias, and the Panegyrics , so named 
 
 * Isocrates contended for the prize which Artemisia offered for a 
 eulogy on lier husband, Mausolus. 
 
38 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 from the general assembly (pa^yopiq) before which 
 they were pronounced. 
 
 Sop/lists. — The logograpliic rhetoricians were, in 
 different degrees, the students of the sophists, whose 
 instruction, during the thirty years which intervened 
 between the death of Pericles and Socrates, provoked 
 a great explosion of ideas, of new methods in science, 
 and, unfortunately, of new methods in morals. The 
 sophists were vigorously attacked and admired by the 
 ancients. We have seen them in turn outlawed (Pro¬ 
 tagoras) and honored (Gorgias) with a gilded statue at 
 Delphi, in the very temple of Apollo. Let us briefly 
 mention what was pernicious and useful in their inno¬ 
 vations. Their influence was, in a certain measure, 
 beneficial to science. The systems previous to the 
 age of the sophists were vast conceptions à priori , 
 sometimes tainted with théogonie prejudices. The 
 aim of the new spirit was to free science from these 
 shackles, and to restore it to the observation of nature. 
 This demand for truth provoked then, as always, pas¬ 
 sionate resistances. Omitting the rivals in Plato’s 
 Euthypliron , Aristophanes, the conservative poet of 
 The Clouds , in hatred toward the new spirit, became 
 the patron of popular prejudices against the natural 
 philosophers.* ITe pronounced the sophists impious 
 for daring to teach that it was not Jupiter who thun¬ 
 dered. He saw a crime against the state precisely in 
 one of their best titles. He ridiculed them in an ill- 
 
 * Plutarch, Life of Nicias. Strong minds of the time secretly dis¬ 
 cussed the books which explained the eclipses of the moon humanly. 
 The study of physics caused Protagoras to be banished, Anaxagoras 
 to be thrown into prison, and Socrates to be poisoned. In modern 
 times astronomy has not been more clement. Vide J. Bertrand, Les 
 fondateurs de V Astronomie moderne. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 39 
 
 judged scene, and in spite of liis rapture, and against 
 liis custom, the laugh was not at Athens, and is still 
 less in our day on his side. 
 
 With this work of scientific renovation was combined 
 another of the greatest interest,— the minute study of 
 thought and language. Formerly natural talent alone 
 had inspired political eloquence, but, thanks to the 
 sophists, it found a useful auxiliary in art. About the 
 middle of the fifth century Sicily* produced renowned 
 masters of sophistry. Corax, Tisias, and Gorgias 
 promulgated a method of instruction unknown or neg¬ 
 lected until that time. The Athenian pupils surpassed 
 their masters. The most illustrious was Isocrates, 
 whose school was a laboratory of eloquence open to all 
 Greece. Like the Trojan horse, it gave birth to heroes: 
 the rivals of Demosthenes, and Demosthenes himself, f 
 
 This is a glowing eulogy on the rhetorical sophists in 
 the person of their most famous pupil. Ho doubt it is 
 exaggerated: neither Brutus, the friend of Cicero, nor 
 Aristotle indorsed it. nevertheless, that the prince 
 of Roman orators believed he could confer it upon 
 them, even with an indulgence tainted with partiality, 
 they must undoubtedly have rendered unquestionable 
 services to eloquence. 
 
 In fact, eloquence owed to them new qualities. Be¬ 
 fore their time it had not escaped a degree of stiffness: 
 its conciseness sometimes verged on obscurity. After 
 the rhetoricians it acquired flexibility, transparency, 
 and copiousness. Its muscles, somewhat exposed and 
 projecting, became indued with graceful curvatures, 
 which did not exclude strength. It was like the style 
 
 * Syracuse was the Athens of Sicily. Brutus, 12; Thucydides, viii, 
 96. f Brutus, 8, 12; Orator , 13; De Oratore , ii, 22. 
 
40 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 of Raphael’s Virgin Gardener compared to his Iloly 
 Family and Transfiguration. It acquired from them 
 a metrical taste; it learned to round its periods, and at 
 the same time to arrive, by fine analysis, at the most 
 delicate shades of language. The sophists, like the 
 stoics of Rome at a later time, were fond of etymo¬ 
 logical and philological researches. Protagoras wrote 
 a treatise on the correction of language ( 6p0oénsia)\ 
 Prodicus, on the exact signification of words and syno¬ 
 nyms; Evenus of Paros composed a poem on the for¬ 
 mation of words. The sophists were very skillful in 
 decomposing thought into its elements in order to com¬ 
 pare and contrast them. Language must have felt 
 these inquisitive studies: ingenious or bold antitheses 
 gave delicateness or energy to the style. This exercise 
 in penetration and artistic adjustment ( concinnitas ) was 
 pleasing to the subtle mind of the Greeks. 
 
 But these fascinating qualities were accompanied by 
 grave defects; they led to subtilty, to artificiality and 
 “false lights,” to all the refinements of symmetrically 
 balanced periods, of consonances and assonances, 
 “adorable ” cadences like that of the sonnet of Oron- 
 tes, learned puerilities honored by the gravest rhetori¬ 
 cians who were skilled in minute precepts.* In the 
 hands of these word-spinnersf what was delicate be¬ 
 came finical, color turned into vermilion; by inuring 
 the taste to the flexibilities of dialectics they fell into 
 quibbles on syllogisms. In its zeal to polish the idea 
 the file reduced it to nothing; in their care to adorn 
 
 * Aristotle does not deign to speak of them. Dionysius of Hali¬ 
 carnassus ( Memoirs on the Ancient Orators , Isocrates, ch. 14) made a 
 just criticism of a page of Isocrates, full of these affectations of lan¬ 
 guage. (Cf. On the Elocution of Demosthenes , ch. 19, 20). 
 
 t AoyodoudâXouç (Plato), Orator , 12. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 41 
 
 the thought it became suffocated with dregs; they de¬ 
 sired to balance the idea with grace, to give to it the 
 most advantageous appearance and dress: it was trans¬ 
 formed into a manikin, irreproachable as to adjustment 
 and posture; blooming in smiling colors it aims at 
 figures (tr/^ara), it even makes miens; but it is empty 
 and inanimate, an object of vain-glory to its frivolous 
 author, of passing curiosity to the spectator, and of 
 contempt in the eyes of good taste and sense. Such 
 was the artificial eloquence pictured by Balzac, such 
 Pascal’s Village Queen , and such was that affectation 
 of thought and language known under the name of 
 préciosité. The opening of the seventeenth century 
 in France was acquainted with the harmonious mag¬ 
 niloquence of Gorgias in the grandiloquence of the 
 Spaniards, Gongora and Antonio Perez; the affected 
 subtility of Pol us of Agrigentum and of Hippias of 
 Elis in the vivacity of mind (vivezze (Pingegno) of 
 Guarini, and of the cavalier Marino. The Précieuses , 
 or affected ladies, like the sophists certainly aided in 
 perfecting the language; but, like them, they kept the 
 office of wit; they pursued the end of the end,— the 
 end of things,— and they caught it in company with 
 affectation. The sophist called the sea “the blue 
 tinged floor of Ampliritrite,” the great king the “Ju¬ 
 piter of the Persians”; vultures he denominated “liv¬ 
 ing tombs.” With him an object has “pale colors, is 
 anémique .”* In the same strain the Saturday fre- 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric, iii, passim. Aristotle censures as “cold” or 
 “ ridiculous ” certain expressions and figures which we would not 
 have the severity to condemn in him. Gorgias gave to flatterers the 
 epithet of r.Tu>y<'>;j.ou<yoç (who begs with art). Alcidamas called the 
 Odyssey “ a true mirror of human life.” Several peculiar expressions 
 of the sophists deserve to pass into language. Strange analogy with 
 the Précieuses. 
 
42 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 quenters of Mlle. Scudéry “ imprint tlieir shoes in 
 snow,” and call a court promenade “an empire of 
 glances,” and violins “the souls of the feet.”* 
 
 This perversion of taste in France, an ephemeral 
 imitation of the false bel esprit of Spain and Italy, did 
 not coincide with a prostration of beliefs and manners. 
 The hôtel de Rambouillet aspired to “unbrutalize” the 
 manners as well as the language. It refined the senti¬ 
 ments without corrupting them. In Greece it was not 
 so, and the sophists, wretched masters of rhetoric as 
 they were, were still worse logicians and moralists. 
 It was well to protest against the ambitious systems 
 of philosophers who pretended to draw from their 
 heads alone an explanation of the universe, but to 
 deny all science because it had wandered away was an 
 absurdity worse than the evil justly criticised. Be¬ 
 lieving in the senses alone is a prejudice quite as peril¬ 
 ous as believing alone in one’s mind; and the ideal¬ 
 istic philosopher (Anaxagoras), declaring snow black 
 because the water of which it is formed is of a dark 
 color, f did not have reproaches to receive from the 
 empiric who, like Epicurus, gave the sun and moon 
 the volume they appeared to have, namely, that of a 
 Boeotian cheese. It is praiseworthy to free philosophy 
 from sacerdotal bonds; but is it reasonable, if religious 
 tradition is not the highest authority in science, to 
 constitute man the sole arbiter of all truth and the 
 measure of all things?:): To deny virtue and absolute 
 good; to admit only the probable, the agreeable, and 
 the useful; to teach how to uphold with an equal likeli¬ 
 hood either a thesis or its antithesis; to make a weak 
 
 * Dictionaire de Somciise. 
 
 \ Cicero, Academica , ii, 23, 31, and Lucretius , v, 565. 
 d';Tu)v pirpov avOpw—oç “Protagoras.” 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 43 
 
 (ryr-cyv) argument overthrow a stronger (xpsiTTwv lôyoc) 
 argument;— such was the foundation of the sophists’ 
 doctrine. Philosophic scepticism was born in Greece 
 from an excess of metaphysical speculation, just as the 
 idealistic exaggerations of the Cartesians elicited the 
 scepticism of the eighteenth century. But, if excesses 
 are explained by reaction, they are never justifiable, 
 especially when they step from the domain of pure 
 ideas into that of morality in order to destroy it. The 
 scepticism of the eighteenth century produced Hel¬ 
 vétius, d’Holbach, and Lamettrie;* the sophists of 
 Greece did not hesitate, on their part, to draw from 
 their doctrine its lurking poisons. Is the law of con¬ 
 science indefeasible ? or is the law of nature the only 
 true law? Is divine justice aught but an oratorical 
 supposition? Does a successful crime cease to be 
 criminal? That is according to circumstances. Yes, 
 if the tiling suits you; no, if you find the contrary more 
 advantageous. Thus Greece, by subtilizing, amused 
 
 * “ Tlie sentiment of self-love is the only basis upon which a use¬ 
 ful morality can be founded.” (Helvetius, De VEsprit.) “ It would be 
 useless, and perhaps unjust, to require man to be virtuous if he were 
 not so without rendering himself unhappy: when vice renders 
 man happy he is to love vice.” (D’Holbach, Système de la Nature.) 
 Lamettrie, Passim: “Remorse arises from the prejudices of educa¬ 
 tion. * * * It is permitted, according to the law of nature and Puf- 
 fendorff, to take by force a little of that which another has in excess.” 
 Lamettrie considers innocent “those philosophical demolitions of 
 vices and virtues. That will not prevent the people, a vile herd of 
 imbeciles, from continuing their course, from respecting the lives 
 and purses of others, and from believing in the most ridiculous preju¬ 
 dices.” Such is the philosophy which he calls “our amiable queen,” 
 and Voltaire “execrable.” According to this philosophical physi¬ 
 cian, man is a “machine.” The whole machine gets out of order if 
 its springs are forced to overwork. The author of L'Art de Jouir 
 died of indigestion. His landlord, it is true, Fredrick, “the Solomon 
 of the North,” wrote his funeral oration. 
 
44 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 herself as if fencing with demonstrations or refutations 
 of the most necessary moral truths. 
 
 Protagoras commenced one of his works with this 
 peremptory declaration: “Are there gods, or are there 
 no gods ? Two reasons prevent me from devoting my¬ 
 self to the examination of this question: the uncer¬ 
 tainty of the thing, and the brevity of human life.” 
 Antiphon, although a man of grave character and 
 weighty eloquence (he was surnamed Nestor), laughs 
 at the prejudicial and religious beliefs of his contem¬ 
 poraries. “ Certain men do not live the present life, 
 hut prepare themselves with great trouble, as if they 
 had to live another life, and.not the present life; in 
 the meantime the hours escape them, and their time 
 has past. ” * This present life, the sole object of the 
 sophists, was precisely what Socrates disregarded for 
 the life to come,— Socrates, a novice like the sophists 
 as to scientific methods, hut as hostile to their religious 
 and moral scepticism as to their filigreed language. 
 Sophistry, “a school of impudence,” had instructed the 
 great statesman of the Gorgias. Callicles threw away 
 the preconceptions of small minds as litter. The 
 strongest reason is always the best. Might conquers 
 right,— a theory upheld in our day by important per¬ 
 sonages, with the annexation of provinces to support 
 them; a theory formerly taught in certain schools of 
 Greece, and put into practice by her statesmen.f By 
 losing the sense of the true, the sophists and the 
 Athenians, their subservient disciples, lost the sen¬ 
 timent of divine existence, of goodness and justice, 
 which are identified with it. That which the experi- 
 
 * Oral. Attici, Didot, p.238, § 125; G. Perrot, DEloquence Judi¬ 
 ciaire el Politique d Athènes. 
 
 f Thucydides, i, 76; iii, 37, 40; v, 89 et seq. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 45 
 
 ence of antiquity, with Hesiod and Æsop, had only 
 considered as a brutal fact,* the sophists had set up 
 as a principle, and this principle they applied with a 
 cruel logic worthy of Machiavel’s Prince. These poi¬ 
 soned maxims sooner or later destroyed those who 
 fostered them. 4 Athens profited by the apology for 
 tyranny and usurpation. Under the grasp of Philip 
 she bitterly expiated her sophisms. 
 
 The moral influence of the sophists was therefore 
 very pernicious, but their influence on eloquence was 
 not altogether bad. The Attic orators profited by 
 their researches without sacrificing to their errors. 
 The justness and stability of the Attic temperament 
 had reacted against the allurements of Sicilian vices. 
 In the hands of Lysias, Isæus, and their school, prose, 
 judiciously elaborated, learned to adorn itself without 
 coquetry, to blend simplicity and grace, vigor and ease. 
 Ho longer were there evidences of effort or laborious 
 meditation, but an easy and fluent style, less solicitous 
 to induce reflection than to instruct by its precision 
 and clearness. Ho longer do we behold in it the 
 glittering prisms of sophistry, with irredescent colors 
 and flattering illusions. It is a transparent crystal, in 
 which objects appear in their natural tints and propor¬ 
 tions. Hor need the eye disentangle their real con¬ 
 tours under artificial reflections and undulating move¬ 
 ments. It beholds them clearly drawn in mellow re- 
 
 * Æsop, The Earthen Kettle and the Iron Kettle; Hesiod, The 
 Nightingale and the Hawk. 
 
 f“Whoever plays the tyrant inevitably falls into the evils of 
 tyranny, and suffers what he caused others to suffer. Athens has 
 testified to this. She placed garrisons in the citadels of other cities, 
 and, as a result of this, saw the enemy (the Lacedaemonians) master of 
 her own.” Isocrates, Discourse on Peace , p. 113, § 91 ; Didot. 
 
46 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 lief, like the tracery of cordage on a Piræan ship under 
 the fading rays of the setting sun. 
 
 Third Period. —The Attics bequeathed to their suc¬ 
 cessors an exquisite instrument,— a clear, expressive, 
 and sufficiently picturesque prose. Their eloquence 
 was at all times a little wanting in action and heat.* 
 This placidity, which, according to our taste, verges 
 upon coldness, was imposed upon the orators by law. 
 The Athenians knew themselves too well to trust them¬ 
 selves to eloquence. Ulysses closed the ears of his 
 companions to the song of the sirens; the Athenians 
 captivated the mouths of the sirens j* in the agora. 
 The law of the tribunals interdicted pathetic appeals. 
 If the advocate attempted to use the pathetic, an officer 
 recalled him to his duty. The Areopagus observed this 
 rule with jealous respect; however, it was eluded on 
 the day when Hyperides pleaded for Phryne. The 
 mute eloquence of unveiled beauty touched the grave 
 assemblage,— an overwhelming peroration not fore¬ 
 seen by the laws. The mild eloquence of the genuine 
 Attics was unequal to the agitations of the Macedonian 
 period. Political orators then kindled the tire which 
 Atticism had preferred to leave smouldering. The 
 “clear fountain” became an impetuous torrent; the 
 “gentle zephyr” a “tempest accompanied with thun¬ 
 der-bolts.” ^ This eloquence was not only artistic, but 
 militant in the midst of impassioned contests between 
 the adversaries and partisans of Philip. One side, 
 
 * We may mention, as an exception, the pathetic peroration of 
 Andocide’s discourse On the Mysteries; Oratores Attici. Didot, p. 72, 
 Sec. 144. 
 
 f On Isocrates’ tomb a column thirty cubits high was erected, 
 upon which was surmounted a siren seven cubits in height. 
 
 X Quintilian, vi, 1 ; x, 1. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 47 
 
 through venality or good faith, advised the Macedo¬ 
 nian alliance. They saw in the father of Alexander, 
 not an ambitious man, meditating, by craft and force, to 
 strike the heaviest blow that the Greek world could 
 suffer,— the destruction of Athenian liberty; but they 
 looked upon him as the pacifactory arbiter of danger¬ 
 ous dissensions,— the future leader of Europe against 
 Asia. The other party spurned this savior as the 
 violator of Athenian dignity by his past life and des¬ 
 tined course. They marshaled themselves against him 
 with all the force of their genius, with the recollection 
 of their ancient valor, which they laid before the eyes 
 of those Athenians who were indifferent about the in¬ 
 vader. At their head appeared Demosthenes, the voice 
 of his mother country and the savior of Hellenic lib¬ 
 erty, if it were possible to save it. But if Phocion was 
 the “chopper”* of Demosthenes’ arguments, Demos¬ 
 thenes could not likewise be the “chopper” of Philip’s 
 actions, and as might triumphed over right, arms tri¬ 
 umphed over eloquence. We will study this period, 
 the most beautiful and last of Greek eloquence. After 
 a sublime effort, and a burst of genius worthy of the 
 patriotism which inspired it, eloquence fell and perished 
 with everything else; it exhaled its last breath at Ca- 
 lauria, on that day when, in the presence of the satel¬ 
 lites of Antipater, the author of the Oration on the 
 Grown expired. 
 
 Let us here repeat a fact worthy of notice, and con¬ 
 tradictory to the common ground of the joint respon¬ 
 sibility of morals and eloquence. Messala (.Dialogue 
 of Orators ) labors to find the causes of the decline of 
 eloquence. He imagines he finds the principal one in 
 
 * ij rùj'j è/jlôi'j Àôyatv y.u-\ç àvicrraraty a saying of Demosthenes, 
 according to Plutarch. 
 
48 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 tlie decline of morals. Seneca* also affirms that morals 
 are the regulators of eloquence. “As is life, so is the 
 language; moreover, wherever you see a corrupt lan¬ 
 guage, you can he assured that the morals are cor¬ 
 rupted.” This estimate is not altogether true. Style 
 may undoubtedly he the mirror of character. Mecœ- 
 nas and the Spartan Sthenelai'das, Hicias and Alcibia¬ 
 des, had not the same soul; they did not speak with 
 the same air. Eloquence often savors of a baseness of 
 the heart, or reflects its nobility. But does it follow 
 from this possible correlation that the decline of morals 
 necessarily draws with it that of art and speech ? Lit¬ 
 erary and political history deny this assertion; for the 
 heart may remain pure when the taste becomes de¬ 
 praved, and not unfrequently taste has been purified at 
 an instant when the soul had lost its virtuous energy. 
 Moral sentiment ennobles eloquence as well as the 
 works of art in general, but it is not indispensable to 
 them. And so the palmiest days of heroism in Greece 
 were not the days of her eloquence. The soldiers of 
 Marathon and Salamis were citizens rather than ora¬ 
 tors: Themistocles must be excepted, for he was emi¬ 
 nently both the one and the other. But even his 
 example confirms the natural independence of genius 
 and virtue. Aristides, morally his superior, stood far 
 below him in political genius and oratorical talent. 
 
 During the period intervening between the close of 
 the Peloponnesian war and the Macedonian interven¬ 
 tion, f the sentiment of moral grandeur appeared to be 
 banished from Hellenic society. And yet this was the 
 epoch during which eloquence prepared itself for the 
 
 * Ad Lucilium , 114. 
 
 f Ot. Muller cited the fact without stopping to explain it, t. ii, 
 p. 573, of the translation by M. K. Hillebrand. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 49 
 
 flight which was destined to carry it to perfection in 
 the immortal productions of Demosthenes and Æsclii- 
 nes. This phenomenon is not at all surprising. Al¬ 
 ready eloquence had presented a striking contrast 
 with morals during the struggle between Athens and 
 the Dorian race. Who is not struck in Thucydides* 
 with the somber picture of Greek profligacy, in the 
 midst of the fearful commotions of the Peloponnesian 
 war, and of rampant passions of the most detestable 
 dye ? Eloquence had then lost much of its moral ex¬ 
 cellence, but it retained its artistic worth. Alcibiades 
 and Cleon, statesmen infested with the vices of their 
 time, and worthy of the felicitations of Timon, the 
 Misanthrope, were, to the misfortune of Athens, very 
 powerful orators. This proves that moral conscience 
 and taste (a kind of æsthetic conscience, applicable to 
 the estimate of the beautiful), do not necessarily follow 
 a parallel development. On the contrary, perfect elo¬ 
 quence, the master of all its resources, presumes cul¬ 
 ture and an advanced state of civilization, rarely the 
 consorts of austere morals, f “ Grand eloquence, like 
 fire, requires aliments to nourish it, action to excite it; 
 it is in burning that it displays its brilliancy.”^; Now 
 the most combustible substances are not always the 
 purest. The scourge of war raises up great captains; 
 eloquence lives on storms, on guilty angers or holy 
 wraths. Demosthenes hated the invader with a zeal 
 
 * iii, 82, 84. 
 
 f Bautru’s calumnious sally is well known, “ An lionest man and 
 good morals do not harmonize ” ; and this saying, which is surprising 
 in a man of good taste, “The society of women corrupts morals 
 and forms the taste.” (Esprit des Lois , xix, 8.) These sentiments, if 
 well founded, would justify J. J. Rousseau’s paradox on the per¬ 
 nicious influence of civilization and society. 
 
 % Dialogue of the Orators , 30. 
 
 3 
 
50 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECÊ. 
 
 that did him as much honor as his eloquence. Never¬ 
 theless it must be conceded that the patriotic dislikes 
 which were at the bottom of his heart were (to omit 
 other weak points which it would be puerile to deny) 
 allied to rancorous personal feuds: a source of action 
 far from generous, albeit his eloquence was still admi¬ 
 rable. His oration on the prevarications of the embassy 
 equals, in an artistic point of view, his finest Philippics. 
 
 The ideal definition of an orator given by Cato* is 
 rather a wish than the statement of a general fact. 
 How many men among the ancients and moderns have 
 failed to maintain their integrity on the same elevation 
 of their talents! Satis éloquentiœ , sapientiœ jparum. 
 Sallust applies this phrase to Catiline. It could be as 
 appropriately applied to his historian and to other per¬ 
 sonages. Thus it appears that bad taste and good 
 morals are sometimes found together. In France the 
 theorists of the charming, of the sensational, have often 
 been a very estimable and extremely serious class of 
 people. For instance, Father Bouhours and Montes¬ 
 quieu ( Essai sur le goût). U A magistrate rose by his 
 merit to the highest dignity. He published a moral 
 work in which the sarcasm is unique ” (Labruyère). 
 Taste, before the time of Boileau, was generally de¬ 
 testable, but can it be said that the first half of the 
 seventeenth century was inferior in its morals to the 
 last half ? 
 
 Let us return to Greek eloquence. If, in the midst of 
 the decline of private and public morals, when a Pliiloc- 
 rates and a Timarchus were possible, in the bosom of tri¬ 
 umphant egotism and venality, Greece, always proud of 
 her past history, but incapable of sustaining it, produced 
 her most famous orators, she owed it to circumstances 
 
 * Vir bonus dicencli peritus. 
 
INTKODUCTION. 
 
 51 
 
 especially favorable which made such orators contem¬ 
 porary with the merciless duel between Athens and 
 Philip, and the inheritors of the progress made in the 
 art of speaking during the age of Pericles and the Attic 
 school. A master of these treasures of experience and 
 art, Æschines lavishly resorted to them, and used them 
 with a talent difficult to excel. Demosthenes, like his 
 adversary, sometimes took advantage of them under 
 the goad of disordered passions. But in him the citizen 
 fortunately governed the individual. His soul was 
 purged of its impurity by the bitter toils of patriotism, 
 he rose above his rival with all the superiority that the 
 heart has over the mind. 
 
 More firmly bound to the laws of honor than Pytliia 
 herself, and the faithful interpreter of Athens, enslaved, 
 but proud in the midst of her defeat, when, after seven 
 years of servitude, she at last, with the author of the 
 Oration on the Crown , received her revenge of Chæ- 
 ronea, Demosthenes, the orator of duty, united in one 
 finished work artistic and moral beauty. 
 
 The galaxy of Grecian orators terminates in him as 
 a theological system carries in triumph the statue of 
 an immortal. Homer is the poet of all poets. De¬ 
 mosthenes is eloquence personified. Men desirous of 
 serving their country at the tribune should study him 
 and become imbued with his eloquence, ever ancient, 
 yet ever new. 
 
 Demosthenes will therefore forever breathe his spirit 
 and influence upon citizens burning to repel a public 
 enemy with the sword of speech. He will ever be the 
 law of eloquence,* the herald of national dignity and 
 liberty. 
 
 * Quintilian, x, 1, Lex Orandi. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 PHILIP—THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 ~WER tlie lapse of twenty centuries the harangues 
 
 hA of Demosthenes again delight the learned and 
 instruct the philosophic historian. They remind him 
 how the states went to ruin. The orator’s counsels and 
 reproaches to the Athenians should always be an ob¬ 
 ject of meditation among people who desire to escape 
 the failings which destroyed Greece forever. To thor¬ 
 oughly appreciate the power of Demosthenes’ eloquence, 
 and the difficulty of the task which he confronted, it 
 is necessary to have present in our mind the obstacles 
 which accumulated before him; to be well acquainted 
 with the public enemy, Philip, who had also become 
 the orator’s private enemy, and with his domestic ad¬ 
 versary, the Athenian people, whose vices became the 
 Macedonian’s allies. We will afterward see what 
 resources Demosthenes could draw from his soul and 
 genius to struggle against two antagonists equally 
 formidable. 
 
 I. 
 
 Philip, detained several years at Thebes as a hostage, 
 profited by his disgrace, and studied, in the heart of 
 Greece, that military art which he afterward used so 
 skillfully against her. At the school of the victor of 
 Leuctra, Epaminondas, he conceived the idea of the 
 Macedonian phalanx, formed on the model of Thebes’ 
 sacred army, and destined to play so important a rôle 
 in history. Thus Thebes educated the soldier who was 
 
 52 
 
PHILIP — THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 53 
 
 to crush the liberties of Greece at Chæronea. At the 
 head of his phalanx, Philip routed the cohorts of the 
 presumptuous Lysicles, and joined the victorious wing 
 of his son Alexander. This powerful machine required 
 careful management, otherwise it was hut poorly adapt¬ 
 ed to all kinds of action. Philip reserved it for decisive 
 conflicts. He ordinarily avoided pitched battles. That he 
 might more surely surprise his enemy, instead of heavy 
 cohorts, he advanced and retreated at the head of a fly¬ 
 ing camp, composed of archers and light cavalry. 
 
 Alert and always ready—for he made no distinction 
 between winter and summer—he changed his position 
 at will and unexpectedly fell upon cities. The Athe¬ 
 nians were not so active; they consulted the aspects of 
 . the moon; they followed old national customs which 
 were disregarded by this barbarian king; they only waged 
 war willingly during four or five months of fine weather. 
 “Our century does not at all resemble preceding cen¬ 
 turies, and this is especially true in the art of war, be¬ 
 cause it appears to have had action and progress. The 
 Athenian strategy of the good old times was discon¬ 
 certed, scandalized by these innovations contrary to all 
 rules which had hitherto been respected. Likewise, the 
 thundering marches of Bonaparte were incongruous to 
 the sentiment of the old German generals who had 
 been habituated to exact and methodical evolutions and 
 to the patient combinations practiced during the thirty- 
 seven years’ war. Philip, like Cæsar at a later day, 
 believed he had done nothing if anything remained for 
 him to do. He well knew how to prosecute everything 
 with obstinate activity, to prepare everything timely, 
 and to foresee everything; action, movement, was his 
 sole life. As a general, he was diligent and inevitable, 
 
 * Third Philippic. 
 
54 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 and at all times displayed dauntless bravery. Demos¬ 
 thenes paid him this homage: 
 
 “ I saw Philip, our adversary, braving all dangers that he 
 might command and become master; I saw him deprived of 
 an eye, his shoulder broken, his hand and legs maimed; I 
 saw him freely and cheerfully resigning any part of his body 
 which fortune pleased to take, so that he might enjoy the rest 
 with renown and glory.”* 
 
 This passion for glory, which rendered Philip regard¬ 
 less of his body and life, made him at a later period 
 respect his vanquished enemy. He was urged to 
 destroy Athens. “May it never please God,” he 
 responded, “ that I should destroy the theatre of glory; 
 my sole work is for it.” 
 
 He also labored to satisfy an insatiable ambition; he 
 himself confessed it: “I am at peace only with those 
 who are willing to obey me.” This thirst for rule led 
 him to carry his arms into most opposite countries, 
 from Phocis to the Danube, from the Hemus (the Bal¬ 
 kans) to Euboea, from the Peloponnesus to Byzantium, 
 and even into Scythia. 
 
 Master of Illyricum, of Chalcidice, of the Chersonesus, 
 of Thermopylae, of all the avenues of central Greece 
 north and south, no aggrandisement could satisfy 
 him. “Greece and the barbarian countries were all 
 too narrow for the ambition of this wretched mortal.” 
 In his eyes no conquest was small. Compelled to 
 withdraw for a moment from Athens, his most coveted 
 prey, he throws his army upon the “poor villages of 
 Thrace, willing to brave toils, cold and hunger and 
 extreme dangers for such conquests. * * * x * That he 
 may plunder the Thracian vaults of their rye and mil- 
 
 * Pro Corona , § G7. 
 
PHILIP- THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 55 
 
 let, lie faces the stormy deep in the midst of winter. 
 * * * A miserable Macedonian, born in a country 
 where it is impossible to purchase even a good slave.” 
 He is raised over Greece, and appointed to preside at 
 the Pythian games, the most august of her national 
 solemnities. He receives the privilege of consulting 
 the oracle first. Admitted with reverence into the 
 amphictyonie council, the sovereign arbiter of Hellenic 
 differences, the instrument of the gods’ vengeance on 
 their profaners, nothing satiates him. The undisputed 
 ruler of all Greece, invested since Cliæronea with the 
 hegemony which was formerly an object of emulation 
 among the great cities of Greece, he will not yet be at 
 ease. Proclaimed generalissimo of the eastern forces 
 against Asia, he will dream of the conquests reserved 
 for his son, and at the moment of entering upon this 
 new career a murderer’s dagger will consign him, at 
 the age of forty-seven, to his first, his last repose. 
 (336 b.c.) 
 
 Philip’s first entrance into the government revealed 
 in him qualities characteristic of a great politician: he 
 became a master of intrigues, and his intrigues were 
 successful. At first, regent of Macedonia in the name 
 of his nephew, Amyntas, he supplanted him. At the 
 age of twenty-four, by virtue of his address and energy, 
 sometimes criminal, he succeeded in maintaining him¬ 
 self against his enemies at home and abroad. Of this 
 number were the Athenians from the origin. They 
 were the partisans of Argæus, the foremost one of his 
 competitors for the crown. The Greeks had long 
 wished to interfere in his affairs. He paid them well 
 for it. Their covetousness and traditional jealousies 
 furnished arms against them, and the artful Macedo¬ 
 nian used them with success. He besieged Amphipo- 
 
56 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 lis, a position long disputed by Athens and Macedonia. 
 The Athenians wished to aid it. Philip checked them 
 by promising that he would surrender it to them when 
 once captured. lie took it and guarded it. (358 b.c.) 
 A year afterward he deprived them of Potidæa, and 
 gave it to the Olynthians, who were then hostile to 
 Athens. Later, Olynthus was seized in its turn (348 
 b.c.). Ilis device was to take advantage of divisions 
 and conquer them. He saw that the Thessalians, the 
 Thebans, the Phocidians, had become suspicious of one 
 another. He duped them in their turn, and subjugated 
 them all, one with the assistance of another. Against 
 Sparta (for his ambitious activity embraced all Greece) 
 he used the interested intervention of Argos and Mes- 
 sene, or the antipathy of the Arcadians. He gave to 
 one city what he plundered from another. In this way 
 he was assured of accomplices. He fomented intestine 
 hatreds; he baffled in advance all attempts at coalition. 
 The cities, blinded by cupidity or municipal enmities, 
 did not see that, in exchange for trivial advantages, — 
 guarantees only as real as the rays of the sun given to 
 the brothers of Perdiccas by the king of Sabæa, —the 
 common enemy robbed them of their honor and their 
 arms. Philip, in order to enjoy the right of contend¬ 
 ing for the crowns at the Olympic games, proclaimed 
 himself a descendant of Hercules. He was neither a 
 Greek, nor allied to the Greeks, but worthy of being 
 such. He had many qualities in common with Homer’s 
 Ulysses. He was not only patient, inured to fatigue, 
 but also sagacious, fertile in resources, and skillful in 
 strategy. He could metamorphose* himself and im¬ 
 personate different characters. He was a man compe¬ 
 tent to do everything (-avoD/^oç), to feign everything. 
 
 * IIoÀôzÀaÇj “otzLÀô/j.YjTtç ) TtoAu/JLyjyavuç, ~oÀôzpo~oç. 
 
PHILIP — THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 57 
 
 According to tlie state of liis affairs, he alternately 
 caressed or intimidated. Ilis speeches were spirited 
 or reserved, even humble (especially after the alliance 
 of Athens and Thebes). He advanced or retreated, 
 resisted or yielded, at the proper moment. 
 
 Philip was a prudent politician, and practiced the 
 diplomatic maxim of always giving the appearance of 
 right to his own side; his clemency never despaired: 
 “ Notwithstanding so many provoking iniquities, I have 
 respected your city, your temples, and your territory. 
 I could, however, have taken much, even captured all. 
 I have persisted in my desire to submit our mutual 
 complaints to a court of arbitration.” The duplicity of 
 his actions is especially apparent in his contest (always 
 disavowed) against Athens. He has sworn to take it, 
 and, as far as he is able, from the moment he steps on 
 Hellenic ground he proclaims his friendship for the 
 city of Minerva. On all occasions he treats her with 
 respect, and flatters her. lie sends the Athenian 
 prisoners, loaded with presents, back to the camp of 
 Argæus; he treats the Athenian garrison of Potidæa 
 with civility; later he will promise to liberate the cap¬ 
 tives of Olynthus: “See how far my good will for 
 you goes. I have given to you this island (Ilalon- 
 nesus) ; your orators have not permitted you to receive 
 it.” After such pledges who would dare distrust 
 him? His designs are innocent; his intentions equit¬ 
 able and peaceable. “Let us have peace,” is his cry. 
 His partisans publish it; he himself declares it in writ¬ 
 ing: and therefore we doubt the sincerity of his desire ! 
 The Athenians are impressed by his peaceful measures, 
 and observe the truce; Philip profits by it, and ad¬ 
 vances his schemes. Athens is at peace with Philip, 
 but Philip is not at peace with Athens. While his 
 
58 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 abused enemy is disarmed, the invader pursues his hos¬ 
 tilities; he scales the ramparts without striking a blow. 
 What need has he of violence when stratagem suf¬ 
 fices ? There will always be time enough to draw 
 the sword when the adversary, driven to desperation, 
 revolts. 
 
 Convicted, taken in the very act, he still denies his 
 intentions. When necessary he affects a hypocritical 
 devotion to the victims whom he has already baffled; 
 to the unfortunate Oretians he answers: 
 
 “ I have sent my soldiers to visit you; it is out of love for 
 you, for I have learned that you are suffering from factions; 
 the duty of an ally, of a true friend, is to present himself at 
 such a crisis.” 
 
 Philip excelled in secret manœuvres; in the face of 
 hostilities he concealed his designs and retreated; in 
 the meantime he strengthened himself little by little, 
 and advanced. As soon as his knavery made him 
 master he threw off the mask. No longer did he offer 
 promises of friendship and protestations of innocence, 
 but menacing reproaches. Here are a few extracts 
 from a letter of this friend of Athens. 
 
 “ Notwithstanding my frequent embassies for the main¬ 
 tenance of our oaths and agreements, you have never turned 
 your attention to this side of the question. I believe, then, 
 I ought to acquaint you with those points in respect of which 
 I consider myself slighted. Be not at all astonished at the 
 length of this letter: my grievances are numerous, and it is 
 indispensable that I should explain myself clearly upon all 
 of them.” 
 
 The enumeration of the iniquities of Athens follows. 
 The most grievous wrong on the part of the city is to 
 have at last opened her eyes, and to have rendered war 
 in return for war against this honest neighbor. 
 
PHILIP- THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 59 
 
 “ Such are my grievances. You are the aggressors, and 
 my moderation renders you bolder, and makes you more 
 eager to do me all the injury within your power. It to-day 
 becomes my duty to repulse you; I will call the gods to wit¬ 
 ness, and I will settle the difficulty.” 
 
 Philip declared war against the Athenians in this 
 message. For twelve years he had been preparing for 
 war. Athens was his sole object. The alarms of 
 Athens increased in proportion as his oblique measures, 
 his winding marches, dissimulated by pretense and 
 decisions of every kind, progressed; but the Macedo¬ 
 nian’s oaths and machinations increased also, and the 
 city, not seeing the danger, remained inactive. When 
 once the adversary is at his mercy, Philip openly pre¬ 
 pares for decisive action; a single blow remains to be 
 given, and he feels himself the stronger; the key of 
 the house, the house itself, is within his reach; what 
 need has he to play the rôle of hypocrite any longer? 
 
 Philip knows where the nerve of Athenian power is 
 located: in the preponderance of her naval forces, he 
 endeavors to cause the maritime arsenals of the Piræus 
 to be burned: in the tributes accruing from her allied 
 islands, he makes an effort to exhaust this source of 
 her revenues. The Athenian piracy does great injury 
 to Philip; it impedes importation and exportation from 
 Macedonia: against a pirate a pirate and a half. The 
 Macedonian piratical boats proceed to enrich them¬ 
 selves by plundering the allies of Athens; they fall 
 upon Lemnos, Imbros, Gerestos, and Marathon, from 
 which they take away the sacred trireme. Philip, the 
 corsair, aspires to the guardianship of the sea. The 
 pirates infest the Archipelago and the coasts of Asia 
 Minor. Philip is to intervene and assist the Greeks; 
 this will give him an opportunity to inspect the coasts, 
 
60 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 to practice intrigue among tlie islands, sometimes to 
 take possession of them (thus he takes the island of 
 Halonnesns from the pirate Sostratus); to favor the 
 development of his marine, the most cherished of his 
 aspirations; and, under the disguise of friendly coop¬ 
 eration, he will corrupt the allies of Athens. He fol¬ 
 lows his adversary over all lands; like a vigilant senti¬ 
 nel he watches, and attacks him on all sides; he knows 
 that whenever he assails he cannot fail to injure and 
 finally to conquer. 
 
 Philip is not only a friend of the Greeks, but also 
 of their gods. Their religious quarrels during the Sa¬ 
 cred War offer him many an opportunity to become 
 obtrusive. The pillage of the temple at Delphi (about 
 355 b.c.), and, later, the impiety of Cirrlia in culti¬ 
 vating a consecrated field, place a devout army in 
 the hands of this protector of religion. Invested by 
 the Ampliictyons with an absolute military command 
 {(jrparrjùy auroxpdropa), lie marches at the head of his 
 soldiers, and, like them, encircles his head with Apol¬ 
 lo’s laurel. He is the minister of the vengeance of the 
 god who leads him. He writes to the Peloponnesians: 
 “With you I wish to aid the god and punish those 
 who transgress things held sacred among men,” and 
 piously he keeps his word. Sacrilegious Phocis is de¬ 
 livered to*conflagration, and its inhabitants to slaugh¬ 
 ter. The Cirrliæans, contemners of religious decrees, 
 are chastised. All labor deserves its recompense. I lis 
 first intervention opens to him without a struggle the 
 pass of Thermopylae (346 b.c.); the second, by the cap¬ 
 ture of Elatea (339 b.c.), the road to Attica. These 
 two thunderbolts produced consternation in Athens', 
 but did she not know that the gods protect the de¬ 
 fenders of their outraged rights ? 
 
PHILIP-THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 61 
 
 Notwithstanding this protection, Philip sometimes 
 founders. Checked the first time at Thermopylae, he 
 postpones this blow. He knows how to await. lie 
 could not strike his enemy there: he hastens to meet 
 him in his colonies of the Cliersonesus, and marks all 
 vulnerable points. Beaten in Thessaly by Onomarchus 
 of Phocis, he displays in his defeat a new energy and 
 destroys his adversary. Repulsed from Perintlius, 
 from Byzantium, driven from the Hellespont,, he is 
 not discouraged. Obstinate, tenacious, his eye fixed 
 upon his object, he changes his means of attack, but 
 not the end. He spies the shores of Greece as a wolf 
 prowls around a sheep-fold; he explores Megara, Am- 
 bracia, and Euboea. He always appears at the post 
 from which he can best hold his enemy in check. He 
 varies his line of march that he may baffle the sus¬ 
 picion of wise prophets. If a fortress is impregnable 
 * to engines of war, he causes its gates to fall before 
 “an ass laden with gold.” Affable, eloquent, capti¬ 
 vating by his very person, he can use bribery at a 
 longer range than his catapults. The gold mines of 
 the Pangæa, without mentioning those of Thessaly and 
 Thrace, give him a thousand talents per annum. lie 
 employs them in purchasing Greece, with her generals, 
 her orators, and her oracles. Among those wdio draw 
 salaries are skillful flatterers who lull the Athenian 
 people to sleep by their deceptive promises, and who 
 extol their indolence. Others surrender to him their 
 troops or the strongholds which they have promised 
 to defend. In this manner he takes possession of 
 Pydna, Amphipolis, and Olynthus. He does not, it 
 is true, always allow the traitors to enjoy the fruits of 
 their treason. His object once accomplished, he dis¬ 
 cards them. He fears to share the glory of success 
 
62 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 witli them; and he is assured, notwithstanding these 
 bitter returns, that he will never he in want of them. 
 He declares the man contemptible who sells himself, 
 and he does not count on his fidelity. Who had sacri¬ 
 ficed the Hellenic cause for the profits of a Macedonian 
 alliance more eagerly than the Thebans? Neverthe¬ 
 less the Thebans one day betrayed him; nor did the 
 victor of Chæronea (338 b.c.) spare these deserters. 
 He put them to the sword or sold them. Athens, on 
 the contrary, alone of the Greek cities, always resisted 
 his offers and encroachments. He hated and esteemed 
 her; he pursued her furiously, yet admired her; he 
 returned her prisoners and spared her the dishonor 
 of yielding to a Macedonian garrison. Was it not as 
 great a disgrace to her to be deprived of her liberty? 
 
 Philip, in his eagerness to rule, appealed to the bad 
 instincts of human nature: jealousy, cupidity, in short 
 all the infirmities of egotism. He excelled in corrup¬ 
 tion, and,by his corruption, in conquering. Violent and 
 perfidious, mild and merciless, pious and cruel,* accord¬ 
 ing to the views of his policy, disdaining mankind as all 
 ambitious men have done, he himself had his vices, but 
 instead of allowing them to obstruct his designs, he 
 turned them into allies as efficacious as his good quali¬ 
 ties: activity, indefatigable perseverance, heroic valor, 
 military talent, profoundness and versatility, passion 
 for glory, and finally that factitious grandeur accom¬ 
 panying stupendous projects which were executed at 
 the cost of an admirable unfolding of intelligence and 
 
 * He cast three thousand prisoners of Pliocis into the sea out of 
 piety. In less than three years he destroyed thirty-two cities of Clial- 
 cidice. At Olyntlius, he gave liberty to some friends of a Greek 
 comedian, and killed his two brothers; he had previously caused a 
 third to perish. ( Justin , viii, 3; ix, 8; Diodorus Siculus , xvi, 54, 95.) 
 
PHILIP 
 
 THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 63 
 
 energy, but without scruple and regardless of the 
 means. Such was Philip, an enemy formidable in him¬ 
 self and strengthened still more by the blunders of his 
 adversaries. 
 
 II. 
 
 After Mantinea (361 b.c.), confusion and trouble 
 reigned in all Greece more than ever. Never did the 
 Hellenic cities, not even in the time of the Persian 
 invasions, form a body of general confederation, capa¬ 
 ble of uniting all the forces of the country against the 
 public enemy. u I do not see the Greeks united by a 
 common friendship. There are those who place more 
 confidence in the enemy than in certain of their own 
 body.” The envious rivalries which divided Lacedae¬ 
 mon, Athens and Thebes, omitting the cities which re¬ 
 mained strangers to the practice or even covetousness 
 of the- hegemony, broke the union which it had been so 
 necessary to form; and, if patriotism is the sympathy of 
 all with all in a common order of ideas and sentiments, 
 the object of which is the good of the common country, 
 Greece never knew patriotism. Fear of the invader, 
 the strongest bond of harmony, never made her entirely 
 united around a common hearth, as was the Koman 
 republic in the face of the Gauls or of Hannibal. 
 That altar of Vesta— a symbol of a country one and 
 indivisible; those public penates; that temple of Jupi¬ 
 ter Capitolinus — the unique seat of the Homan empire; 
 and finally that strong cohesion of the whole people 
 united in their convictions and faith in common desti¬ 
 nies;— where could these be found in Greece, with her 
 diversities or antipathies of race, and her parceling out 
 of little personalities, active and vigorous in themselves, 
 but weak as a whole on account of a distrustful and 
 
64 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 jealous isolation? At Marathon, Athens was'alone in 
 line; Sparta waited, before marching, until the moon 
 was full. At Salamis, Athens with her allies was 
 the rampart of Greece. At Platæa, the struggle w r as 
 sustained by the Athenians, the Lacedæmonians, the 
 Tegeatans and Megarians, against the Persians and 
 their Greek auxiliaries, among others the Thebans. 
 At Chæronea, the last battle-field of liberty, Athens 
 and Thebes alone met the enemy. Laceclæmon did 
 not even appear too late then as she had done at 
 Marathon. There was an intellectual Pan-Hellenism 
 ( rcatôsîa ‘EMyvr/.vj)', there was no political, and even less 
 a patriotic Pan-IIellenism. Greece was an aggregation 
 of egotistical individualities incapable of disinterested 
 sacrifices. In the oration On the Navy Boards , the ora¬ 
 tor speaks of the design, ascribed to the great king, of 
 attacking Greece: “He will give gold, he will offer 
 his friendship to some, while they, wishing to repair 
 their individual losses, will sacrifice the common safety. 
 Many might, without the charge of inconsistency, neg¬ 
 lect the rest of Greece, while engaged in the pursuit of 
 private interests”; and further: /“the Hellenes might 
 wish to pi ace themselves on his pay-roll, not so much 
 to procure any conquests for him, as to escape their 
 poverty and acquire a little personal ease.” Such are 
 the dispositions of the Greeks in respect to this mon¬ 
 arch, “wealthier himself than all the Greeks together, 
 and whose gold loads two hundred camels.” They will 
 be the same toward Philip, who is less opulent but 
 more dexterous. lie will know how to entice their 
 cupidity and dupe them. Some will not entertain the 
 design of giving him arms against the Hellenes, but 
 the crafty statesman will know how to turn their pas¬ 
 sions to his profit, even against their will. Hever did 
 
PHILIP — THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 65 
 
 the Athenians consent to these shameful bargains, even 
 by deceit ; but what other advantages they allowed 
 Philip to take against them!* They dread Philip as 
 the enemy, not of their liberty, but of their repose. 
 Careless, buoyant, a mere trifle distracts them from 
 their duty. In the midst of the most important deliber¬ 
 ation, if a child’s story had been narrated to them they 
 would have received extreme pleasure from it. And 
 in fact a short tale was sometimes necessary to compel 
 the frivolous multitude to listen. Without being devoted 
 to laughter perpetually, like the Tirynthians, the happy 
 subjects of Amphitryon, who was the king beloved of 
 Jupiter, the Athenians acquitted the greatest criminals, 
 even when convicted, “in return for one or two witty re¬ 
 marks.” Instead of delighting in the reasoning of the 
 orator, they are carried away by nicknames and jokes 
 of which he is the object before the tribune; they turn 
 everything to pleasantry. A rhetorician at Olympia 
 pledges them to union. “ This man exhorts us to con¬ 
 cord,” remarks an auditor, “ and in this he cannot per¬ 
 suade the three persons who compose his household, 
 his wife, himself and his servant.” Such is the fruit 
 which they draw from his harangue. It is necessary 
 to divert them in order to win them. Leo of Byzan¬ 
 tium is deputed to Athens; he appears; a general 
 laughter welcomes his small stature. “Ah! what 
 would you think,” says the clever ambassador to them, 
 “if you should see my wife; she scarcely reaches to 
 
 * The author intended here to portray only the traits of Athe¬ 
 nian character which pertain to this part of his subject. A complete 
 portrait would be more favorable, and would recall the canvass on 
 which Parrliasius essayed to picture the contradictory qualities of a 
 fantastic and unequable people. (Pliny, Natural History , xxxv, ch. 
 36, § 5. Cf. Thucydides, i, 70 ; Plato, Laws, books i and ii.) 
 
66 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 my knee ” ? The laughter and cheers redouble. “And 
 yet, as small as we are, when we have a dispute between 
 ns, Byzantium is not large enough to contain us.” 
 Athenian gayety respects nothing, not even the venera¬ 
 ble Areopagus. A member of that convention, when 
 it was assembled before the people, used, in regard to 
 a decree of Timarchus, and without thinking of any 
 evil, terms implying double meanings, in which the 
 malignity of his audience saw an allusion to the ques¬ 
 tionable houses which that personage used to frequent. 
 Several times the hilarity of the public underlined cer¬ 
 tain expressions of the honorable and candid orator; 
 but behold, when, with a deep tone, he entered into 
 details, the assembly no longer governed itself, it burst 
 out in laughter. The crier interceded: “Do you not 
 blush for laughing thus before the Areopagus? ” What 
 could he do ? The wanton laughter was like a panic, 
 irresistible; and it was not at Athens that the people 
 thought of subduing it.* 
 
 The Athenians were amused at the disputes of their 
 orators as they would be at cock-fights. Demosthenes 
 ill understands how to amuse them on every occasion. 
 He is a water-drinker. He constantly entertains a 
 people entirely devoted to pleasure with their trouble¬ 
 some duties. Loving leisure, they passed their time 
 pleasantly chatting in the barber’s or in the perfumer’s 
 shop. Fond of news, they went to and from the agora 
 asking one another, What news? For want of news 
 they forged it. “The sublimity of the newsmonger is 
 chimerical reasoning on politics ” (Labruyère). The 
 Athenians reasoned, conjectured, interpreted Philip’s 
 designs. They described what he had never done, 
 and refused to believe what he was seen to do every 
 
 * Æscliines, Against Timarchus , § 81. 
 
PHILIP — THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 67 
 
 day. Each one forged his own fable, scrutinized the 
 future; no one thought of his present duty. After 
 magnificent decrees they laid down their arms on a 
 slight rumor, just at the time when the report announc¬ 
 ing Philip’s death or illness should have aroused them 
 to immediate action more than ever before A" Always 
 with humor to give in excess, they passed from ex¬ 
 treme discouragement to extreme confidence; from pre¬ 
 sumption to despair. Credulous to whosoever flat¬ 
 tered them, they closed their ears to the admonitions 
 of Demosthenes; they opened them with complaisance 
 to the pacific counsels of Phocion, to the naïve illu¬ 
 sions of Isocrates, and to the cleverness of those coun¬ 
 sellors of injustice, the detestable authors of belligerent 
 motives. Obstinately blind, the Athenians found it 
 more convenient to turn their eyes from danger than 
 to meet it. 
 
 Philip has seized Thermopylæ. At 'this news there 
 is great agitation in the agora. The subject is dis¬ 
 cussed, accusations are made, the people are excited; 
 then, with the aid of their egotism, they come to tran¬ 
 quillizing reflections. It is still far from Thermopylæ 
 to the Piræus. No danger in delaying. However, if 
 Philip has overleaped the rampart of Greece, it is for 
 the sole object,— he himself has gh r en his word for 
 it,— of concluding the Sacred War, which has stained 
 Greece with blood for more than ten years (357-346 
 B.c.). Athens does not oppose these charitable meas¬ 
 ures. With a light heart she assists in the destruction 
 of the accursed Phocidians. Philip, master of Pliocis, 
 descends toward the south. The Athenians are dis- 
 
 * In an analogous circumstance, Phocion will tell them at a later 
 time: “Do nothing hastily. If Alexander is dead to-day, he will be 
 dead to-morrow and the following days.” 
 
68 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 turbed only in a moderate degree. Philip has not yet 
 attacked the Theban power. Now, Athens lias con¬ 
 quered the Thebans. Thebes is threatened,—Athens’ 
 consolation: since Mantinea, Theban arrogance has 
 humiliated Athens. Did not Epaminondas dare to 
 say to the multitude that “it was necessary to trans¬ 
 fer the Propylæa of the Acropolis to the vestibule of 
 the Cadmea ? ” And then these Boeotians are as stupid 
 and heavy as the air that nourishes them. Why should 
 any one at Athens be interested in people who have 
 no spirit and character? Bœotia is subjugated, the 
 Thebans destroyed, and the invader has reached a new 
 halting place. Athens begins to take the hint. The 
 great justiciary of the sacrileges of Phocis and of The¬ 
 ban insolence always advances. Tie is about to touch 
 the point. In vain Demosthenes has given the alarm: 
 To arms, Athenians ! Those machines erected against 
 Thebes are going to demolish your own walls. If 
 Bœotia perishes, you will perish, for you are the par¬ 
 ticular men whom the Macedonian fears and wishes to 
 annihilate. Wealthy men, give your gold; wealthy 
 and poor, mount your galleys, seize the oar and spear ! 
 -x- -x- -x- Demosthenes, a disagreeable prophet, an inex¬ 
 orable patriot, is not listened to; for AEschines tran¬ 
 quillizes them. His brow is serene. He pronounces 
 the suspicions of this morose orator falsehoods injuri¬ 
 ous to Philip. He advises the Athenians to spare their 
 money, their lives, and to continue in the enjoyment 
 of their rest. This agreeable language is a feast for 
 them; and while treason and violence pursue their 
 work, unfortunate Athens does not stir. At the 
 most, she is only agitated, but she does not act. 
 
 Too often her movements are as fruitless for her as 
 is her repose. She is generous, and adopts resolutions 
 
PHILIP 
 
 THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 69 
 
 worthy of her in favor of the oppressed, but sue does 
 not adhere to them. An orator proposes an expe¬ 
 dition. Act to-clay , cries the assembly; and neither 
 on this day nor on the next is anything accomplished. 
 She votes forty triremes and sixty talents. She sends 
 ten empty boats with five talents of silver, and at 
 another time “a general without troops, a decree with¬ 
 out force, and the boastings of her tribune.” She 
 wages against Philip a clamorous war of decrees. 
 What fruit does she derive from it ? Long ago had 
 the Macedonian been chastised, if the decrees had that 
 virtue; but in spite of their zealous speeches he al¬ 
 ways progresses. The Athenians carry off the palm 
 for orations, Philip the palm for action. “ That Philip, 
 a general and soldier, putting himself in the fore¬ 
 ground, animating all with his presence, losing no 
 opportunity, not even an instant, triumphs over men 
 given to delays, to decrees, and to conjectures, I am 
 not astonished.” Harangues, even those of Demos¬ 
 thenes, are not sufficient to conquer in war. “With¬ 
 out action all eloquence is powerless, especially the 
 eloquence of Athens; for we pass for the cleverest 
 speakers of Greece.” Quick to understand themselves 
 and to comprehend the ideas of another, they adopt 
 resolutions, but make no effort. That people who 
 formerly aroused all Greece to defend the rights of 
 the Hellenes, at the very moment when the people 
 themselves are plundered, slumbers, and allots the 
 despoiler to go unpunished; and yet she loves glory, 
 she admires the glory of her ancestors, and rejoices in 
 hearing it celebrated. But she contents herself with 
 applauding her ancestors, the saviors of Greece, with¬ 
 out having the courage to imitate them. At one mo¬ 
 ment aroused (what apathy would not be aroused?) by 
 
70 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 tlie eloquence of Demosthenes, she votes war by ac¬ 
 clamation, but she leaves the care of waging it to 
 others. Instead of serving in person, the Athenians 
 hire mercenaries; good citizens as to desire and inten¬ 
 tion, patriotic warriors by proxy. 
 
 The time was not long past when, before a Spartan 
 assembly, their enemies rendered this homage to the 
 Athenians: u They are prompt to imagine and to exe¬ 
 cute what they have conceived. * * * For their country 
 they risk their lives and expose their bodies as if they 
 were of least importance to them. * * * They know 
 no other pleasure than the accomplishment of their 
 duty.”* What a contrast between the Athenian of 
 Pericles’ (432) day and the Athenian of Demosthenes’ 
 (360) time! The latter before all things looks to his 
 own well-being. It is repugnant to him to quit a 
 laughing sky, the chats of the Porticos and the Agora, 
 the thousand artistic and literary amusements con¬ 
 stantly renewed in a city not only the school but the 
 rendezvous of pleasure for all Greece, and to go in the 
 midst of winter into a barbarous climate to meet rude 
 soldiers accustomed to dare everything and to sutler 
 everything. The enjoyments of body and mind to which 
 he has habituated himself have rendered him unfit 
 for the severe toils of war. The poor man is devoted 
 above all to the three obols of the tribunals which 
 enable him to live; to the two obols which assure him 
 an entrance to the theater. He repairs to the assembly 
 “ as to a feast at which the scraps are to be divided.” 
 The wealthy man “ measures happiness by the capacity 
 of his stomachf and by the most shameful pleasures,” 
 
 * Thucydides, i, 70. 
 
 f What nonsense are you relating to us here ? You are talking for 
 pleasure : Lyceum, Academy, Odeum, Thermopylae, the nonsense of 
 
PHILIP 
 
 THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 71 
 
 without any regard for the happiness of serving no 
 master, “ an advantage once esteemed in Greece the 
 greatest and highest degree of felicity.” It is suffi¬ 
 cient to say that the wealthy and poor are ill-disposed 
 to expose their bodies to that monstrous beast, all 
 bristling with iron, which is called the Macedonian 
 phalanx. They reserve themselves for more agreeable 
 contests. Instead of fighting Philip, they fight their 
 counsellors and generals. 
 
 “Is it the author of your misfortunes that you hate ? 
 ]STo, it is the citizen who has spoken to you of them 
 last,” when he was about to offer a remedy for an evil 
 of which he himself was innocent. A military enter¬ 
 prise has failed. A speaker attributes its failure to 
 Diopithes, Chares and Aristophon. The crowd ex¬ 
 claim “he is right!” and the general is summoned to 
 trial. “ Brave to condemn, cowards to act,” they hold 
 him responsible for their own faults; or, if he himself 
 has committed any, they punish him with a severity 
 which they could use to a better purpose against the 
 great criminal, Philip. What is the result of these 
 injustices or excessive severities ? The generals desert 
 Athens. Each one of them in all security goes to wage 
 war where his interests call him.* Thus the Athenians 
 do the work of their enemy, not their own. 
 
 sophists. I see nothing in these worth our attention. Let us drink, 
 Scion, let us drink to excess and make life happy as long as opportu¬ 
 nity and means permit. Join in the uproar, Manes; nothing is dearer 
 than the stomach. The stomach is your father, the stomach is your 
 mother. Virtues, embassies, commands, vain glory, vain turmoil of 
 the land of dreams. Death will strike ) r ou on the day marked by des¬ 
 tiny. There will remain to you only what you shall have drank and 
 eaten. The rest is dust. Dust is Pericles, Codrus, Cimon.” (Alexis, The 
 Lord of Debauchery, frag, of the Comic Poets. Cf. Plutarch, Moralia.) 
 
 * ThusTimotheus and Chabrias sold their services to Persia against 
 Egypt; Chares became a lieutenant to Artabazus; Iphicrates con- 
 
72 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 What shall we say concerning the election of magis¬ 
 trates ? Socrates and his followers in general were not 
 very sympathetic with Athenian democracy. Socrates 
 dared to ridicule u the fullers, shoemakers, masons, 
 coppersmiths, petty tradesmen and peddlers,— all im¬ 
 portant personages of whom the assembly of the people 
 was composed.” Politics was, in his eyes, a compli¬ 
 cated science, as virtue itself was an art. Was the 
 ignorant multitude capable of arriving at the one or 
 the other ? 
 
 Montesquieu is more indulgent. 
 
 “ The people are admirable to choose those to whom they 
 are to entrust any authority. They have only to deter¬ 
 mine from the nature of things which they cannot be igno¬ 
 rant of, and from facts which fall under their knowledge. 
 They know very well that a man has often been in war; that 
 he has had such or such success. They are then very capable 
 of choosing a general. They know that a judge is assiduous; 
 that many classes go away from his tribunal satisfied with 
 him; that he has not been convicted of corruption. This is 
 enough to choose a pretor. They have been struck with the 
 magnificence or wealth of a citizen; this is sufficient to choose 
 an ædile. All these things are facts of which they can better 
 inform themselves in public places than can a monarch in his 
 palace.”* 
 
 The Athenians, if Demosthenes is to be credited, ill 
 justify the good opinion which Montesquieu has in this 
 respect. They give offices to the wealthiest, not to the 
 most worthy, j* They name their political or military 
 
 ducted twenty thousand Greek mercenaries to Artaxerxes; the old 
 pirate Charidemus gained possession of small cities on the coasts of 
 Asia, and reigned there. 
 
 * Esprit des Lois , ii, 2. 
 
 f Demosthenes, In Midiam , passim. 
 
PHILIP-THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 73 
 
 leaders with as much levity as their priests. It should 
 be required, for example, that a cavalry general could 
 hold himself in his saddle. How Midias, promoted to 
 this dignity, cannot, even in the solemn processions, 
 becomingly cross the public place on a horse. With 
 such aptitudes for positions due to intrigue, what won¬ 
 der if, on the day of action, these incapable aspirants 
 use every evasion to escape the obligations of their 
 duty ? They have coveted dignity. They no longer 
 wish office if it threatens to become effective. If they 
 decree to send out cavalry, the cavalry general sud¬ 
 denly becomes enamored of the sea and runs to the 
 triremes. If a naval expedition is decided upon, they 
 must wait until the sailors rejoin their squadron. 
 
 u How does it happen (Isocrates, after a severe crit¬ 
 icism of the political customs of the Athenians, puts 
 this objection into the mouth of a contradictor) that 
 with a similar conduct we are not destroyed, not even 
 inferior in power to any city ? ” It is because the 
 enemies of Athens, the Thebans and Lacedæmonians, 
 are no longer discreet. Athens has for a long time 
 owed the maintenance of her prosperity to the faults of 
 her adversaries. With Philip it must be otherwise. 
 The king of Macedonia was not a man who would be 
 apt to become an instrument of success for the Athe¬ 
 nians. 
 
 “ To such circumstances are you reduced by your supine¬ 
 ness, that I fear (shocking as it is to say it) that, had we all 
 agreed to propose, and } r ou to embrace, such measures as 
 would most effectually ruin our affairs, the} r could not have 
 been more distressed than at present. At present your con¬ 
 duct must expose you to derision. Nay, I call the powers to 
 witness that }mu are acting as if Philip’s wishes were to 
 direct you. Opportunities escape you; your treasures are 
 4 
 
74 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 wasted; you shift the weight of public business upon others; 
 break into passion; criminate each other.”* 
 
 Instead of adopting measures most agreeable to the 
 enemy, why do they not hasten to do what he would 
 not fail to do were he in their place ? But their char¬ 
 acters are very different. Philip deliberates upon the 
 future; the Athenians quarrel over the past. Philip 
 anticipates emergencies; the Athenians follow him as 
 if towed. 
 
 “ Just as barbarians engage at boxing, so you make war 
 with Philip; for, when one of these receives a blow, that 
 blow engages him ; if struck in another part, to that part his 
 hands are shifted; but to ward off the blow, or to watch his 
 antagonist, for this he hath neither skill nor spirit. Even 
 so, if you hear that Philip is in the Chersonesus, you resolve 
 to send forces thither; if in Thermopylae, thither; if in any 
 other place, you hurry up and down; you follow his stand¬ 
 ard. But no useful scheme for carrying on the war, no wise 
 provisions, are ever thought of, until you hear of some enter¬ 
 prise in execution, or already crowned with success. This 
 might formerly have been pardonable, but now is the very 
 critical moment when it can by no means be admitted.”! 
 
 The Athenians are absolutely wanting in the justly 
 appreciated quality of the Greeks,— opportuneness 
 (< zb-/.aipia)\ they do everything at the wrong time, too 
 late or too early. u The people always have too much 
 or too little to do. Sometimes, with one hundred thou¬ 
 sand arms, they overthrow everything; sometimes, 
 with a hundred thousand feet, they only go like in¬ 
 sects.” $ 
 
 “And now, Athenians! what is the reason (think ye) that 
 the public festivals in honor of Minerva and of Bacchus are 
 
 * Third and Fourth Philippics , §§ 1, 20. 
 f First Philippic , § 40. \ Esprit des Lois , ii, 2. 
 
PHILIP 
 
 THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 75 
 
 always celebrated at the appointed time, whether the direc¬ 
 tion of them falls to the lot of men of eminence or of persons 
 less distinguished (festivals which cost more treasure than is 
 usually expended upon a whole navy, and more numbers 
 and greater preparations than any one perhaps ever cost); 
 while your expeditions have been all too late. The reason 
 is this: everything relating to the former is ascertained by 
 law, and every one of you knows long before who is to con¬ 
 duct the several entertainments in each tribe, what he is to 
 receive, when and from whom, and what to perform. Not 
 one of these things is left uncertain, not one undetermined. 
 But in affairs of war and warlike preparations there is no 
 order, no certainty, no regulation. So that when any acci¬ 
 dent alarms us, first we appoint our trierarchs ; then we allow 
 them the exchange;* then the supplies are considered. These 
 points once settled, we resolve to man our fleet with strangers 
 and foreigners, then find it necessary to supply their places 
 ourselves. In the midst of these delays, what we are sailing 
 to defend the enemy is already master of; for the time of 
 action we spend in preparing, and the junctures of affairs will 
 not wait our slow and irresolute measures. These forces, 
 too, which we think may be depended on until the new levies 
 
 are raised, when put to the proof, plainly discover their in- 
 
 « 
 
 sufficiency.”! 
 
 Omitting the vices of the military and financial or¬ 
 ganization, the Athenian always depends upon his 
 neighbor. + He w r ould like to apj3ly the law to his 
 
 * ’Ai/rcôoffcç. Every citizen who believed himself taxed unduly 
 or to excess had the right of demanding that a wealthier man should 
 be charged with his liturgy. If the latter refused under pretext that 
 his resources did not permit him to do it, the law compelled him to 
 exchange his goods for those of the demander, — a law equitable in 
 principle, but a source of delay and of debates very prejudicial to the 
 harmony of the city and to the promptitude of military operations. 
 
 t First Philippic, § 35. 
 
 X Cf. Aristophanes, The Assembly of the Women , the law of com¬ 
 munism in theory and practice. 
 
76 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 neighbor and be exempt from it himself. He indif¬ 
 ferently comes to the place of action at the latest 
 possible moment, in the hope, secretly caressed, of 
 escaping from a painful duty. We see how at Pydna, 
 Potidæa, Methone, Pagasse, they arrive just in time to 
 witness Philip’s triumphs and their own confusion. 
 “Can the people conduct an undertaking, know the 
 places, opportunities, moments, and profit by them ? 
 No, they cannot,”* and the Athenians less than all 
 others. All at Athens is capricious, tumultuous; no 
 decided impulsion, no regular counsels, no unique au¬ 
 thority. All is done by intermittent passion, by jerks 
 and twitches. How different it is with the despotic 
 invader ! His finances are in a sound condition, his 
 veteran soldiers always under arms. What he judges 
 proper to do he does immediately, without public de¬ 
 liberation or a proclamation of decrees. He is neither 
 calumniated before the tribunals, nor accused as a 
 transgressor of laws, nor amenable in person; but 
 everywhere a universal arbiter and an absolute master. 
 In the face of such an adversary what do we see ? A 
 people aggravating by the disorder of the time, one of 
 the vices connected with the democratic' constitution, 
 a multitude “blinded, as it seems, by an evil spirit,” 
 an “old man in delirium tremens,” as jEschines ex¬ 
 presses it. 
 
 In Aristophanes the favored orators of the people 
 cajole and dupe them; in the time of Philip they flat¬ 
 ter and betray them. The spirit of vengeance forced 
 
 * Esprit des Lois , ii, 2; cf. v, 10, De la Promptitude de VExecution 
 dans la Monarchie: “Cardinal Richelieu, wishes the people to shun 
 the thorns of societies in monarchies, societies which form difficul¬ 
 ties for everything. Although the cardinal could not have had des¬ 
 potism in his heart, he might have had it in his head.” 
 
PHILIP 
 
 THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 77 
 
 Alcibiades to desert liis country. The ambitious fugi¬ 
 tive wished to punish her for her intended ingrati¬ 
 tude, and employed against her the talents for which he 
 deemed himself poorly paid. Then, when the chas¬ 
 tisement was consummated, he returned to her and 
 was loved, inasmuch as he had caused her to feel the 
 value of his favors. The return of the victor was a 
 triumph. “The Athenians lauded what he had done 
 for the city, and did not admire less what he had done 
 against her.” During the Macedonian epoch duties 
 toward the country were no better known, and forfeit¬ 
 ures arose from a source more impure than from the 
 wounds of pride,—-from venality. “A contagion, a 
 terrible and cruel pest, came and spread over Greece.” 
 Magistrates and private citizens emulously called for 
 the Macedonian’s gold and servitude. The epidemic 
 at first reached Thessaly, penetrated the Pelopon¬ 
 nesus, “provoked the massacres of Elis, and became 
 intoxicated with a furious madness of the pitiable 
 classes who, in order to elevate themselves one over 
 another, while extending their hands to Philip became 
 covered with the blood of their relatives and citizens.” 
 Far from resting here, the scourge gained Arcadia and 
 Argolis, and finally crept into Athens. “Whilst it 
 has not yet spread, watch over yourselves, Athenians, 
 stigmatize those who have imported it. Else fear lest 
 you may recognize the utility of my counsels when a 
 remedy shall have become impossible.”* The disease, 
 pointed out in vain in 342 b.c,, continued to spread; 
 the orator of the Oration on the Grown (330 b.c.) 
 should have recalled the sad effects of it. In this re¬ 
 spect the Athenians might have received lessons from 
 the Spartans. Pausanias sacrificed the interests of 
 
 * Demosthenes On the Embassy, § 251). 
 
78 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Lacedaemon to the favor of Xerxes. Convicted by the 
 ephors he fled into the temple of Minerva. Ilis mother 
 was the fifst to place a stone at the door and shut him 
 in. Athens did not consider things so seriously. Are 
 Philip’s friends really traitors? Some call them pro¬ 
 moters of peace, saviors and champions of the true 
 interests of the state, as were Fouché and the auxil¬ 
 iaries of the allies in 1815. The Athenians forgot to 
 distinguish between the sincere citizen who was de¬ 
 ceived and the egotist who thought more of himself 
 than of the republic. Formerly Arthmius of Zelia, an 
 Asiatic city, brought gold from the Persians into the 
 Peloponnesus. The ancestors of those Athenians who 
 were fighting Philip declared him an enemy, himself 
 and his race infamous, and considered him an outlaw. 
 At another time the Athenians, jealous guardians of 
 the dignity and safety of Greece, engraved upon bronze 
 the infamy of corrupters. How times have changed! 
 u Envy toward him whom gold has seduced; jests and 
 laughter if he confesses it; pardon if he is convicted; 
 hatred against his accuser.”* Such were the senti¬ 
 ments awakened by the traffic of the country. Is it 
 astonishing after this that the Macedonians in the Pi¬ 
 raeus multiplied, and, shielded from contempt, exhibited 
 for sale a shameles simony? Votes, decrees, admin¬ 
 istration, war, finances, — they sold everything in full 
 market, and preached peace for ready cash. They 
 vied in their emulation to become purchasers. 
 
 “ Philip was not satisfied with hearing the traitors’ propo¬ 
 sitions, and he did not know what prey to seize first. He 
 took, in one day, five hundred horsemen with their arms, 
 delivered up to him by the leaders themselves, a capture 
 hitherto unequaled. The light of day, the soil beneath their 
 
 * Third Philippic , § 39. 
 
PHILIP 
 
 THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 79 
 
 feet, temples, tombs,— the guilty traitors regarded nothing, not 
 even the reputation which was to shed infamy upon such 
 acts. Such great venality, Athenians, strikes men with de¬ 
 rangement and madness!” 
 
 Philip, it is true, neglected no opportunity, as he 
 did at Dium after the capture of Olynthus, to display 
 a liberal magnificence by which the greedy poverty of 
 the Greeks was dazzled and enticed. Atlienæus* has 
 transmitted to us the description of a feast at a Mace¬ 
 donian wedding, so sumptuous and splendid that it 
 might render Trimalcion jealous. Caranus’ guests re¬ 
 turn from the banquet not only deliciously feasted, but 
 loaded with gold and silver plate, enriched for life. 
 Let an Athenian now come and talk to them of the 
 meager fare of his feasts; they will send him back ridi¬ 
 culed to his rockets and onions. We do not know the 
 bill of fare of the banquets offered by Philip to his 
 hosts from Athens, but his liberalities are known to us. 
 One brings back from Macedonia timber to cover his 
 house, another sheep and horses; for the most skillful 
 artisans the highest salary. Pliilocrates, the principal 
 author of the fatal peace, which took its name from 
 him (347 b.c.), received lands whose revenue was a 
 talent, besides the grain and gold with which he openly 
 carried on commerce on the bankers’ tables in the 
 Agora. lie brought back from Olynthus freed women, 
 captives to gratify his pleasures, and besides this he 
 was seen going the rounds of the market, and, a fine 
 connoisseur, u purchasing women and fish.” Demos¬ 
 thenes has named several of these traffickers of the Hel¬ 
 lenic family whose eloquence had a fixed tariff. “ The 
 day would fail me if I should recount their names.” 
 He paints the least shameless of those who realized 
 
 * Banquet of the Sophists, iv, 2. 
 
80 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 their fortunes of real estate and retired into Mace¬ 
 donia. He also represents those traitors in Macedonia 
 who betrayed their country, seated at Philip’s table with 
 cup in hand, drinking the public liberty. Such charac¬ 
 ters justified the insulting contempt of the princely 
 purchaser of Greece. See in what a strain he speaks 
 of the few orators who remained faithful. “It would 
 be easy for me, by throwing a little gold before them, 
 to check their censures and convert them into eulogies; 
 but I would blush to be seen purchasing the friendship 
 of such men.”* They likewise justify this cry of 
 Demosthenes: “ We have inured a formidable enemy 
 against ourselves. Let whoever denies it appear be¬ 
 fore me and say where Philip derived his power if it 
 was not in the heart of Athens. ” In fact, did not Athens 
 send him deputies who were emulous to deprecate 
 their country before him? “The people, a restless mul¬ 
 titude, are the least stable, the most vacillating, of all 
 things. They are like the waves of the sea which a 
 slight breeze agitates: one comes, another goes away; 
 no one cares nor studies public affairs. It therefore 
 behooves you to have friends at Athens who will do 
 and regulate all according to your will. Take care of 
 this support and among the Athenians you will make 
 all yield to your pleasure, f Philip was careful not to 
 allow these charitable encouragements to pass gratui¬ 
 tously. It was far less expensive for him to hire a 
 few men than to conciliate the entire city by honorable 
 means. In this way he succeeded well. 
 
 The same tongues calumniated Athens in Philip’s 
 presence and exalted Philip himself before the Athe¬ 
 nians. Ho, never was man seen “so gracious, so 
 
 * On the Embassy , passim. 
 
 f Demosthenes, On the Embassy , § 136. 
 
PHILIP — THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 81 
 
 amiable lie was gallant, lie was eloquent, lie was the 
 “most Grecian” of those who were not Greeks, and 
 what a drinker! They did not add that this accom¬ 
 plished prince was an excellent payer, but the Athe¬ 
 nians, when advised, discovered it. Thanks to the 
 connivance of these allies, he deferred the oaths which 
 were at some time to bind his hands, for three whole 
 months. In the mean time, he pilfered and appropri¬ 
 ated on all sides; he esteemed as a good capture what¬ 
 ever he could possess before signing the peace. 
 
 It was still in the heart of Athens that he found accom¬ 
 plices always ready to become the echo of his fallacious 
 promises, sometimes even to exceed them. This was ap¬ 
 parent after the treaty and peace of 347 b.c., from which 
 Philocrates, Æschines and their associates perfidiously 
 allowed the Phocians to be excluded, against the will 
 of Athens. IIow could the people escape becoming 
 the laughing-stock of their machinations ? Sent to 
 Philip in order to treat with him directly, and to exam¬ 
 ine on the spot the true state of things, they were the 
 sole official authority to decide: their falsehoods were 
 dexterously colored, and enforced belief. Contemporary 
 history has presented certain examples of these decep¬ 
 tions of a nation by ministers employed to enlighten it, 
 and throwing it into fatal adventures when misguided 
 by forged declarations. “Yes,” said Æschines, 
 “ Philip has passed Thermopylæ. What signifies ? Do 
 not be alarmed, all will go according to our wishes ; 
 in two or three days you will learn that he has become 
 the enemy of those whose friend he appeared, and the 
 friend of those whose enemy he proclaimed himself.” 
 Athens was often deceived by these phantasmagorias 
 of her orators, but she was also often the victim of her 
 own illusions, and of faults attributable to herself. 
 
82 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 She had a right to cry out treason; hut did not the 
 entire people betray themselves by their weakness and 
 follies ? 
 
 “Oh, gods! we have suffered all these plunders; we have, 
 if I dare say it, cooperated with him in them, and now we 
 will seek the authors of our misfortunes! for I know too well 
 we will take care not to confess ourselves guilty. In the 
 perils of war no fugitive accuses himself, but always his gen¬ 
 eral, his comrade; he accuses all rather than himself; never¬ 
 theless all the fugitives cause the rout. This accuser of 
 another could have held his ground firmly, and if each had 
 held firmly, they would not have been vanquished/’* 
 
 Never, indeed, did Athens accuse Demosthenes: 
 this was justice. No man was more passionately de¬ 
 voted to the difficult work of the common safety. In 
 Philo’s time, Athens numbered as many citizens (about 
 twenty thousand) as in the days when she repulsed the 
 barbarians, and disputed the empire with Lacedæmon; 
 she had preserved her numerical forces, but not her 
 valor. Let us now see what resources Demosthenes, 
 the citizen, the statesman and the orator, used in his 
 endeavor to restore her valor and thus save her liberty. 
 
 * Third Olynthiac , § 17. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 DEMOSTHENES —THE MAN —THE CITIZEN. 
 
 “Tou- ye y.aO 1 aurov p-grapaz {e’^oj ôè Xôyoo rtOep.at ( Ptox{cova) 
 xai rip ftup -aprjXOs : “He was the most upright of the orators of 
 his time, excepting Pliocion.” (Plutarch, Life of Demosthenes.) 
 
 “ My character lias never been compromised. I was never known 
 to prefer the favor of the great to the rights of the people. And, in 
 the affairs of Greece, the bribes and flattering assurances of friend¬ 
 ship which Philip lavished never were so dear to me as the interests 
 of the Hellenes.” (Oration on the Crown.) 
 
 I N’ Demosthenes, the citizen, the statesman, and the 
 orator, were equal to the task which he volun¬ 
 tarily imposed upon himself. Before entering upon 
 his political career, the young son of a sword-cutler 
 was in danger of being deprived of his inheritance, 
 and said to the judges: u You have not yet put me 
 to trial, and do not know what I can do for the state; 
 but, may I hope, I will not be of less service to it than 
 my father was.”* This modest prevision of the young 
 man of nineteen years was more than justified. Forty 
 years later the patriotic exile could write to his citizens, 
 in demanding of them a reexamination of his trial: “I 
 yield to no one in affection for the people. Hot one 
 of my contemporaries has done more for you, none 
 given more proofs of his devotion.”f 
 
 * Second Pleading against Aphobus , § 22. 
 
 f Second letter of Demosthenes, fin. Some moderns have dis¬ 
 puted the authenticity of these letters recognized by Cicero. We 
 accept them as a faithful proof of the sentiments of ancient Greece 
 toward their patriotic orator. 
 
 83 
 
I 
 
 84 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 I. The Man. —Demosthenes had from his youth 
 given proof of a character fitted for strife. The ath¬ 
 lete, who was destined some day to bear up against 
 Philip with all his strength, had first tested his powers 
 on himself. Less fortunately endowed than some of 
 his rivals in elocpience, he resolved to repair nature’s 
 work and to remake himself. His obstinacy remained 
 ruler. This tenacious firmness, perpetuated in legend 
 like all that strikes man’s imagination, permitted Va¬ 
 lerius Maximus to say: “If his mother brought one 
 Demosthenes to light, art begat another with toil.”* 
 Æschines several times rebuked Demosthenes with the 
 title of Scythian. “Demosthenes is neither of our 
 soil nor of our race. * * * On his mother’s side he is 
 a Scythian, a barbarian, a Greek only in language, his 
 heart is too perverse to be an Athenian.” His grand¬ 
 mother, in fact, was a woman from the Bosphorus. 
 The stiffness of his character, wanting in Athenian 
 flexibility and playfulness, was due, perhaps, to the 
 influence of his maternal blood. At all events, his 
 youth was not in every respect similar to that of the 
 sons of Athenian families, but more w T ortliy, in cer¬ 
 tain respects, of the young Anacharsis. Llis midnight 
 studies remain celebrated. Who is ignorant of them \ 
 Says the author of the Tusculcince Disjmtationes : 
 “He was grieved if it happened that an artisan began 
 work earlier than himself. ” f According to his own 
 testimony he became an orator by using more oil than 
 wine. It was not the oil of the palestra. Æschines 
 reproached him for not having cared for the well-being 
 
 * Valerius Maximus, viii, 7; Demosthenes, bom in 384 or 385, 
 died in 322. 
 
 f Tusculanae Disputationes , iv, 19: “Qui dolere se aiebat si quando 
 opificum anlelucana victus esset industrial’ 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE MAN. 
 
 85 
 
 of his body in the gymnasia. Neither had the chase 
 any charms for him. He disdained the amusements 
 enjoyed by companions of his age. Athenian orators 
 more than once drew unfavorable inferences from the 
 indifference of their adversaries for the accustomed 
 amusements of the Greeks. To pass the time pleas¬ 
 antly chatting before the bankers’ counters, in the per¬ 
 fumer’s shoj}, or in the'barber’s shop, was one of their 
 favorite pleasures. Aristogiton did not engage in these 
 pastimes. He lived a stranger to the pleasures of so¬ 
 ciety. His accuser did not forget to charge him of this 
 crime. Demosthenes likewise sought isolation for him¬ 
 self. To what end ? To accustom himself to the chi¬ 
 canery and to the artifices of a rhetorician greedy of 
 the goods of another. Thus speaks the accuser of 
 Ctesiplion. Plutarch gives curious, if not authentic, de¬ 
 tails of the studious practices of the stubborn wrestler. 
 His lialf-shaven head, his cave, his great mirror before 
 which he was wont to declaim, his sword suspended 
 over his shoulder to check its disagreeable shrugs, the 
 pebbles in his mouth, and, finally, the different painful 
 or whimsical exercises to correct the imperfections of 
 his voice, are at least proofs of the impression left 
 upon the ancients by a will power which has become 
 traditional. 
 
 Plutarch means that the youths should go to the 
 gymnasium and to the chase, exercises more ennobling 
 than fishing.* The latter has, however, one advan¬ 
 tage: it does not cause fatigue, which is, according to 
 Plato, the enemy of knowledge. Of these Demosthe- 
 
 * On the Education of Children. Cf. Animals of Land and Sea. 
 Apollo and Diana received their surnames from destroying wolves 
 and conquering stags. No god was ever named from exterminating 
 congres and surmullets. 
 
86 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 nes enjoyed neither the one nor the other. He cared 
 not to run in the forests like Hippolyte, and he devoted 
 his leisure hours to pleasures which the chaste friend 
 of Diana would have despised. Before his severity in 
 prosecuting his guardians had given him the surname 
 of Argas (a kind of serpent) his youth had received, 
 not from his nurse, but from fame, according to Æsclii- 
 nes, the name of Batcilus* The customs of his manly 
 age were not without reproach. Demosthenes’ differ¬ 
 ent speeches cut the characters of the gilded youth of 
 Athens to the quick. Perhaps the accuser of Conon 
 and Heæra has exaggerated these traits a little. 
 
 The eulogies conferred upon the family life of the 
 Athenians by Aristogiton’s adversary cannot be sus¬ 
 pected of exaggeration. 
 
 “ Naturally kind and indulgent toward one another, you 
 conduct yourselves in this city as do families in their homes. 
 One house contains a father, his sons, who have grown to 
 manhood, and perhaps their children. In these three genera¬ 
 tions there are necessarily numerous and essential differences 
 of taste: the young neither speak nor act like the old. And 
 yet, if the young people are observed, they desire in what¬ 
 ever they do to escape notice, or at least they clearly show 
 
 their intention to conceal themselves. If the 31d men, on 
 
 ✓ ' 
 
 their part, notice that the young are given too much to ex¬ 
 penditure, to wine, and to the pleasures of their age, they see 
 it without the appearance of seeing it. Thus each follows 
 his own tastes, and all goes well.”! 
 
 * Demosthenes’ busts have the lower lip raised against the gum, a 
 customary habit with stammerers. For a long time he was unable 
 to pronounce the letter R. His nurse might have designated by this 
 nick-name an effeminate stammering like that of the Incoyables. 
 Battos (whence j3drr aÀoç), king of Cyrcne, was famous for his 
 stammering. Æschines naturally adopted an interpretation less in¬ 
 nocent. 
 
 f This is an exaggeration of the Athenian quality praised by Thu- 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE MAN. 
 
 87 
 
 Timarchus is an incorrigible debauchee. How can 
 it be helped? Leave him to his evil propensities, with 
 this simple restriction: “With respect to those who 
 give chase to the young,— a prey always easy to cap¬ 
 ture,— compel them to turn themselves toward foreign¬ 
 ers and alien settlers. They will thus be able to sat¬ 
 isfy their passion without injuring you.”* Timarchus 
 would be a very bad citizen if he did not profit by so con¬ 
 ciliating a concession. Æschines endeavors to associ¬ 
 ate the names of Demosthenes and Timarchus. We 
 know what to think of these calumnies, but of calumny 
 something always remains. “If these fine garments, 
 these soft underclothes in which you are dressed when 
 you write orations against your friends, and which 
 cause them to pass into the hands of the judges, were 
 taken away from you, no one would know, I believe, 
 unless informed, whether these garments belonged to a 
 man or to a woman. Demosthenes, like Hyperides 
 and others, had easy manners, and participated in 
 recreations before which the old men of Athens closed 
 their eyes. However, he excepted wine from these 
 pleasures. Did he abstain from it out of taste or cal¬ 
 culation, and ought this proscription of wine to be added 
 to the voluntary ordeals which his desire to attain 
 eloquence imposed on him? Unlike Horace, water 
 was perhaps his Hippocrene. Cleon: “Do you wish 
 that I should tell you what has happened to you ? 
 You have, like so many others, gained a small case 
 against a foreigner. Did you mutter it sufficiently all 
 night, declaim it in the streets, recite it to every 
 comer ? Did you drink enough of water to inspire 
 
 cydides (ii, 37): a fine condition of social relations and indulgence of 
 good taste among a people who know how to live. 
 
 * Against Timarchus , § 195. f Against Timarchus , § 285. 
 
88 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 you?” The Butcher: 44 And wliat do you drink then 
 in order to be capable of astounding the stupefied city 
 with your clamors ? ”* Cleon follows Philocrates’ re¬ 
 gime. 64 He waters a fresh fish with a large jar of pure 
 wine.” Demosthenes’ method is different. He needs 
 more to calm than to animate himself. Eratosthenes 
 speaks of his bacchic (-apdftax/ov') frenzy; Demetrius 
 the Phalerean, of his 44 enthusiasm ” at the bar. What 
 would all this have been if he had loved his wine ? 
 Pythagoras proscribed the bean as contrary to the 
 serenity of philosophic meditation. Our orator like¬ 
 wise distrusts the exciting liquor of Bacchus, and his 
 good intention is turned against him. Water drinkers 
 are abominable. Demosthenes often heard this epithet 
 applied in connection with that of morose and coarse. 
 Solon, even in his old age, enjoyed the sweet gifts of 
 the gods. Demosthenes seemed never to unbend his 
 stern and imposing brow. A similar contrast marked 
 his whole life. His career gave proof that he pos¬ 
 sessed a sensibility accessible to human weakness, and 
 an austere firmness in mastering himself as soon as a 
 higher interest of his own choice imposed upon him its 
 duty. 
 
 This man, unsparing of himself, was always so to¬ 
 ward the enemies of his country. The bitter humor 
 aroused by his political foes was not at all surprising 
 in a citizen moved by the dangers of Athens, and by 
 the animosities of the unequal contest which he sus¬ 
 tained for her. The sad thoughts of his mind dark¬ 
 ened the traits of his character. This orator, with 
 careworn visage and evil predictions, will be treated 
 with curses after Chæronea. Before the disaster Æs- 
 cliines was contented to abuse his morose character 
 
 * Aristophanes, Knights. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE MAN. 
 
 89 
 
 and his gross manners. Wliat differences between 
 these two counsellors of the people! The one sport¬ 
 ive, amiable, has the smiles and indulgence of Phi- 
 linte. He has had the good taste never to trouble any 
 accountable person; he never banishes any person into 
 exile. He is easy, accommodating; he views things 
 on the agreeable side, and adapts himself to the times. 
 He loves Athens, the liberty of Athens, as Pliilinte 
 loves truth and virtue; a little less than his comforts, 
 and on condition that it will cost him nothing. De¬ 
 mosthenes is not, like him, a gallant man. He injures 
 the Macedonians in order to convince them that he is 
 their enemy; he insults Philip at the risk of implicat¬ 
 ing the city; he is brutal, ill-advised; he does not know 
 how to live. He has no heart; it is scarcely seven 
 days since his daughter, who first gave him the sweet 
 name of father, expired. Demosthenes, crowned with 
 flowers, dressed in a white robe, celebrates Philip’s 
 death in a public sacrifice ! He violates the most sa¬ 
 cred laws of nature and religion. He dares to say in 
 public that he believes himself bound more by the 
 duties of patriotism than by the rights of hospitality. 
 He causes to be put to torture an Oritian who was sus¬ 
 pected of high treason, and whom he had formerly 
 welcomed under his roof. He accuses his colleagues 
 in the embassy of prevarication, even after having par¬ 
 ticipated with them in the repast of the Prytaneum. 
 A blind enemy of Alexander, he persuades, even while 
 in exile, the Athenians to revolt. Ills obstinate resist¬ 
 ance is like that of a madman. * * * These traits de¬ 
 picted by Æscliines were intended to dishonor Demos¬ 
 thenes, but in fact they honor him. 
 
 Æscliines further calumniates him when he insinu¬ 
 ates that he was sold to the enemies of the republic. 
 
 4* 
 
90 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 In Demosthenes the citizen was irreproachable, if the 
 man was not. Like Mirabeau, Demosthenes loved 
 money, and for the same reasons. Plutarch reproaches 
 him for having increased his wealth on board of mer¬ 
 chantmen, which was then considered the greatest 
 usury.* On this point modern men are justly less 
 rigorous than the ancients were. Money is a com¬ 
 modity as well as anything else. Commerce with 
 money is therefore legitimate on land and sea. Plu¬ 
 tarch accuses Demosthenes of another charge, equally 
 trivial. The Athenian orator was never intrusted with 
 an important commission or command like Cicero. 
 Does the biographer wish us to understand that per¬ 
 haps he would have enriched himself like Yerres’ ac¬ 
 cuser, or that at the head of an army he would not 
 have been more scrupulous or sparing of others 1 prop¬ 
 erty than Diopithes or Timotheus?f These insinua¬ 
 tions should be withdrawn: opportunities are rarely 
 wanting to him who would offend. Æschines and 
 Philip’s well-paid friends have clearly proven it. De¬ 
 mosthenes was fond of luxury and its accompanying 
 pleasures; no one lias ever convicted him of having 
 betrayed his duties as a citizen in order to gratify his 
 inclinations.^: The stenographer’s eloquence sufficed 
 to delight him. Often has he himself in his speeches 
 stigmatized, in the name of his litigant, the greedy 
 venality of those who deal in orations. Æschines has 
 a right to censure him for deserving that his own in¬ 
 vectives against covetous orators should be applied to 
 himself; but is this gain, whatever may be thought of 
 
 * Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero , chap. 3. 
 
 f Oration on the Chersoncsus, and Against Timotlieus , passim. 
 
 X Æscliines insists upon the Eubœan affairs, but without proving 
 anything. 
 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE MAN. 
 
 91 
 
 it, comparable to that of Philocrates ? The author of 
 The Lives of Illustrious Men expressed regret, and 
 all share it, that Demosthenes was not sufficiently dar¬ 
 ing in war, nor u sufficiently guarded and fortified 
 against presents.” These two qualities would cer¬ 
 tainly have crowned his glory; but what his defects 
 have left to him is still grand; and as Plutarch has 
 said of him, if Demosthenes in some respects did not 
 escape the common vices of Athens, he was the most 
 honorable orator of his time with the exception of 
 Phocion. It was no small merit during the Macedo¬ 
 nian period to be, we will not say perfect, but even 
 moderately virtuous, — the only assumption Demosthe¬ 
 nes ever entertained.* 
 
 Eloquence was the great power at Athens, but too 
 often gold actuated it. Without mentioning the cor¬ 
 ruption of magistrates and judges (thus Chares through 
 his immense wealth escaped death which his colleague 
 Lysicles had already suffered), the orators of Athens 
 sold their eloquence and their silence in turn. Those 
 whose heads Alexander demanded owed their safety 
 to five talents which Demades accepted for shielding 
 them, by a skillful expedient, from the vengeance of 
 his friend, the Macedonian prince. In the case of 
 Harpalus,f this same Demades laughed at the money- 
 cold ascribed to Demosthenes. It is well known how 
 Philip paid his partisans for speaking or remaining 
 silent. lie became so accustomed to success over these 
 venal souls that he was filled with hatred toward the 
 upright counsellors of Athens. “I would blush to 
 
 * /xérpiov TzoXirrj v. (Pro Corona.) 
 
 f Harpalus fled from Asia to Athens (327) in the hope of escaping 
 Alexander’s wrath and enjoying the fruits of his extortions in peace. 
 He succeeded in bribing several orators, but not the city’s protection, 
 and had to flee to Crete. 
 
92 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 purchase the friendship of such men.” We have little 
 faith in a scruple of delicacy on the part of Philip. 
 If he did not seduce Demosthenes it was not because 
 of his disdain, but because he was unable. To bribe 
 Demosthenes was to terminate the war at once; but 
 if'the zealous patriot accepted gold from the Medes to 
 procure arms against the Macedonians, as the Euro¬ 
 pean powers unscrupulously received gold from Eng¬ 
 land with which to defeat Hapoleon, never did he 
 stain his hands with presents from his enemies. In 
 an oration * in which he succeeded, by force of reason 
 and elevated sentiments, in calming the Athenians wdio 
 were enraged against him, in the midst of the double 
 scourge of the plague and of the war, Pericles recalls 
 his principal claims to their confidence, and especially 
 his integrity,— superior to riches,— a rare quality, which 
 the historian insists is one of the causes of his long 
 power over the Athenians. “Pericles, as eminent by 
 his intelligence as by the respect shown him, mani¬ 
 festly invincible to the seduction of presents, governed 
 the multitude. He did not allow himself to be led by 
 it, but he led and guided it.” Demosthenes’ political 
 integrity was in like manner one of the secrets of his 
 strength against Philip and his influence over Athens. 
 
 “ If on all these occasions it is evident that I have foreseen 
 the future more clearly than others, I do not assume vanity, 
 nor do I flatter myself with the belief that I am possessed 
 of a remarkable sagacity. To two causes, Athenians, I will 
 attribute all the honor of my intelligence and presentiments: 
 the first is fortune; * * * the second the disinterestedness 
 with which.I judge and reason on all things. No; no man 
 can show a single present attached to my actions, to my 
 words and speeches in the administration of duty.” f 
 
 * Thucydides, ii, G0-G5. f Oration on the Peace, § 11. 
 
DEMOSTHENES — THE MAN. 
 
 93 
 
 Money is the offensive arm of the ambitious. All 
 usurpers establish their power on corruption. While 
 Philip was buying Greece rather than conquering her, 
 our orator’s integrity remained impenetrable to seduc¬ 
 tion. By that means he again acquired the right of 
 comparing himself to Pericles and claiming honor like 
 him. 
 
 “ If it is asked by what means Philip succeeded in all his 
 enterprises, everybody will answer, By his army, by his 
 presents, by the corruption of those who were at the head 
 of affairs. * * * In refusing his gold, I have conquered 
 Philip; for if the purchaser triumphs over the traitor who 
 sells himself, that man who remains incorruptible has tri¬ 
 umphed over the seducer. Athens, therefore, has been un¬ 
 conquered on the part of Demosthenes.* 
 
 Demosthenes several times made allusion to the re¬ 
 proach of timidity which was imputed to him. “He 
 is weak and without courage. Pie counsels war and 
 dares not propose it by decree ! ” In fact, he objects 
 to it in the fourth Philippic (341), and explains his 
 objection by motives of prudence. The fierce reply of 
 Ilegesippus on this occasion is well known: u But it is 
 war that you propose ! Yes, war, and with it mourn¬ 
 ings, public burials, funeral eulogies,— everything that 
 ought to make us free and save our necks from the 
 Macedonian yoke.” Demosthenes does not view it 
 in this light. He does not conceal his apprehension 
 of being treated, in case of failure, as traitors more 
 justly would be dealt with. During the previous year 
 (342f he extricated his cause from that of Æschines, 
 a prevaricating deputy, and disavowed the criminal 
 manoeuvres, in the expiation of which he feared that 
 he would see, in days of anger, his innocence entan- 
 
 * Pro Corona , § 247. 
 
94 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 glecl. In the third Philippic he calls to mind Eu- 
 phræus, the Oritian: “Rather die a thousand times 
 than complain like a coward to Philip and deliver up 
 any of your faithful orators.” Demosthenes did not 
 flatter himself in saying that he foresaw the future. 
 AEschines was to accuse him of ruining Greece, and 
 Alexander was to demand his head. From 352, in 
 the first Philippic, he declares himself resigned to suffer 
 everything if success deceives his expectation, and at 
 the same time he would wish to be assured, he said, 
 that it would be as advantageous to himself to give 
 good counsels as to the Athenians to receive them. 
 Notwithstanding his uncertainty he gives his coun¬ 
 sels, for he knows them to be useful. “Audacity 
 is often the child of ignorance, and hesitation that 
 of deliberate consideration. The truly great mind is 
 that which clearly perceives wherein is pleasure and 
 pain, and which, in the meantime, never turns away 
 from dangers.” * Demosthenes saw the danger. With¬ 
 out fear or boasting he felt it approaching and boldly 
 faced it. In these conditions the cautious prudence 
 of certain apparent timidities exalts, if it can be said, 
 the courage of principles and general conduct. 
 
 According to Æscliines, Demosthenes was wanting in 
 assurance before the multitudes ( 'detXùv -pôç zobç o/Xou^. 
 
 “As regards bis courage I have only a word to say: If he 
 did not acknowledge his cowardice and you were not con- 
 - vineed of it as he is, I would stop for a moment to prove it 
 to you. But since he himself recognized it in our assemblies, 
 and since you do not in the least doubt it, it only remains 
 for me to remind you of the laws directed against cowards.” f 
 
 Thus an enemy could describe him. Some lines of 
 * Thucydides, ii, 40. f Against Ctesiphon , § 175. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 TIIE MAN. 
 
 95 
 
 the oration In Midiam imply a discreet acknowledg¬ 
 ment of the facility with which he faltered. 
 
 Midias endeavored to obtain from him a nonsuit at 
 the cost of gold. At the sight of the banker Blepæus 
 approaching Demosthenes, the fear of seeing him ac¬ 
 cept a settlement provoked the people to such clamors 
 that the terrified orator left his mantle and hastened 
 his flight, “almost naked, in his shirt,” before the pur¬ 
 suing financier. To fly before gold and shouts is in¬ 
 deed characteristic of a man very easily influenced. 
 Demosthenes was impressible to an extraordinary de¬ 
 gree. He did not always possess that firmness which 
 permits one, without stumbling, to look in the face 
 the situations in which coolness is necessary to escape 
 from all danger. Demosthenes had a nervous and 
 sensitive nature. Æs chin es compares him to a woman 
 on account of the vivacity of his sentiments, and re¬ 
 proaches him for weeping more easily than others 
 laugh. He was, as often happens, very firm, very 
 decided, in his ideas, but timid in his actions. A little 
 was sufficient to throw him off his balance. The nil ad- 
 mirari , which constitutes the virtue and happiness of 
 Horace’s sage, was not his lot. He was a man aston¬ 
 ished at the most trilling things. How much he suf¬ 
 fered from this weakness ! Sent on an embassy to 
 Alexander, then encamped under the walls of Thebes, 
 he was seized with fear and returned with the precip¬ 
 itation of a “fugitive.” Appalled at the march of 
 Alexander on Thebes after its revolt, the Athenians 
 instructed deputies to announce to Philip’s son that 
 they recognized his hegemony and that they decreed 
 him divine honors. The author of the Philippics had 
 not the courage to cross the Cithæron and to place at 
 the feet of the prince whom he had mocked the proof 
 
96 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 of his country’s and liis own humiliation. Dare we 
 blame him for it ? If the sentiment which inspired 
 Demosthenes’ retreat was such as we believe it was, 
 Æscliines’ raillery is rather a praise than a reproach 
 to him. But why so freely accept a mission if his 
 courage to accomplish the task was not assured ? De¬ 
 mosthenes feared, perhaps, that he would falter before 
 the young conqueror, as he had done before Philip. 
 In the presence of the Macedonian’s court, and with¬ 
 out the excuse of the military apparel which was des¬ 
 tined one day to paralyze the flowing eloquence of the 
 defender of Milo, the deputy from Athens lost his 
 memory and stammered, a disgrace obvious to an 
 orator who was Æscliines’ colleague. That nature 
 which Demosthenes subdued at the tribune of the 
 Pnyx was predominant at Pella. Others before him 
 and less timid than he had experienced similar failures. 
 Alcibiades was wanting in self-confidence at the tribune, 
 and often broke down. One day, while haranguing 
 the people, he let a quail escape. The Athenians ran 
 after it, caught it, and returned it to him. Did Alcibi¬ 
 ades, wdio was fond of diversions, premeditate this very 
 thing in order to conceal the treachery of his memory 
 and to give himself time to think ? An idol of the 
 Athenians, he well knew that he was not speaking^ 
 before hostile hearers. Demosthenes,.in the presence 
 of Philip, lost his self-possession as if he were before 
 an enemy. 
 
 liis timidity was too manifest to think of concealing 
 it; he could only essay to apologize for it. 
 
 “ Hardy, shameless, impudent, I am not, and do not desire 
 to become so. Nevertheless, I esteem myself much more 
 courageous than these intrepid statesmen without shame. To 
 judge, to confiscate, to distribute the property of others, to 
 
DEMOSTHENES-TIIE MAN. 
 
 97 
 
 accuse, without regard to the interests of the country, does 
 not demand any courage. When one has for a pledge of 
 his own safety the faculty of speaking and of governing to 
 please you, boldness is without danger. But, for your good, 
 to resist your wishes, to give you advice not agreeable, but 
 always the most useful to you, to follow a policy in which 
 fortune rules more often than sound calculation, and never¬ 
 theless to declare myself responsible both for fortune and 
 calculation,— this, I say, proves a man of courage.”* 
 
 Æschines taunts him for his cowardice. And didst 
 thou not, replies Demosthenes, during the prosperous 
 days of our country “live the life of a hare? Fear¬ 
 ful, trembling, thou hast constantly expected to be 
 struck and chastised for the crimes with which thy 
 conscience has reproached thee. At the hour of our 
 misfortunes thy assurance has struck every eye.”f 
 Demosthenes’ timorous humor discloses the charac¬ 
 ter of the citizen, resolved to brave the dangers con¬ 
 nected with the political role which honor had com¬ 
 manded him to choose. Was that orator cowardly 
 who, assailed by sarcasms, by cries, by menaces, and 
 at the risk of being “torn into pieces,” repulsed with 
 his inflexible views and patriotic zeal the assaults of 
 beasts ( Oypia ) which had been let loose on him ? Some¬ 
 times he seemed to hesitate to commit himself. What 
 is the use of incurring enmities which do not profit the 
 commonwealth ? But when solemn circumstances de¬ 
 manded it, as on the day after Elatea, and on the eve 
 of the Theban alliance, far from sparing himself, he 
 devoted himself entirely to the common interest. Civil 
 courage is valuable at a time when the country is in 
 danger and summons us, and when the sentiment of 
 duty binds a citizen to bear alone, or more than all 
 
 * Oration on the Chersonesus , § 68. f Pro Corona , § 263. 
 
98 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 others, the hazards and responsibilities of the future. 
 Cicero, consoled by Cato, displayed this courage against 
 Catiline; Demosthenes displayed it against Philip with 
 no other ally or inspirer than the genius of the Athens 
 of the past. The comic poet Timocles pictures De¬ 
 mosthenes as a warrior in battle array, a u Briareus, 
 an eater of lances and catapults.”* The irony is keen 
 when we consider that this warrior had fled at Chæ- 
 ronea. Here it would be pleasing to use the eraser and 
 draw the curtain. Nevertheless, if Bourdaloue marked 
 the six circumstances in extenuation of u the eclipse” 
 of Louis of Bourbon at the head of the Spanish army, 
 it is equitable, not to palliate Demosthenes’ fault, but 
 to show why his compatriots pardoned him. On this 
 point Æschines, a brave soldier, had fine play against 
 the warlike orator who deserted his post. The law of 
 Solon condemns to civil degradation the coward who 
 throws away his buckler; and he, — he claims a crown! 
 In vain Demosthenes, in order to escape his adver¬ 
 sary’s blows, intrenches himself behind his oratorical 
 ability: at the tribune, in the embassies, in the public 
 councils, I have served the state better than any other 
 man. The minister of Athens has always done his 
 duty; let the statesman acquit the soldier. This apol¬ 
 ogy is more adroit than solid, and his answer to Æs¬ 
 chines’ sarcasm in this proverbial verse, which Aulus 
 Gellius puts in his mouth, is truly characteristic,— 
 
 “ He who fights and runs away, 
 
 Will live to fight another day,” — 
 
 a verse which the poet Horace, without doubt, agreed 
 to on his return from Philippi. “ Yes, my friends, I 
 fled, but with you.” Thus Xenocrates, not merely a 
 
 * Fragments of Comic Poets. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-TIIE MAN. 
 
 99 
 
 soldier but a general, without further troubling him¬ 
 self, replied to his companions in the rout. In like 
 manner Demosthenes followed the general rout; he 
 fled from the battle-field, but in fact he returned to 
 his duty. While he was stealing away conquered from 
 the arrows of the Macedonians, what was Æscliines 
 doing? Æscliines has neglected to tell us. Was he 
 behind Philip’s army, awaiting the issue of the combat, 
 hoping, perhaps, for the defeat which must necessarily 
 strengthen his party ? He himself took care to give 
 us in detail an account of his services in the campaigns 
 previous to the year 350. Nowhere has the glorious 
 soldier of Thamines, crowned for his bravery against 
 the Eubœans,* made allusion to his participation in 
 the battle of Chæronea. It would have been very 
 difficult to repulse with his arms an enemy whose 
 complaisant policy had prepared the road. Demos¬ 
 thenes is worthy of blame, but we are not whiling 
 that Æscliines should address him on this subject. 
 Æscliines did nothing to avert the disaster, nothing to 
 repair it. Even after Chæronea, Demosthenes was a 
 better and more useful citizen than Æscliines. De¬ 
 mosthenes’ safety served Athens better than if he had 
 suffered a courageous death. It was he, with Ilyper- 
 ides, who organized the resistance and forced Philip, 
 by the city’s resolute attitude, to treat her with care 
 and respect. Viewing things in a certain light, all the 
 works of genius combined are not worth one good 
 action. And yet, if one of these works is fitted to 
 inspire us with virtuous acts, can we not show some 
 indulgence to the weakness which made it possible ? 
 The author of the Oration on the Crown did not fight 
 like a hero, but that oration inspires heroism. It 
 
 * Æscliines, Embassy , § 1G7. 
 
100 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 would have been a great loss to Athens if the trial on 
 the crown had not occurred. For if she saved the 
 honor of the Hellenes by fighting at Chæronea, she 
 consecrated her own by justifying Ctesiphon’s decree. 
 There are fortunate mistakes against which posterity 
 has not always the courage to protest. Let us pardon 
 this confession. We are very well satisfied that Demos¬ 
 thenes ill sustained his maxims of war to the knife on 
 the field of battle. His death would have confirmed liis 
 orations, but how dearly would this confirmation have 
 been bought ! The Athenians themselves, if consulted, 
 would not have wished it at that price; they owed 
 gratitude to the counsellor of the city for the generous 
 words which had awakened their zeal. Like the The¬ 
 bans, they were touched with this magnanimous trait. 
 u Thebans, you refuse to give us your alliance; very 
 well, we will fight alone. Only permit us to pass over 
 your land to go to Philip! How many times did 
 they applaud his manly counsels without having the 
 fortitude to follow them? Demosthenes, in his turn, 
 forgot what he had said concerning the duty of dying 
 for his country, and his fellow citizens had the gener¬ 
 osity not to remember it. The orator of the Philip¬ 
 pics conceived courage without realizing it. Lie mag¬ 
 nificently traced the idea of it, as J. J. Rousseau 
 adored virtue, with a Platonic passion. Human weak- 
 
 * Æscliines {Against Ctesiphon) lias the unskillfulness to find fault 
 with this eloquence, worthy of the sublime apostrophe of Ajax to 
 Jupiter: 
 
 “ Oh, King! oh, Father! hear my humble prayer: 
 
 Dispel this cloud, the light of heaven restore; 
 
 Give me to see, and Ajax asks no more ! - 
 If Greece must perish, we thy will obey, 
 
 But let us perish in the light of day.” (Iliad, xvii, G45 et seq.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE MAN. 
 
 101 
 
 ness will always justify Montaigne’s saying: “¥e 
 must consider the sermon and preacher separately.” 
 
 Never would Demosthenes have made a public con¬ 
 fession of his timidity if he had not known that he 
 could do it with impunity. Athens even gave him 
 remarkable proofs of pardon. It would not have been 
 surprising, immediately after the disaster, if the people 
 persecuted him with their resentments as the author 
 of the public distress. On the contrary, the whole 
 city turned toward him. It adopted his decrees, it 
 spurned the accusers who wished to profit by the pub¬ 
 lic misfortunes and overwhelm him,— a conduct equally 
 honorable to Athens and to the orator. Very soon 
 the city confirmed its esteem for him by a testimony 
 still more striking. Let Demosthenes himself speak. 
 To quote him here offers him an opportune chance to 
 avenge himself: 
 
 “ When the peopie came to elect a person to make the 
 funeral oration over the slain immediately after the battle, 
 they would not elect you, although you were proposed, al¬ 
 though you are so eminent in speaking; they would not 
 elect Demades, who had just concluded the peace, nor Hege¬ 
 mon, no, nor any other of your faction. They elected me. 
 And when you and Pythocles rose up (let Heaven bear wit¬ 
 ness with what abandoned impudence!), when jmu charged 
 me with the same crimes as now, when you pursued me with 
 the same virulence and scurrilitv; all this served but to con- 
 firm the people in their resolution of electing me. You know 
 too well the reason of this preference; yet hear it from me. 
 They were perfectly convinced both of that faithful zeal and 
 alacrity with which I had conducted their affairs, and of that 
 iniquity which you and your party had discovered, by pub¬ 
 licly avowing, at a time when your country was unfortunate, 
 what you had denied with solemn oaths while her interests 
 
102 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 flourished. And it was a natural conclusion that the men 
 whom our public calamities emboldened to disclose their senti¬ 
 ments, had ever been our enemies, and now were our de¬ 
 clared enemies. Besides, they rightly judged that he who 
 was to speak in praise of the deceased, to grace their noble 
 actions, could not, in decency, be the man who had lived and 
 conversed in strict connection with those who had fought 
 against them; that they who, at Macedon, had shared in 
 the feast and joined in the triumph over the misfortunes 
 of Greece with those by whose hands the slaughter had been 
 committed, should not receive a mark of honor on their re¬ 
 turn to Athens. Nor did our fellow citizens look for men 
 who could act the part of mourners, but for one deeply and 
 sincerely affected. And such sincerity they found in them¬ 
 selves and me; not the least degree of it in you. I was then 
 appointed^ you and your associates were rejected. Nor was 
 this the determination of the people only; those parents also 
 and brethren of the deceased who were appointed to attend 
 the funeral rites expressed the same sentiments. For as they 
 were to give the banquet, which, agreeably to ancient usage, 
 was to be held at his house who had been most strictly con¬ 
 nected with the deceased, they gave it at my house, and with 
 reason, for in point of kindred each had his connections 
 with some among the slain much nearer than mine; but with 
 the whole body none was more intimately connected; for he 
 who was most concerned in their safety and success must 
 surely feel the deepest sorrow at their unhappy and unmerited 
 misfortune.” 
 
 Bdelycleon, an advocate of Labes, excuses a thievish 
 dog in these terms: He is a poor ignorant brute. 
 “Pardon me, he cannot play on the lyre.” The re¬ 
 mark is comic and profound. Yice has often other 
 roots than ignorance, but it is also often born of ig¬ 
 norance. The followers of Plato only erred by exag¬ 
 geration when they confounded science and wisdom, 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE MAN. 
 
 103 
 
 in other respects a less dangerous prejudice than that 
 of the Cartesians attributing errors to the will. Igno¬ 
 rance is not alone the origin of culpability. One is 
 born a fool, another becomes one; the latter is culpa¬ 
 ble, since he has perverted his nature. The former is 
 innocent because lie is from birth what lie is. The 
 gods made him so. Antiquity was very indulgent 
 toward moral infirmities attributable to nature. Want 
 of courage was of this number, and this consideration 
 sometimes tempered the severity of punishment. Isoc¬ 
 rates never dared to mount the rostrum, and he spent 
 ten years in composing one oration. He was evident¬ 
 ly interested in placing eloquence above all things. 
 He also declared that it gave a man more honor than 
 wealth, courage ., and the other gifts of fortune and 
 nature. The author of the panegyric on Athens has 
 chiseled out gems. He is a goldsmith who pleads for 
 his art. He may be right, but this disdain for courage, 
 a pure gift of nature, is remarkable, for it implies in¬ 
 dulgence to him who does not possess it. This dispo¬ 
 sition of the ancients to condemn the weaknesses of 
 nature gave to Demosthenes a distinction at which the 
 moderns are at first astonished. Midias, said he, will 
 become humble in order to disarm your justice; be 
 so much the more inexorable to him. 
 
 “For if incapable of curbing his pride,— lie had been so 
 haughty and violent all his life by the power of nature and 
 fate,— it would be just to moderate your rigor; but if, capa¬ 
 ble to adapt himself, whenever he wishes, to moderation, he 
 has adopted a contrary plan of life, it is very evident that 
 after having deluded you to-day he will become to-morrow 
 the same man you know him to be.” 
 
 This is saying: u Strike Midias without pity, he 
 is not incorrigible”; and if he were manifestly in- 
 
104 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 corrigible, would it be necessary to save him from 
 punishment? Well authenticated incorrigibility is an 
 argument which, among modern nations, the advo¬ 
 cates of capital punishment endeavor to establish. 
 On the contrary, it forced the ancients in certain 
 cases to use clemency. “There are passions which 
 emanate from nature. Thus a son, appearing before 
 the tribunal for having struck his father, defended 
 himself by saying: 4 But he also struck his father!’ 
 and he was acquitted; for it appeared to the judges 
 that it was a natural failing which was in the blood, 
 
 < puffr/.ijv â/xapriav." 
 
 “ Intemperance seems to be more voluntary than coward¬ 
 ice ; it also makes us the object of more legitimate re¬ 
 proaches. * * * Cowardice does not seem to be voluntary in 
 all cases, when they are examined in detail. It is not it¬ 
 self grievous, but the circumstances under which it is pro¬ 
 duced (the fear of servitude and death) cause pain which 
 places man beyond his control; it compels him to lay down 
 his arms or to commit other acts as unbecoming ( àa^ijovsiv ). 
 This is why it appears to be real violence,”* 
 
 like the act of striking his parents by virtue of a heredi¬ 
 tary disposition. It would be easy for us to multiply 
 these citations. They all prove that, in the opinion 
 of the Stagirite, man is not responsible for the physical 
 emotions that actuate him, nor for acts provoked by 
 those emotions. There are many forces which habit¬ 
 ually triumph over human nature, and consequently 
 the motives or intemperances to which we yield, shrink 
 from the judgment of morality and human justice. 
 A madman tears out his hair and gnaws it,—is he 
 to be blamed for yielding to the pleasure of this 
 phantasy ? Ao, no more than he should be praised 
 
 * Nicomachecin Ethics , iii, 13. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE MAN. 
 
 105 
 
 for controlling it, or at least victory or defeat are 
 of very little importance here; for they depend almost 
 entirely upon the intensity, more or less great, of 
 the physical impression. Now, natural passions are 
 as excusable as unhealthy intemperances. 
 
 Here, then, is a formal consecration of the body’s 
 triumph over the soul, of destiny over will. All is 
 reduced to the knowledge of knowing with what com¬ 
 plexion each is born. Gall had predecessors among 
 the ancients.* Metoscopy and physiognomy were 
 the legitimate children of a belief in fatality; this 
 prejudice was so strong that it inspired JEscliines with 
 scruples against reproaching Demosthenes for his 
 cowardice,— a trait for which nature alone was re¬ 
 sponsible. “It w r ill perhaps be surprising,” said he, 
 “ that we should prosecute a man for a vice attributable 
 to nature (<pu<jzioq ypacpai).” And in fact if natural dis¬ 
 positions are sovereign in this respect, is it logical 
 to bring men controlled by them before the courts? 
 Was Isocrates, then, justified in stigmatizing the in¬ 
 nate baseness of the Barbarians, or Demosthenes in 
 doing honor to the Athenians for having obeyed the 
 generous impulses of their natural character ? The 
 ancients, in general, under the weight of dogmas and 
 fatality, ill-knew and ill-defined human liberty. Aris¬ 
 totle attributed it to original inclinations; his theory 
 opens the door to the convenient excuse of necessity, f 
 
 * See Aristotle, History of Animals i, 9, and the Elder Pliny (Book 
 xi, 114), here a compiler of the Stagirite and of Trogus Pompeius. 
 
 f “I think that there does not exist, that there never has existed, 
 any art capable of making men who are horn depraved conform to 
 justice and virtue.” (Isocrates.) Seneca’s maxim, Arsest bonumfieri , is 
 nearer the truth. “ With necessity all is well ” ; this is the conclusion 
 of grave Pindar celebrating the ex-voto of a happy lover, and an hun¬ 
 dred young courtesans brought by Xeneplion to the sacred grove of 
 
106 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 We cannot absolutely say with Socrates that cour¬ 
 age, no more than virtue, is a science. For courage, 
 in a great measure, depends on temperament; but 
 are flesh and blood the ruling power in man ? The 
 sovereignty of instinct prevents perfectness in ani¬ 
 mals. Never will the hare of the fabulist be a thunder¬ 
 bolt of war, whatever he may think of it, even by 
 comparison. But liberty gives to man the power of 
 ruling his physical complexion. Socrates, by his 
 confessions, justified Zopyrus, the Lavater of his 
 times; but the vigor of his mind surmounted nature. 
 Whoever is born without courage ought to acquire 
 it. Turenne felt his carcass agitated on the battle-field; 
 he ruled it by throwing it into the greatest danger.* 
 The man of courage conducts his body where he 
 pleases, and moulds it to his liking. Did not De¬ 
 mosthenes conquer rebellious organs ? Did he not 
 resist, at his will, the allurement of pleasure and ac¬ 
 quire his eloquence by the power of his will ? So 
 strongly organized a mind was in all respects worthy 
 of repairing nature’s work. In a city where the poets 
 (Æschylus and Sophocles) skillfully handled the lyre 
 
 Cypris. Pindar here speaks like an oracle: “There is in Pliocis a 
 temple to Hercules Misogynes, and its priest is bound to be chaste 
 during the year of his ministry. Thus old men are ordinarily chosen 
 as priests. In later times, a young man of noble birth and mild 
 temper secured the priesthood. He was at the time in love with a 
 young lady whom lie took great care to shun. One day she came 
 to surprise him at the hour of repose, after the dance and festival- 
 lie vais unfortunate enough to forget himself. Seized with trouble 
 and fear he ran toward the oracle, and inquired if there was any 
 means by which he could expiate his crime. He received the fol¬ 
 lowing answer: The god 'pardons all that is necessary .” (Plutarch, 
 Why Pythia no longer gives her oracles in verse.) 
 
 * “Thou tremblest, carcass! Thou wouldst tremble much more if 
 thou knewest where I am about, to conduct thee.” 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE MAN. 
 
 107 
 
 and sword in tlieir turn, he could have united the 
 two qualities necessary to a Grecian statesman.* lie 
 ought to have done it; he was competent to do 
 it. Ilis entire life, save Chæronea, and his death 
 prove it. Isocrates, according to tradition, punished 
 himself for his great illusions by permitting himself 
 to perish of starvation. Euphræus, a clear-sighted 
 patriot, a ridiculed prophet, “cut his throat,” and 
 thereby proved his sincerity. Demosthenes preferred 
 a bitter struggle to a fortunate submission. This 
 timid man braved Philip and Alexander; he pro¬ 
 voked Antipater’s deadly wrath. Was this the con¬ 
 duct of a man without courage f In the silence of 
 moral deliberation, face to face with honesty, his 
 soul, inaccessible to fear, yielded to the calls of 
 duty.;); In the midst of the unaccustomed clash of 
 arms, his body regained its empire, and the great 
 emotion of combat, which sometimes makes cowards 
 forget their fear, deprived him of his firmness. The 
 Athenians pardoned this surprise of the senses; let 
 us regret it without branding him with injurious re¬ 
 proaches which his enemies lavished upon him. Let 
 us rather reflect on the grief by which the patriot’s 
 soul was certainly penetrated at that moment when, 
 deceived in his dearest hopes, he quitted the battle¬ 
 field on which the liberty of the ILellenes was en¬ 
 tombed forever. 
 
 * MûOcwze prjTÏjp e/isvac TTp-qy.zrjpd zs è’pyajv. Iliad, ix, 443; Ora- 
 tovem verborum actoremque rerum. (Cicero.) 
 
 f When the Macedonian’s assassins, at the threshold of Neptune’s 
 temple, were about to kill him and he asked of them a few moments’ 
 respite, they insulted him; they were ignorant of what he was about 
 to do. (Plutarch, Life of Demosthenes, chap. 29.) 
 
 X Too zà ôéovza -utsîv opprjv. 
 
108 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Thirteen years later (325) Demosthenes withdrew 
 from his native soil, vanquished this time by his ene¬ 
 mies’ hatred. Condemned at the trial of Harpalus to 
 pay a tine of fifty talents, then thrown into prison as 
 insolvent, he succeeded in escaping from it and depart¬ 
 ing from Attica. He could undoubtedly have found 
 relief from the chagrin of exile in the consciousness 
 of his devotion to the Athenians and in the thought 
 of their ingratitude. Nevertheless his eyes could not 
 turn toward Attica without shedding tears. Plutarch 
 blames him for having shown such manifestations of 
 weakness during his exile, ill according with the fiery 
 energy of his administration. This tenderness was not 
 at all surprising in so sensitive a soul. Dishonored 
 and separated from Athens, Demosthenes did not con¬ 
 ceal his affliction, but his grief remained dignified. He 
 submitted to the unjust arrest by his country with a 
 filial respect which recalls the Crito. 
 
 “ Do not think that these orations have inspired me with 
 anger. I do not wish to he irritated against you, but com¬ 
 plaint offers a kind of solace to the victims of injustice, as 
 weeping does to the sick. I have affection for you, which I 
 might wish }^ou had for me. Such has been, such ever will 
 be, my maxim. From the beginning I thought that every 
 man connected with public affairs, if he was a good citizen, 
 ought to hold in respect to all members of the city, the feel¬ 
 ings of a son toward his parents. He will hope to find them 
 as equitable as possible, but he will bear with them, such as 
 they are, with a benevolent resignation. Defeat in such a 
 case is a grand and honorable victory in the eyes of the wise. 
 Be happy.” * 
 
 Demosthenes’ piety toward liis country was natural¬ 
 ly associated with piety toward the gods. At first a 
 
 * Third Letter, § 10. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE MAN. 
 
 109 
 
 fugitive at Troezen, he leaves this place for a safer 
 asylum, Neptune’s temple at Calauria. “ Respect 
 toward the god will, I hope, furnish me a safeguard. 
 And yet how do I know ? When we are at the mercy 
 of another, we live from day to day without ever being 
 assured of the morrow.” These presentiments were 
 justified. At the moment when Antipater’s soldiers, 
 conducted by an old comedian, Archias, surnamed the 
 exile-hunter (<puyadoOr / paç'), invested the sanctuary where 
 Demosthenes had fled, the great man at first thought 
 that he ought not to desecrate the god’s threshold. 
 He then sucked the poison from his pen, which was 
 to assure him a franchise more certain than that of 
 Neptune’s temple. After this he arose. 
 
 “Now,” said he, “you may act the part of Creon* in the 
 play as soon as you please, and cast out this carcass of mine 
 unburied. For my part, 0 gracious Neptune! I quit thy 
 temple with my breath within me, but Antipater and the 
 Macedonians would not have scrupled to profane it with 
 murder.” 
 
 Demosthenes succumbed under the enemies of 
 Greece, and he fell in protecting his country’s re¬ 
 ligion. 
 
 The foresight of this unworthy end of a generous 
 life sometimes inspired him with bitter feelings. Young 
 men frequently visited him in his exile and sought his 
 counsels, but he dissuaded them from public life. 
 
 “ If at the outset two roads had been proposed to me, the 
 one leading to the tribune and assemblies, and the other 
 direct to death, and that I could have foreseen the evils, 
 fears, jealousies, calumnies, and struggles inseparable from 
 public life, I would have chosen the road to death.” 
 
 * Alluding to that passage in the Antigone of Sophocles where 
 Creon forbids the body of Polynices to be buried. 
 
110 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 If devotion to one’s country was always recom¬ 
 pensed, no man could have deserved a happier death. 
 Cicero, himself a victim to the patriotic ardor of his 
 Philippics , sketched from Plato the outlines of a good 
 citizen.* Disinterested devotion, which is the prin¬ 
 cipal characteristic of the good citizen, was Demos¬ 
 thenes’ eminent virtue. U I am passing my life in 
 giving you counsels, which place me lower in your 
 estimation than many others, but which would make 
 you great if you would follow them. I can undoubt¬ 
 edly speak thus without exciting envy. No, I cannot 
 reconcile the character of the true patriot with a policy 
 which would readily place me in the first rank among 
 you and you in the last rank in Greece; but by the 
 administration of faithful orators the country ought to 
 prosper, and their duty to all is at all times to pro¬ 
 pose, not the easiest measure, but the best. Common 
 instinct will suffice to propose the first, the wise ad¬ 
 vice of a good citizen ought to conduct us toward the 
 second.” f 
 
 II. The Citizen. —Power is the test of character (a 
 saying of Bias). Demosthenes sustained this test with 
 honor. The man of the people, as he calls himself in 
 an exordium, was the most useful servant of the peo¬ 
 ple whom he wished to save. Faithful to a promise 
 made to the judges of Apliobus, “scarcely had he 
 grown from infancy ” when he contributed and sup¬ 
 ported the public charges. When a man, he aided the 
 state not only by his counsels, but also by his funds. 
 He ecpiipped three galleys for the expeditions to Eu¬ 
 boea, to the Hellespont, and to Byzantium; he turned 
 eight talents into the public treasury; he ransomed 
 
 * Be OJiciis, i, 25. f Oration on the Chersonesus, § 72. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE CITIZEN. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Athenian prisoners in Macedonia; lie gave doweries to 
 poor daughters, and went hail for insolvent citizens. 
 After Chæronea Demosthenes alone furnished three of 
 the ten talents appropriated for repairing the walls. 
 He wasted his fortune on private individuals and on 
 the state to such an extent that he was unable in his 
 turn to pay the fine imposed upon him by the Areopa¬ 
 gus. But these were not the claims which he believed 
 he ought to plead with his fellow citizens: he did not 
 imitate the selfish orators who preferred their own in¬ 
 terest with the people and with Philip to the safety of 
 the state. It is in the following that he gloried:—he 
 always contended with them and refuted them with 
 boldness,— among others Python of Byzantium, the 
 Macedonians’ regular ambassador, and Pytheas of Ar¬ 
 cadia, a treacherous democrat in the pay of Philip. 
 While these mercenaries were stirring up hatreds, ce¬ 
 menting discord among the cities, Demosthenes was 
 laboring to efface hostilities, to foment coalitions, and 
 to conclude alliances. Greece was still less united 
 against the Macedonians than she had been against the 
 Barbarians; the motto, each one in his own house , each 
 one for himself \ had then become general. And so, 
 instead of all contending together and at the same 
 time, she exhausted herself in isolated a;id successive 
 efforts. Athens fought at Chæronea in 338, Thebes 
 revolted in 335, Sparta with Agis struck for deliver¬ 
 ance in 330. Each of the capital cities contended 
 alone and at its own time; no powerful movement in 
 unison. 
 
 These practices of individual efforts, so fatal to Hel¬ 
 lenic interests, were instinctive among the Greeks. 
 The cities, in their turn leaders of the hegemony, con¬ 
 tributed to establish them. 4 4 It is of importance to 
 
112 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 our city that Thebes and Lacedæmon do not become 
 too powerful; that the first should have to contend 
 against Pliocis, the second against other enemies. 
 These are the conditions of our security and of our 
 greatness.” Demosthenes, in 352, had not yet seen that 
 these maxims, favorable to the preeminence of his own 
 city, were preparing the overthrow of Greece; later 
 he strove to reunite what political selfishness had 
 studied to sever. What Athens had done for her own 
 aggrandizement Philip used against her. His aim was 
 to divide; Demosthenes’, to reconcile. The Hellenic 
 family, a privileged race, endowed with the national 
 qualities of Europe and Asia, might have been able, if 
 united into one state, to rule the universe.* Demos¬ 
 thenes did not dream of universal rule for her; fortu¬ 
 nate if she found power to sever herself from Philip’s 
 embrace. On the ground of reconciliation the orator 
 succeeded once in conquering; he triumphed over the 
 mutual antipathy of Athens and Thebes, and united 
 them against the invader. This alliance had for a long 
 time been the dream of far-sighted citizens. Æs chi¬ 
 nes names six political persons who, before Demosthe¬ 
 nes, had endeavored to bring it about, but none suc¬ 
 ceeded. “ The occasion, fear, and want” compelled 
 the Thebans to accept it: they saw war at their gates. 
 Demosthenes, said Æschines, cannot therefore claim 
 the honor. He did, however, claim it; to him alone 
 was due an unhoped for success which caused Philip’s 
 star to grow pale for a moment, and which the orator 
 considered the grandest triumph of his life. 
 
 Demosthenes’ indefatigable activity embraced all di¬ 
 visions of the state: marine, land forces, finances, 
 and the administration. He is always in the breach; 
 
 * Aristotle, Politics , iv, 6. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE CITIZEN. 
 
 113 
 
 at tlie least attempt of Philip he proposes either em¬ 
 bassies or expeditions. If Philip sends envoys, De¬ 
 mosthenes refutes them. If Philip hires negotiators 
 at Athens, Demosthenes unmasks them. When Philip 
 sends an emissary, Antiphon, to burn the arsenals of 
 the Piræus, Demosthenes, ever on the watch, seizes 
 him and has him condemned to death. A watchful 
 patriot, he anticipates Philip, and reveals his plans. 
 He can anticipate and foresee all. He is not one of 
 those experts who, while serving the commonwealth, 
 guard their retreats and fortify themselves beforehand 
 against the accidents of the future. He gives himself 
 up to his task without consideration or after-thought; 
 he has no other care than his duty and his country’s 
 safety. He alone provides for all. He proposes a 
 resolution, draws up the decree, and charges himself 
 with its execution.* He follows the Macedonian step 
 by step; he throws himself in the way of all his de¬ 
 signs; he arrests his course at Ambracia, and again at 
 
 * The spirit of the Athenian democracy was equality of rights 
 and duties, whence the distribution of public functions by lot, 
 the obligation of not tilling important offices several times in 
 succession, and finally the distribution of public authority: several 
 citizens share the different parts of the same political action. One 
 proposes, a second has it decreed, a third executes. The duties as¬ 
 signed in certain modern constitutions to the cabinet, to parliament, 
 and to the executive power, are divided among three citizens or three 
 groups of citizens. The Athenians found a double advantage in this 
 distribution of rôles. The honor of the enterprise, in case of suc¬ 
 cess, did not fall to one alone: in case of failure the responsibilities 
 were shared by several. Demosthenes sometimes recoiled from the 
 responsibility of a decree, and his enemies attributed this prudence 
 to his timidity. Sometimes, also, in pressing dangers, when no one 
 dared to share it with him, he took all upon himself. He took into his 
 own hand all powers, as he did at the time of the Theban alliance: rov 
 (.ruMrjfidrjv à~â(7aq ràç 'AOrjvrjaiv apyaq, apyovra. ( Against Ctesi- 
 phon.) 
 
 5* 
 
114 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Byzantium. It is lie who organizes Phocion’s victory 
 in Euboea. “ Philip has been driven from Euboea by 
 your arms, and also (certain envious aspirants ought 
 to choke with anger) by my policy and decrees.” It is 
 he who, at the greatest crisis, is the inspirer and soul 
 of all Greece. “ Who will save the Hellespont from 
 the rule of a foreigner? You will, men of Athens! 
 When I say you, I mean the commonwealth. How 
 who consecrated his orations, his counsels, his labors 
 to the commonwealth ? Who devoted himself entirely 
 to it? I! ” After the fall of Elatea (339-338), in the 
 midst of the city’s agonies, the herald, the voice of the 
 country in distress, calls the good citizens to the trib¬ 
 une. Ho one dares to mount it. Who courageously 
 seized the helm at the approach ôf the storm ? u It was 
 I ! ” It is Demosthenes, always Demosthenes. He is 
 everywhere.* Why this ardor to place himself fore¬ 
 most at the post of danger ? It is from his conviction 
 that his devotion is necessary to the state. “I have 
 persuaded myself, perhaps it was foolish, but in short 
 I have persuaded myself that no man could propose 
 anything better than what I proposed; that none could 
 do anything better than what I did.” Was this pre¬ 
 sumption on his part ? Ho ! The very defeat at Chæ- 
 ronea justified him in it. He always spoke to the 
 Athenians in the name of honor; it was due to him 
 that her honor at least was saved. 
 
 At Philip’s death, Demosthenes, an irreconcilable 
 enemy of the Macedonians, endeavors to arouse 
 Greece against them. Alexander, u the youth,” re¬ 
 veals his intentions by the sack of Thebes. Greece 
 has only changed her master: she receives a new 
 one, and a more terrible one. At Alexander’s death, 
 
 * Pro Corona , passim. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE CITIZEN. 
 
 115 
 
 Demosthenes, then in exile, hastens to Greece and 
 manifests all the ardor of his youth against the con¬ 
 querors of his country. He encourages the ambassa¬ 
 dors at Athens to form a new league, and he visits 
 the cities in person, summoning them to liberty. 
 Everywhere he searches for enemies against Mace¬ 
 donia, as Hannibal traversed the earth to arouse 
 enemies against the Homans. Even the time of his 
 banishment was not lost to the contest which had 
 become his life. At the Olympic games, Isocrates, 
 a childish old man, preached the crusade against the 
 Persians and peace with the Macedonians.* Demos¬ 
 thenes made better use of his eloquence. Lamachus, 
 of Myrrlienus, was reciting before the assembled 
 Greeks a panegyric on Philip and Alexander, in which 
 Thebes and Olynthus were vilified. Demosthenes 
 arose: by facts and reasoning he proved, on that great 
 day, the claims of the two cities to the respect of the 
 Hellenes, and the calamities due to the flatterers of the 
 Macedonians. The auditors turned around and cheered 
 Demosthenes with enthusiasm. The sophist, fright¬ 
 ened by the tumult, escaped from the assembly; De¬ 
 mosthenes thus avenged himself on the ingratitude 
 of his fellow-citizens. Cicero passed the whole time 
 
 * Philip lias kidnapped Amphipolis; Isocrates excuses him for 
 having taken his precautions against Athens: “If we change our 
 conduct toward him and give him a better opinion of us, he will 
 not only not touch our territory, but he will be the first to yield us 
 some of his own, in order to gain the useful friendship of Athens.” 
 (On the Peace.) Farther on: “Let us renounce the hegemony; in¬ 
 fluenced by this disinterestedness, the people of their own accord 
 will offer it to us.” Are we to believe that an Athenian, a rhetorician, 
 can be so innocent ? Manifestations of aged simplicity are not rare 
 in Isocrates. He himself felt that he was the least fitted of all the 
 Athenians for public life. “ I have not sufficient voice or hardiness.” 
 There was still another quality wanting in him. (Address to Philip.) 
 
116 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 of his exile in Macedonia, and in the greatest idle¬ 
 ness; Demosthenes’ exile was a continuation of his 
 public administration: “ he went to several cities of 
 Greece, strengthened the common interest, and de¬ 
 feated the designs of the Macedonian ambassadors; 
 in which respect he manifested a much greater re¬ 
 gard for his country than did Tliemistocles and Alci¬ 
 biades, when suffering the same misfortune. After 
 his return, he pursued his former plan of government, 
 and continued the war with Antipater and the Mace¬ 
 donians.* An adversary of this character was not 
 one of those who could he bought. Philip could not 
 silence him with his gold. Alexander meant to put 
 an end to the seditious and incorrigible orator, and 
 demanded his head. Phocion had the shameless cour¬ 
 age to vote that he should be delivered up; a cun¬ 
 ning evasion on the part of Demades spared the 
 Athenians this crime. Later, Antipater wrested from 
 their impotency the proscription of the orator who 
 was ever dreaded, even when the Hellenes w r ere held 
 in bondage. Demosthenes escaped the sword of the 
 soldiers sent in his pursuit, as he had often before been 
 obliged to ward oft* the blows with which the Mace¬ 
 donians of Athens had attempted to crush him. Many 
 a time summoned to justice before Chæronea, lie was 
 assailed on all sides after the disaster. This was a 
 dreadful exasperation. U I was accused nearly every 
 day,”f and with what hatred, the invectives of Dinar- 
 
 * Plutarch, Comparison between. Demosthenes and Cicero , ch. 4. 
 
 f Where there were so many laws and decrees, often contradictory, 
 passed by the people in moments of excitement, it was difficult for 
 an author of a new law to avoid stumbling against the dangers of a 
 previous law. Whence that accusation, so frequent, of infringement 
 upon laws, napav<i/j.wv. Give me two lines of an Athenian decree, 
 and I will hang its author. The general Aristophon, of Azenia, 
 
DEMOSTHENES-TIIE CITIZEN. 
 
 117 
 
 chus and Æschines can give some idea. Notwith¬ 
 standing the odious address of these imputations, 
 which were the fermentations of unhealthy passions 
 and selfish resentments, Athens, which had not the 
 courage to follow Demosthenes 1 counsels in time, had 
 not the cowardice, at least, to abandon him to his 
 enemies. She respected in him the virtues which she 
 did not possess herself ; she remembered the crowns 
 which she had decreed him in return for the successes 
 to which he had led her. 
 
 i ; ' * 1 ‘ , * k • » » ' ' •' { » * ‘ . ♦ * * / H 1 * 1 ’• * ' ? * • * / » • 
 
 boasted that he had undergone sixty-five accusations as an infringer 
 of laws: he was acquitted sixty-five times. Cephalus v r as never ac¬ 
 cused : he was cited as a prodigy. (Cf. Aristotle, Politics , vi, 4.) 
 
 » « i 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 DEMOSTHENES —THE STATESMAN. 
 
 11 To ftélriGTov às'i, /j.i] to paarov liystv: Counsel the best always, 
 the easiest never.” (Oration on the Chersonesus.) 
 
 B ORN in 385, Demosthenes, at tlie age of thirty, 
 by his oration against the law of Leptines (355), 
 entered upon a political career that proved to be both 
 glorious and bitter. Lucian put these words into 
 Philip’s mouth: “What Themistocles and Pericles 
 were once for the Athenians, Demosthenes is now for 
 his fellow citizens.” By this Philip meant that De¬ 
 mosthenes was his country’s bulwark. Upon a closer 
 examination the comparison is still good. Like The¬ 
 mistocles and Pericles, Demosthenes had both eloquence 
 and experience in state alfairs, a union always good, 
 but especially so for the Athenians, among whom ora¬ 
 tory had rapidly declined into a pretty exercise or an 
 instrument of popularity. In Demosthenes the orator 
 was merely auxiliary to the statesman. He never 
 talked to gain success at the tribune, but to reform, 
 organize, and create resources. At thirty-one (354) 
 he submitted to the people a scheme of maritime re¬ 
 organization ( On the Navy Boards ), the following year 
 a proposal to reorganize the land force. When he 
 advised to begin war, he at once explained the plans 
 of campaign. He reproved the Athenians.. “But 
 what shall we do?” they asked him. “The contrary 
 to what you are doing.” To this reply, excellent and 
 
 decisive, but a little compendious, he added immedi- 
 
 118 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 119 
 
 ately: u I will enter into all the details, nevertheless, 
 and may you he as prompt to act as to question.” 
 Having established the necessity of levies, he ex¬ 
 claimed: “What will be these troops, their number, 
 the subsidies destined to sustain them ? How shall 
 these measures be executed ? I will explain all and 
 in order.” 
 
 I. Political sagacity never deserted Demosthenes. ^ 
 Leptines wished, in the name of equity and the reve¬ 
 nues, to reform the laws of exemption. Demosthenes 
 proved that his zeal mistook the true interests of the 
 commonwealth. Athens was prosperous, but was her 
 prosperity assured forever? “Those who delivered 
 Pydna, Potidæa, and other strongholds up to Philip, 
 what motive induced them to injure us? Was it not 
 evidently a hope of a prince’s largesses? Would it 
 not be better, Leptines, to persuade our enemy, if you 
 could, not to reward those good servants, instruments 
 of his own wrongs to us, than to propose a law that 
 takes away a part of the gifts derived from bene¬ 
 factors ? * * * Athenians, fear to sanction an evil 
 law. If successful, Athens would be disgraced; if un¬ 
 fortunate, she would be deprived of her defenders.” 
 Ho war ! cries a politician and short-sighted econo¬ 
 mist. War is a waste of our revenues. We must 
 prevent extortions or correct them. Impoverishment 
 of treasure lost not Oræa and Olynthus; but treason and 
 improvidence. But war costs dearly. It will cost 
 more to recede before the expenses it requires. Is 
 not Athens rich enough to pay for safety ? * Another 
 
 * Oration on the Chersonesus. An effort to give a portion of his 
 revenue to save all her possessions is, then, truly magnanimous. “ Ah, 
 gentlemen! it is simple arithmetic. He who will hesitate can only 
 disarm our indignation by the contempt which his stupidity in¬ 
 spires.” (Mirabeau: Session of September 26, 1789 ) 
 
120 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 time warlike humor pervades the assembly. War is 
 decreed and in gigantic proportions. We speak of 
 ten, of twenty thousand mercenaries,— armies magnifi¬ 
 cent upon paper (i-i<jToXi;j.a[ouq dovdfisiq). Such zeal in- 
 spires little confidence in Demosthenes. “You be¬ 
 lieve you cannot do too much. Begin with a little, 
 and if that is not sufficient add what is needed. Of 
 what good is too great an army ? You could not 
 support it. Let Athens’ actions be measured by her 
 resources and necessities. At first we must carry on 
 a piratical war (XrjtTTsbeiv). Ordinary forces will suffice 
 for that. Macedonia greatly favors it. Philip has 
 the advantage in pitched battles.” History has been 
 called the master of life, the dangerous school where 
 we learn both good and bad lessons. The true master 
 of human life is good sense. With Demosthenes pa¬ 
 thetic good sense made the orator, and shrewd good 
 sense the statesman. 
 
 Demosthenes had a strong judgment, never influ- 
 encecPby favor or resentment. He discerned the good 
 ancDsupported it with the cool firmness of a statesman 
 who subordinates all feeling to the public weal. Thus 
 he successfully resisted a peoj^le always ready to sacri¬ 
 fice public policy to sentiment. Philip planned the 
 siege of Byzantium, which had revolted from the rule 
 of Athens. The people were little interested in the 
 fate of the rebel city. “By heavens ! These people, 
 misled by an evil genius, carry their folly beyond 
 all bounds. Agreed, but I admit- that we must spare 
 these fools, for the safety of Athens is at stake.” 
 Arcliidamus, king of Sparta, was about to attack Me¬ 
 galopolis, a city of Arcadia, allied to Thebes. Some 
 orators pleaded for Arcadia, and others for Lacedae¬ 
 mon, with bitterness and passion. Were it not for 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 121 
 
 their Attic tongue they would have been mistaken 
 for citizens of these two countries. No one spoke for 
 Athens. Megalopolis had recently fought Athens. 
 Let us forget the past. The interests of the common¬ 
 wealth lie in the weakness of Sparta and Thebes, our 
 neighbors. It was necessary to succor Megalopolis. 
 Rhodes in the social war had escaped from the au¬ 
 thority of Athens and substituted an oligarchic for a 
 democratic form of government. Oppressed by aris¬ 
 tocracy, the people of Rhodes implored aid of Athens. 
 Athens ought to have aided them. She would have 
 conciliated all popular governments and strengthened 
 her own constitution, of which oligarchy was the im¬ 
 placable enemy. The Rhodians failed, but they were 
 unfortunate. ‘‘Shall we say that the Rhodians merit 
 their misfortune ? The time is not well chosen for 
 us to rejoice. In prosperity we should show great 
 benevolence to the unfortunate, for the future is veiled 
 to all men.” It was necessary, then, to fight for the 
 liberty of the Rhodians, and in a manner worthy of 
 Athens. “You listen joyfully to eulogies of our an¬ 
 cestors, you contemplate their exploits and their tro¬ 
 phies. Now know that these trophies were erected to 
 inspire in you no sterile admiration, but a desire 
 to imitate the virtues of the heroes who consecrated 
 them.” Later, Demosthenes would have persuaded 
 the citizens to follow, in regard to Thebes, this course 
 of intelligent generosity. When he expressed that 
 sentiment it was to unite it with practical reason. 
 The well ordered interests of the state were always 
 the decisive rule of his counsels. When the ques¬ 
 tion was Lacedæmon, or “accursed Euboea,” or “im¬ 
 pious” Phocis, as Æschines called it, Demosthenes 
 did not care to consider “the virtue” of the threat- 
 
122 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ened people, but only Athens’ duty in not dishonoring 
 herself by refusing her aid to oppressed Greeks. 
 
 The political sagacity of Demosthenes never knew 
 the ingenious prejudice or selfishness of narrow souls. 
 One of the special arguments of Philip’s partisan ora¬ 
 tors was that it had been necessary for them to use 
 his power in order to punish the barbarians. Demos¬ 
 thenes, more sincere and judicious, persuaded the 
 Athenians not to make war upon the Great King 
 (354). 
 
 “ For the sake of our welfare, in the name of the troubles 
 and suspicions sown in Greece, do not assail him. If we 
 Could throw ourselves upon him with one accord, I would 
 say, Attack him, ’tis right; but since unity does not exist, let 
 us not give the king one pretext for making himself arbiter 
 of the rights of other Greeks. When tranquil, we make 
 him suspected of a desire to attempt perhaps a thing of that 
 kind ; when we attack, we authorize him to seek aid against 
 our hate in the friendship of other people. Do not expose the 
 loounds of Greece by an appeal to arms, that will never be 
 answered, nor by feeble hostilities; rest calm, confident, pre¬ 
 pared! Great Gods! let not the monarch know that the 
 Hellenes and Athenians are embarrassed, discouraged, and 
 alarmed; truly, very far from it; but let him know that if 
 falsehood, perjury, were not a disgrace in the eyes of Greeks, 
 as it is a title of honor to his followers, you would have 
 marched against him long ago; and that, not disposed to as¬ 
 sail him now, for your own sakes, you pray the Gods to 
 scourge him with the same vertigo which formerlv visited his 
 ancestors. If he happens to consider, he will see that your 
 resolutions lack no wisdom/’ * 
 
 In counselling the defiant and prudent attitude, De¬ 
 mosthenes, having hardly entered upon his public ca- 
 
 * Oa the Navy Boards. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 123 
 
 reer, gave proof of sagacity and of elevated sentiment 
 tliat never deserted him. 
 
 Cardinal Richelieu allied himself to the Protestants 
 of Germany, Francis the First to the Turks. . Athenian 
 Demosthenes persuaded the commonwealth to form an 
 alliance with the barbarians. 
 
 “For all these reasons, I think you should send ambassa- 
 dors to treat with the king; and lay aside those idle preju¬ 
 dices which have so often been injurious to your interests,— 
 that lie is a barbarian , our common enemy , and the like. For 
 my own part, when I find a man apprehending danger from 
 a prince whose residence is in Tusa and Ecbatana, and pro¬ 
 nouncing him the enemy of our state, who formerly reestab¬ 
 lished its power, and but now made us such considerable offers 
 (if you rejected them, that was no fault of his), and yet speaking 
 in another strain of one who is at our gates, who is extending 
 his conquests in the very heart of Greece, the plunderer of 
 the Greeks, I am astonished, and regard that man, whoever 
 he is, as dangerous, who doth not see danger in Philip.” * 
 
 Demosthenes, true to himself, did. not-hesitate to em¬ 
 ploy the gold of the great king against the gold of 
 Philip, at the risk of being accused of reserving a part 
 for himself. His fearful apprehensions were at length 
 allayed by the realization of his prophecies, and the 
 sight of Persian satraps helping the forces of Athens to 
 deliver Perintlius. 
 
 This same good sense, free from all prejudice and fas¬ 
 tidious regard of scruples, shone out again at the time 
 of the accusation of Diopithes. This general had suc¬ 
 cessfully, with his own authority, but for the benefit of 
 Athens, attacked the Macedonian cities of the Helles¬ 
 pont, ravaged maritime Thrace, and imposed heavy 
 contributions upon the Grecian colonies of Asia. These 
 
 * Fourth Philippic. 
 
124 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 colonies complained to Philip, already irritated by the 
 devastation of his territory. This prince demanded 
 justice of Athens. Orators of the Macedonian party 
 accused Diopithes of violating the peace and law of na¬ 
 tions. Demosthenes defended him. The Athenians 
 alone were guilty of those actions imputed to the bold 
 general. 
 
 “ We have no desire to contribute onr own means, nor 
 courage to fight ourselves, nor strength to renounce the 
 bounties of the treasure, and furnish Diopithes the promised 
 supplies; and instead of rejoicing in the riches he has gath¬ 
 ered, we discredit him with an inquisition, jealous of the 
 means he will employ, of the course he will pursue, in fact, 
 of everything. If we send him no help, if he cannot sustain 
 his troops alone, whence should he expect supplies? From 
 heaven? Impossible! Then he must live from what he 
 collects or begs or borrows. * * * I hear these rumors: 
 He will besiege Candid , he is betraying Greeks . For such a 
 man is full of solicitude for the Greeks of Asia. Undoubtedly 
 it is more praiseworthy to care for foreign land than for 
 home! * * * If Diopithes committed these acts of vio¬ 
 lence and captured these vessels, a few lines from you, Athe¬ 
 nians, a few lines can arrest him.” 
 
 { . . , 
 
 < té * * ■ 
 
 Diopithes’ accusers demanded the recall of the gen¬ 
 eral and the disbanding of his army. Splendid result ! 
 Ask Philip if he desires another; to answer his prayer 
 would be foolish. 
 
 “ Why license Philip to do all things, while he lets Attica 
 alone, if you will not even permit Diopithes to succor Thrace 
 without being accused of inciting war? But, by Jupiter, say 
 the accusers, our mercenaries and Diopithes acted like true 
 pirates. Our duty is to suppress these disorders. Be it so: 
 admit it. I suppose the interests of justice alone have prompt¬ 
 ed this counsel; but these are my thoughts; you will accom- 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 125 
 
 plish the dissolution of one of the armies of the common¬ 
 wealth by defaming the general who found the means of 
 preserving it. Well, prove that Philip will also disband 
 his troops, if Athens listens to your wishes. * * * Athe¬ 
 nians, do not be deceived; only words and false pretexts are 
 given you; ’tis only plotted and contrived that you remain 
 inactive within and unarmed without, and permit Philip to 
 execute all his plans in security.” 
 
 Diopitlies was maintained in liis command: a just and 
 wise decision, due to tlie politic good sense of the ora¬ 
 tor. Demosthenes preferred the safety of Athens to a 
 great record of scruples. To disarm Diopitlies before 
 Philip, would have been to ally himself to the Macedo¬ 
 nians. Demosthenes did not follow the love of an ab¬ 
 solute equity to a candor that bordered upon desertion. 
 
 II. Theophrastus wrote a treatise on u Politics 
 Adapted to Circumstances.” This work, inspired per¬ 
 haps in the contemporary of Isocrates and Phocion, 
 by the spirit that prompted the most honored men of 
 Athens to submit to the Macedonian yoke, was un¬ 
 doubtedly lost before the time of Cicero. Sinon, the 
 author of the letter to Lentulus (Ad Familiar es , i, 9), 
 would not have failed to draw from it, in behalf of 
 his political inconsistencies, arguments more plaus¬ 
 ible than those he borrowed, by aid of forced inter¬ 
 pretations, from certain maxims of Plato. That fickle 
 and versatile spirit, Cicero, believed that in changing 
 his friendship and policy, he never proved false to 
 his principles. But weak in character, he deceived 
 himself as to the true motives of his political ma¬ 
 noeuvres. lie invoked gratitude and resentment, neces¬ 
 sity and convenience: “It is not proper to do violence 
 to our parents or to our country.” In his opinion, 
 an honorable repose (cum dignitate otium) should 
 
126 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 be the goal of all statesmen. (He did not attain it, 
 for lie was slain by Antony’s satellites.) Demos¬ 
 thenes never hoped to pass his old age in that honor¬ 
 able repose. Like Cicero, he succumbed to the perse¬ 
 cution of the heroes of the Philippics ; but he did 
 not, like him, essay the apology of selfish retractions. 
 We cannot examine now the long speech of the in¬ 
 constant friend of Pompey and Cæsar. Let us take 
 only some traits to which Demosthenes would have 
 assented: u We must know how to follow the spirit 
 of our times. Behold the men who have excelled 
 in the art of’government: are they praised for having 
 eternally followed one line of conduct ? Old sailors 
 sometimes yield to the tempest, which carries them 
 still farther away from port. When by shifting sail 
 and by tacking we can reach the haven of our hopes, it 
 is foolish to persist in our first dangerous course. So, 
 what we statesmen ought to propose for ourselves, 
 is not unity of language but unity of purpose.” For 
 Demosthenes this unity of purpose was the independ¬ 
 ence of the Greeks. Unity of language failed him 
 several times, notably upon one memorable occasion. 
 
 According to an ancient Athenian custom, the sur¬ 
 plus revenues of Athens were distributed among the 
 citizens who were present at religious ceremonies, 
 to encourage their attendance, a reward of two oboles 
 being given to each. This diobole , a sort of first 
 offering to devotion, stimulated the religious zeal of 
 the Athenians, as the tithes of prebends formerly re¬ 
 warded canons for exactitude in office. This special 
 fund was called the Theoricon (Gswpia). After the 
 Theban war the Athenians, believing themselves se¬ 
 cure, used the money saved, not only in bestowing 
 rights of attendance upon the Theories , but in cele- 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 127 
 
 brating games and admitting poor people to the pub¬ 
 lic festivals. Fearful that some day they might truly 
 repent of this change, they decreed capital punishment 
 against any orator who should propose to modify 
 these dispositions so favorable to their pleasures. 
 Theatrical representations being part of the ceremony 
 of the great Bacchanalian Dionysia, for example, the 
 theoricon enabled the indigent to unite with their 
 devotions to Bacchus the pleasure of listening to 
 Sophocles and Aristophanes; it warranted to the poor 
 their entrance into the theater. The people of Athens 
 thus made their entertainments gratuitous and sacred. 
 Notwithstanding the law of death, Demosthenes, in¬ 
 capable of prevaricating silence, often found fault, 
 sometimes with great caution, sometimes with marked 
 energy, with this wasteful employment of the finan¬ 
 cial reserves of the republic, and he demanded that 
 they be used to relieve the pressing necessities of the 
 war. One day the orator justified these abuses which 
 he had attacked. How shall we explain this unex¬ 
 pected contradiction?—by the controlling spirit of all 
 Demosthenes’ public acts, the welfare of the State. 
 This question of the theoricon became a source of 
 contention between the wealthy classes, whose con¬ 
 tributions enriched the coffers of the state, and the 
 poor, who enjoyed the taxes without paying them. 
 Isocrates echoed the complaints of both parties, but 
 especially those of the rich, whose condition u was 
 even worse than that *of the poor.” Truly, poverty 
 had become a profitable profession in Athens, an 
 enviable sinecure. Aristophanes, in his Plutus , praised 
 poverty so highly from a moral point of view, that 
 it seemed the perfection of Antisthenes’ maxim: Pov¬ 
 erty is a blessing. The Cliarmides of Xenophon’s 
 
128 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Banquet * celebrates its profits and pleasures. His 
 fortune once made him fear thieves and sycophants. 
 Daily new taxes to be paid, and no liberty to leave 
 the territory. But now that he is ruined, what a 
 happy change! “How comfortably I sleejv, the re¬ 
 public has confidence in me; I am no longer threat¬ 
 ened, it is I who threaten others. A free man, I 
 can go or stay. I appear: the rich arise from their 
 seats, or make room for me in the streets. To-day I 
 resemble a tyrant; I was then a slave. Then I paid 
 tribute to the state; now the state, my tributary, 
 supports me. I lose nothing, for I have nothing, and 
 always live in the hope of bettering my fortune. 
 
 In 341, alarmed more than ever by the dangers of 
 internal discord in the face of an enemy daily increas¬ 
 ing, Demosthenes, unable to conciliate two factions, 
 pronounced himself in favor of the stronger. He 
 thought that the rich would be more easily reconciled 
 to support the theoricon than the poor to lose its pleas¬ 
 ures, and, in default of a perfectly equitable settle¬ 
 ment, he chose a solution beneficial to the state. “An¬ 
 other evil afflicts the republic, engendering among us 
 unjust complaints and unbecoming debates, and fur¬ 
 nishing pretexts for those who do not wish to fulfill 
 their duty as citizens. (The rich say, instead of arm¬ 
 ing the triremes at our expense, you can arm them 
 with the gold you get out of us to amuse the prolé¬ 
 taires.) I fear to touch this question, but nevertheless 
 will attempt it, hoping that for the common good I 
 may speak to the rich in behalf of the poor, and to 
 the poor in behalf of the rich; but let us cease our in¬ 
 vectives, provoked by theatrical distributions, and lay 
 aside all fears that they cannot continue without calami- 
 
 *. Chapter 4. (Cf. Isocrates.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 TIIE STATESMAN. 
 
 129 
 
 tons results. We can imagine nothing more essential 
 to the success of our affairs and the firm establishment 
 of our whole social edifice.” In the continuance of 
 the theoricon Demosthenes saw a solution of the social 
 question,— a necessary solution, for Philip was at the 
 gates. 
 
 Demosthenes was not of those stiff, unbending men 
 who say, “Let the state perish rather than my prin¬ 
 ciples.” He could make concessions to the necessities 
 of the moment; he was an opportuniste. The ancients 
 esteemed the ready choice of expedients ( eu/.oupta ) as a 
 kind of virtue; it is at least the necessary quality of a 
 statesman. The Eubœan Callias was, according to 
 BEschines, more remarkable in all his twists and turns 
 than the Euripus, whose shores he inhabited. This 
 capricious versatility is a great fault, but it is well to 
 know how to adapt our course to the obstacles in our 
 path. This characterized Demosthenes. Instead of 
 the inflexible rigor of a theorist, of the irreconcilable 
 doctrinaire , he possessed a suppleness rarely accorded 
 to vigorous genius, and particularly remarkable in him. 
 He struggled against Athens and Philip with a tenacity 
 of conviction and patriotic ardor that nothing could 
 weary or discourage. But the impetuosity of his ob¬ 
 stinate assaults against the public enemies was not 
 born of blind temerity. Ilis judgment rather than his 
 feelings urged the war; and he was the first to counsel 
 peace when, in accordance with honor, the interests of 
 the city demanded it. 
 
 Philip was awarded the place of Phocis in the Am¬ 
 phictyonie council, and even called honorable president 
 of the Pythian games. The Athenians were humili¬ 
 ated by a condescension disgraceful to all Greece, and 
 personally disturbed by the probable results of the 
 
130 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 humiliation of the Amphictyons at the feet of the vic¬ 
 tor of the Sacred War; therefore they abstained from 
 sending deputies to the Pythian solemnity. Philip 
 pressed them to sanction the decree of the Amphic¬ 
 tyons (346). The assembly was undecided. Demos¬ 
 thenes did not hesitate. lie did not wish to endeavor 
 vainly to dispute a trifling question of prerogative 
 (jj/Ç èv AeX(p<nq <r/.tâç) with the Macedonian at the cost of 
 a crusade of the Greeks against his country. 
 
 “ Athenians, do not give any necessity or pretext for con¬ 
 certed attack upon you to the people who compose the con¬ 
 gress, and who once called themselves Amphictyons. [The 
 composition of the Amphictyonie council had been changed by 
 the dissension of the Grecian cities, and the institution itself 
 perverted by the precedence of a barbarian.] * * * What, 
 in my opinion, is to be feared, and what have we to avoid? 
 that the war, reserved for future years, will not afford a 
 common pretext, a general complaint in all Greece against 
 us. For if Argos, Messina, Megalopolis, and other states of 
 the Peloponnesus, rallied with the politics of these cities, 
 threaten us in their hate, aroused by negotiations begun with 
 Lacedæmon, because we seem desirous of supplanting them; 
 if Thebes, which, as you know, already hates us, loves us less 
 because we recall her exiles, and give her many proofs of our 
 malevolence; Thessaly, because we care for the safety of the 
 Pliocidian outlaws; Philip, because Athens refuses him a 
 place in the general council of Greece; — I tremble lest all 
 these powers, animated by particular resentments, and au¬ 
 thorized by Amphictyonie decrees, should concentrate upon 
 us in a federal war, and each people * * * rush to arms 
 against a new Phocis. * * * To avoid the war, and yet to do 
 nothing unworthy of Athens, to show all our prudence and 
 the equity of our response,— these are, I think, our duties.” 
 
 The policy of Demosthenes had always been to 
 unite Greece against Philip. Would it not have been 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 131 
 
 folly to have armed, by ill-timed and feeble protesta¬ 
 tions, Greece and Philip against Athens, who violated 
 the sworn peace? Philip could not wait long for a 
 legitimate cause of disagreement. Two years after¬ 
 ward, as protector and arbiter of the rights of the cities 
 near the temple of Delphi, he begun again to plan 
 invasions of Lacedaemon. Demosthenes this time said 
 no more of peace. Philip, in violating it, had once 
 more justified the convictions of the orator.* 
 
 In human hands the purest doctrines can become 
 corrupt. That of opportunists had its dangers; it 
 could furnish ready excuse for injustice and desertion. 
 Grave and distinguished judges of every age, in their 
 decisions, have considered the interests of Athens, 
 * * * and the circumstances .f u Is not justice false 
 to her first duty when she pulls the bandage from her 
 eyes and seeks to learn the aspect of the heavens and 
 the quarters of the wind ? Cicero, who prosecuted the 
 extortionate Yerres, and defended the oppressive Fon- 
 teius the following year, the bitter enemy of Yatinius, 
 soon after his friend, invoked opportune maxims to 
 justify his changes.” In the name of the public 
 
 * Religious legislators themselves did not disdain opportunism. 
 All the gods of paganism, except perhaps hospitable Jupiter, were 
 touched more by an amphora of wine offered to themselves than by a 
 cup of water given to the thirsty. Usually the richness of the gifts 
 determined the measure of their favors: they ignored the goodness 
 of grace. This exactness was burdensome to the poor, or Attica 
 counted a great many of them on her meager soil, whence the reli¬ 
 gious maxim : “ A few grains of incense honor the divinity more than 
 a hecatomb.” This was to give a lecture to Olympus. (Esprit des Lois , 
 xxiv, 23, 24.) 
 
 f Pro Flacco, 39. Cicero’s changeableness did not save him from 
 this humble assertion, “ Scio me asinum germanum fuisse” (Ad 
 Atticum , iv, 5), nor later from proscription. What would he have 
 lost by taking a straight road without beating about? 
 
132 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 good Demades and Æschines, statesmen of Athens, 
 abused him with their usual frankness. Melanopus, the 
 rival of Callistratus in the government, began more 
 than one harangue in these words: “Citizens, Callis¬ 
 tratus is my enemy, but may he to-day be governed by 
 the interests of the state ! ” His intermittent enmity 
 was softened by the silver of Callistratus. Nicodemus 
 from Messina was more frank when he said : U I have 
 changed my party, but not my sentiments. It is best 
 always to submit to the stronger.” Æschines thought 
 to injure Demosthenes by affixing to him the epithet 
 “fickle” {j:aXi[i^oXov) m Theopompus took up the word, 
 to the great astonishment of Plutarch. In fact, this 
 calumny is surprising when aimed against a man who 
 had lived and died, his soul inflamed by an unique 
 passion,— hatred of the Macedonians,— and with a firm 
 resolution,— the obligation of honor,— to fight them. 
 Some transient alterations, far from weakening his 
 constancy, confirmed it. It is praiseworthy for the 
 statesman to appear inconsistent with himself when 
 such appearances establish his disinterested fidelity to 
 his country’s good. But this disinterestedness must 
 defy even the insults of suspicion. 
 
 Such was not always the opportunism of the Ho¬ 
 man patricians. Porsena, allied to the Tarquins, 
 marched upon Home. Never did such a “terror” 
 seize upon the senate. The people could receive 
 the kings into the city and prefer peace to nominal 
 independence, with which the rule of the usurers, 
 their masters, deluded them. It was necessary to 
 deceive them for the sake of public liberty. While 
 the crisis endured the senate lavished favors upon 
 them, and the means of sustaining them were of prime 
 importance. Wheat was brought even from Cannæ. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 133 
 
 The monopoly of salt, sold at exorbitant rates, was 
 taken from a few private individuals and reserved for 
 the state. Poor people were exempt from all imposts. 
 “The poor paid tribute enough in raising their chil¬ 
 dren.” This benevolence of the senate bore its fruits. 
 The plebeian justified Aristotle’s observation: “The 
 people fight well when they are fed.” The horrors 
 of siege and famine did not disturb for one moment 
 the pleasant relations existing between the high and 
 the low of the city; and Porsena, powerless against 
 this union, was forced to retire with his royal clients. 
 Bossuet* has praised “the wise senators” for their 
 just condescension. He neglected to add that, the 
 peril passed, they avenged themselves for their fright 
 and forced humility before the exigences of aristo¬ 
 cratic interests. The nobles had all to lose in the 
 reestablishment of the Tarquins; the plebeians could 
 expect nothing but a change of yoke, and the second 
 yoke would not be the heavier. Upon the death 
 of Tarquin the senate again showed its true nature. 
 “The joy of the patricians knew no bounds, and the 
 people, until then cared for and tickled with constant 
 attentions, lived from that moment exposed to the 
 oppression of the great. ” j* The senate had consented 
 to be just in an “extreme necessity,” as in other cir¬ 
 cumstances it surpassed the liberality of the most lib¬ 
 eral,— a slyness not peculiar to Roman policy, if we 
 can judge from an allusion of Camille Desmoulins: 
 The Jacobin, C. Gracchus, proposed the division of two 
 or three conquered cities; the ci-devant (aristocrat) 
 Drusus proposed to divide a dozen of them. Gracchus 
 
 * Discours sur l’h istoire universelle. ( Empires , iii, G.) 
 
 f u Nam cupide conculcatur nimis ante metutum.” (Lucretius, v) ; 
 Livy, ii, 9, 21 : “ Passato ’1 pericolo, gabbato ’1 santo.” 
 
134 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 fixed tlie price of bread at sixteen cents, Drusus the 
 maximum at eight. This proceeding was so success¬ 
 ful that the people grew cold toward their genuine 
 defender, who, once made unpopular, “was killed by 
 the aristocrat Scipio Hasica, by a blow with a chair,” 
 at the first insurrection.* Such opportunism is nothing 
 but weakness and falsehood. 
 
 III. Demosthenes would have been badly inspired 
 to incite the Athenians to an untimely war as long 
 as his efforts to convince them of its inevitable neces¬ 
 sity were so easily paralyzed. The orator-minister at 
 Athens had not at his disposal the resources of the 
 chiefs of the Roman republic, nor those of the min¬ 
 isters of modern states. Cicero, the consul, was in¬ 
 vested with the most extended power the law could 
 confer next to the dictatorship. The head of the 
 senate, arbiter, and governor of popular assemblies, 
 he commanded the public forces and raised legions 
 at his will. In a republic he was king of the city. 
 Athens had nothing similar. There the real power 
 fell to the orator, the leader and ruler of the multi¬ 
 tude; but this power, dependent upon the personal in¬ 
 fluence of the citizen, and neither bestowed nor sus¬ 
 tained by law, must be defended every day by the 
 statesman whose work it is, and through whom alone 
 it exists. TIis political enemies have the same rights 
 and facilities to overthrow as he to maintain it. Ho 
 legal term limits or prolongs it. Pericles governed 
 Athens forty years; another politician might rule it 
 a year, a day. For sixteen years (354-338) Demos- 
 
 * Livy, ix, 70: Le vieux Cordelier, No. 2. C. Desmoulins attrib¬ 
 utes by a mistake the death of Tiberius Gracchus to his brother 
 Caius, the colleague of Drusus, and who, with others, perished also 
 by a violent death. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 135 
 
 thenes struggled for tlie welfare of Athens with no 
 other aid than his own patriotism and genius. Dur¬ 
 ing this long ministry, when the opposition was repre¬ 
 sented by almost the entire city, what allies had he 
 against the powerful seductions which Philip and his 
 associates used with the Athenians for his destruction? 
 How could he more effectually oppose them than by 
 his personal efforts? Eloquence is also in our own 
 days a force in government, but do the logical orations 
 of the tribune alone obtain a favorable vote of the 
 cabinet? Athens had no favors to offer, no titles of 
 honor to bestow. The adversaries of Demosthenes 
 tempted the j^eople with the delights of peace; De¬ 
 mosthenes placed war before their eyes. They flat¬ 
 tered the vices of the people; Demosthenes laid them 
 bare and cured them with rough treatment. His oj3- 
 ponents are the pensioners of Philip, the indifferent, 
 the bad citizens, and even some honorable 
 Philip counted, perhaps, among his adversaries more 
 than one Timarchus; but he numbered also Phocion 
 among his auxiliaries, voluntary or not. This pacifi¬ 
 catory general was the only gratuitous ally of the Mace¬ 
 donian, but not the least precious. In fact, was it 
 helping the Athenians to success in battle to declare 
 it impossible ? The axe of Demosthenes’ orations also 
 cut the nerve of resistance in the undecided. The at¬ 
 titude of Phocion encouraged distrust and disturbed 
 sincere patriotism. Were the hostilities which Pho¬ 
 cion condemned truly legitimate and wise ? If he 
 deceived himself, there was no disgrace nor risk in 
 deceiving one’s self with him, but only self-aggran¬ 
 dizement. The efforts of Demosthenes to awaken the 
 national patriotism were frustrated by one of the most 
 prominent citizens, impelled not by conviction, but by 
 
136 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 command. If the principal general of the republic, 
 elected forty-five times, embarrassed the policy of De¬ 
 mosthenes and increased for a time the difficulty of 
 affairs, what can be said of incapable or treacherous 
 generals ? of Chares, of Charidemus ? Demosthenes 
 was the instigator of the war. All responsibility was 
 thrown upon him. To him were charged difficulties, 
 excesses, reverses, from within and without. A thou¬ 
 sand obstacles arose before him and made his path 
 uneven. 
 
 One of the most frequent causes of disorder in the 
 city was the assessment of the taxes, a cause especially 
 pernicious, since the financial organization was the 
 basis of the military administration. The liturgies, 
 or public services, were demanded according to the 
 wealtli of the citizens; but how estimate exactly the 
 resources ? and how many ways for the selfish to 
 escape their obligations! The law of exchange, and 
 above all the employment of the public treasure, 
 provoked grave troubles.* Upon questions concern¬ 
 ing taxes, the rich and poor disagreed. The neces¬ 
 sity imposed upon rich Athenians to substitute them¬ 
 selves for the treasury, to supply civil or military 
 demands, irritated them. On the other hand, the 
 poor claimed maintenance by forced contributions 
 from the rich, thus diminishing so much of the state 
 tax, a part of which alleviated their poverty or fur¬ 
 nished their pleasures: indigent or opulent continu¬ 
 ally wrangled over the public revenues. Demosthenes, 
 in the midst of a conflict difficult to subdue, had 
 much to do: how many abuses to reform in the old 
 
 * Demosthenes had already tried to remedy it in the oration On the 
 Navy Boards by the àvrîduffcç. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 137 
 
 laws or in their application! The rich could formerly 
 associate themselves in parties of sixteen for payment 
 of taxes; each one thus paying only a small sum, 
 provided only that the sixteenth had enough money 
 to equip one ship. But little as this tax-payer and 
 associate outfitter was burdened, he sought 
 
 to evade the tax by taking refuge in the temple of 
 Diana. The trierarchs that were less agile to flee 
 to the feet of the shrines were thrown into prison. 
 But, by waiting, the galley was not armed. In the 
 meantime, less wealthy citizens, crushed by these same 
 obligations, having lost through them their limited 
 resources, were sometimes even unable to satisfy the 
 law. Ships already on the sea were abandoned, others 
 remained in port awaiting equipment. Demosthenes 
 prevailed on them to adopt a system of proportional 
 taxation, whereby each rich man was . compelled to 
 furnish, without associates, at least three vessels and 
 a longboat. Those citizens whose property amounted 
 to less than ten talents (about $11,000), preserved 
 the right of associating until their accumulated for¬ 
 tunes reached this sum. Owing to this reform the 
 Athenian navy ceased to deteriorate, and the equip¬ 
 ments were at last completed in time. Demosthenes 
 had gained the cause of his country, in despite of all 
 resistance of privileged orders. “The sum which they 
 offered me for not proposing my law, or at least for 
 delaying it, I dare not tell.” After bribery the vessel- 
 owners tried menaces. Demosthenes was prosecuted 
 as an infringer of the laws, but his accuser did not 
 obtain a fifth part of the votes. Notwithstanding 
 selfish interests, the courageous minister of Athens 
 succeeded in relieving the poor and in recalling the 
 rich to their duty, and “since then all things occurred 
 G* 
 
138 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 peacefully,”* but it was late (in 340), only two years 
 before Chæronea. 
 
 Demosthenes had succeeded in reforming the trier- 
 archy ; he could not destroy, nor even weaken, the abuses 
 of the theoricon. He would have wished that the allow¬ 
 ances from the treasury were not an encouragement 
 to indolence, but a remuneration for public service. 
 “If you should to-day wish to throw off these habits, 
 and to use the resources offered by your internal 
 riches to reconquer your external possessions, you 
 would be delivered from these alms, which resemble 
 aliments, given to the sick by physicians: they do 
 not restore them to health, but only prevent them 
 from dying. Even so, the pleasures which you cher¬ 
 ish to-day are not sufficient for all your needs, nor 
 by insignificance do they lead you to disdain them 
 and to return to useful labors; they are nourishment 
 to your indolence. Do you wish, some ask, to trans¬ 
 form them into pay ? f I wish immediately a rule 
 applying to all, that every citizen receiving his share 
 of the public revenues, may be ready to relieve the 
 different needs of the State. Does peace authorize 
 repose ? In your houses you rejoice in a better con¬ 
 dition, sheltered from the unworthy actions which 
 indigence imposes. Does an alarm come unexpectedly, 
 ? The donation makes you a soldier and 
 justly compels you to protect your country. Has 
 one of you passed the age of service ? let him receive 
 
 * Pro Corona, passim. The civil pleadings of Demosthenes, relat¬ 
 ing to maritime duties or to affairs of maritime commerce, give inter¬ 
 esting details about the abuse of the trierarchy. See especially the 
 Pleadings for Apollodorus and On the Naval Crown. 
 
 f The Roman Senate had to give pay to the army before Veii, 
 which bound it to an annual service : “Annua sera liabes, annuam 
 operam ede.” (Livy v, 3.1 
 
 as to-day 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 139 
 
 what he has already received, undeservedly and un¬ 
 duly, in the name of the common law, for the inspec¬ 
 tion and administration of the aifairs of the common¬ 
 wealth. In a word, neither adding nor subtracting 
 anything, I suppress all confusion, and establish 
 order in the State by submitting to a common rule 
 all tax-payers, soldiers, judges and citizens, employed 
 according to their age and circumstances, I do not 
 say: ‘It is necessary to distribute to the idle the 
 wages of the worker; to keep yourselves unoccupied 
 in the midst of pleasures and uncertainty with no other 
 aim than to hear the news: The mercenaries of such 
 a one have conquered For such is now your life. I 
 do not censure those who, in your stead, perform a 
 part of your duties; but I demand that you yourselves 
 should do for yourselves that for which you hire 
 others, and not leave the post of honor won by your 
 ancestors at the price of so many glorious perils.” * 
 The establishment of an unparalleled remuneration, 
 not under color of help, but of legitimate indemnity, 
 rendered possible the organization of a standing army. 
 Philip had such an army; Athens opposed him with 
 troops levied in haste, and usually at the last minute. 
 The occasion having passed, the fortifications were 
 abandoned. Upon a new alarm, new preparations and 
 new tumults occurred; nothing was determined, noth¬ 
 ing established. With such a system Athens could do 
 nothing opportunely. She must have an organized 
 army in readiness, and thoroughly disciplined. u To 
 day you ask, What are the intentions of Philip ? Upon 
 what point is he now marching? Perhaps, then, Athe¬ 
 nians, you will trouble yourselves to ask, Where is the 
 Athenian army? Where will it show itself?” But is 
 
 * Third Olynthiac. 
 
140 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 tliat an Athenian army which is composed only of mer¬ 
 cenaries ? Demosthenes wishes that Athenians be en¬ 
 rolled in it, if only to watch over the mercenaries. He 
 remembers that, by this mixture of the national element 
 with foreign forces, Athens once conquered Lacedæmon. 
 
 “ But ever since our armies have been formed of foreigners 
 alone, their victories have been over our allies and confeder¬ 
 ates; while our enemies have arisen to an extravagance of 
 power. And these armies, with scarcely the slightest atten¬ 
 tion to the service of the state, sail off to fight for Artabazus, 
 or some other person; and their general follows them. Nor 
 should we wonder at it, for he cannot command who cannot 
 pay his soldiers. What, then, do I recommend? That you 
 should take away all pretenses, both from generals and from 
 soldiers, by a regular payment of the army, and by incorpo¬ 
 rating domestic forces with the auxiliaries, to be, as it were, 
 inspectors of the conduct of the commanders. For at pres¬ 
 ent our manner of acting is indeed ridiculous. If a man 
 should ask, ‘Are you at peace, Athenians ? 1 the answer 
 would immediately be, ‘By no means; we are at war with 
 Philip. Have we not chosen the usual generals and officers, 
 both of horse and foot ? 1 And of what use are all these, ex¬ 
 cept the single person whom you send to the field? The rest 
 attend your priests in their processions. So that, as if you 
 formed so many men of clay, you make your officers for show, 
 and not for service. My countrymen! should not all these 
 generals have been chosen from your own body; all these sev¬ 
 eral officers from your own body, that our force might be really 
 Athenian? And yet, for an expedition in favor of Lemnos, 
 the general must be a citizen, while troops engaged in de¬ 
 fense of our own territories are commanded by Menelaus. I 
 say not this to detract from his merit; but to whomsoever 
 this command had been intrusted, surely he should have de¬ 
 rived it from your voices.”* 
 
 * First Philippic. Let us note the considerations of the orator in 
 regard to mercenaries: Athens is at their discretion. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 141 
 
 The complaints of the orator were hut too well justi¬ 
 fied. Chares had abandoned the social war, to aid 
 Artabazus in a revolt against the Persian king. Ipliic- 
 rates, having become the son-in-law of the Thracian 
 Cotys, had aided him in his hostile expeditions against 
 Athens. This same Ipliicrates came to receive hostages 
 of Amphipolis; the city was about to surrender. A 
 mercenary succeeded him, restored the hostages, passed 
 into the service of the Thracian king, and Amphipolis 
 was lost. 
 
 What shall I say of the habits acquired by the leaders 
 of the mercenaries in the heart of Asiatic opulence and 
 license ? Chares had robbed the treasury, he bribed 
 the orators, and the people acquitted him. Ipliicrates 
 was accused of treason, and saved his life by showing 
 his sword and the poignards of his partisans who were 
 scattered through the assembly. When military ser¬ 
 vice became a trade, the soldier lost his ardor against 
 
 \ 
 
 the stranger, and the leaders of an army not really na¬ 
 tional soon ceased to be citizens. The suppression, or 
 at least the transformation of the theoricon , would have 
 weakened the evils connected with the use of mercenary 
 troops. Neither the zeal of Demosthenes for the pub¬ 
 lic welfare, nor his eloquence, could arouse the people, 
 forgetful, as they were, of the virtues which are the 
 means and safeguard of liberty. 
 
 All forms of government conceal the germs of evils 
 that may ruin them. The wisest have their peculiar 
 infirmities and dangers. The aim of the legislator 
 should be to weaken these as much as possible, and 
 first, to seek a constitution containing the fewest sources 
 of abuse. Aristotle, without pronouncing himself ab¬ 
 solutely in favor of a democratic government, has 
 marked its nature and advantages with a precision that 
 
142 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 equals an eulogy. “ The democratic form,” lie says, 
 “is the most lasting of all, since in it the majority 
 rules, and the equality enjoyed makes it the most cher¬ 
 ished of all constitutions. * * * Imagine a state of 
 thirteen hundred citizens, a thousand of whom are 
 wealthy ; now deprive of all political power the remain¬ 
 ing three hundred, as free, however, as the others, and 
 their equals in all respects except that of wealth. Could 
 that be called a democratic government ? * * * There 
 is no democracy, save where the free and poor make 
 the majority and the ruling power.” Aristotle advo¬ 
 cated equity and clemency to the poor. “But,” said he, 
 “this double end is not usually obtained. It does not 
 always happen that the heads of the government are 
 the most pleasant men.* However, it is the interest 
 of the state to treat the lower classes gently. “At 
 Carthage the government always knew how to gain the 
 affection of the people by sending them, one after an¬ 
 other, into the colonies to enrich themselves. The 
 higher classes, if they are intelligent, will endeavor to 
 aid the poor and to furnish them labor. * * * Almost 
 all legislators who have wished to found an aristocracy, 
 have committed two errors almost identical. First, in 
 bestowing too much upon the rich; and second, in tak¬ 
 ing too much away from the poor. In the course of time 
 a false good necessarily gives rise to an undoubted evil. 
 The ambition of the upper classes has ruined more 
 governments than that of the lower classes.” Philoso¬ 
 phers and legislators consider the organization of capi¬ 
 tal as the greatest difficulty,— in their eyes “ a pecu¬ 
 liar source of revolution.” Plato in his Republic solved 
 the problem by suppressing property; f what is called 
 
 * Politics, vi, 10, 3; vii, 1 ; viii, 6. 
 
 t “ La propriété, c’est le vol,” a paradox ingeniously refuted by 
 Laya in liis courageous comedy, L'ami des lois (2 January, 1793). 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 143 
 
 striking at the root of the evil. Chalceclonian Phaleas 
 tried to equalize property by advising the rich to 
 give and never receive doweries; the poor, to receive 
 and never to give. The author of Politics put little 
 value upon these expedients designed to maintain 
 among fortunes a kind of chimerical level, a necessarily 
 unstable equilibrium. u The necessity is to level pas¬ 
 sions rather than property, and that equality is the re¬ 
 sult only of education regulated by good laws.” Pha¬ 
 leas expected to suppress thieves and highwaymen by 
 a decree; he was deceived. It is abundance, and not 
 indigence, that commits great crimes. u Ho one usurps 
 tyranny to be sheltered from the inclemency of the sea¬ 
 sons.” Covetousness must be mastered. Demagogues 
 (and here is the stumbling-block of a popular govern¬ 
 ment) flatter the people through personal ambition, to 
 the detriment of the public welfare. When the higher 
 classes become indignant, because all the public ex¬ 
 penses are imposed upon them, they revolt against the 
 injustice, and sometimes liberty perishes.* Therefore 
 a wise policy will guard against extremes. Only a dis¬ 
 honest citizen can advocate equality of property, the 
 worst of scourges. In the words of the author of Dc 
 Officiis,-\ it is sufficient to equalize the inequalities by 
 imposing taxes especially upon the rich, and by reliev¬ 
 ing the multitude. ^ 
 
 These wise principles, borrowed by Montesquieu 
 from the man of Stagira, were those of Demosthenes. 
 Perhaps he has even, in this point of view, extended 
 the obligations of the city to the utmost limits in the 
 eyes of modern times. “We ought to pay willingly 
 
 * Politics , viii, 4; ii, 4; vi, 10; vii, 4. 
 
 t “Æquatio bonorum, qua peste quæ potest esse major?” ii, 21. 
 
 X Esprit des Lois , v, 5. 
 
144 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 to our parents tlie debt justly imposed by nature and 
 by law; but what eacli one owes liis father the repub¬ 
 lic owes to each of its citizens, common fathers of the 
 state. Thus, far from diminishing that which the 
 state gives them, it should be required, this resource 
 failing, to find others, that they might not be obliged 
 to expose their poverty to all eyes.” Thus not only 
 individual labor, but also the state, should assist in 
 diminishing poverty. u If the rich proceed upon these 
 principles they will act agreeably, not to justice only, 
 but to good policy; for to rob some men of their neces¬ 
 sary subsistence is to raise a number of enemies to the 
 commonwealth. To men of lower fortunes I give this 
 advice, that they should remove' those grievances of 
 which the wealthier members complain so loudly and 
 so justly (for I now proceed in the manner I proposed, 
 and shall not scruple to offer such truths as may be 
 favorable to the rich). * * * The rich should have 
 their lives and fortunes well secured, so that when 
 any danger threatens their country their opulence may 
 be applied to its defense. Other citizens should regard 
 the public treasure as it really is,— the property of 
 all,— and be content with just their portion; but should 
 esteem all private fortunes as the inviolable right of 
 their possessors. Thus a small state rises to great¬ 
 ness; a great one preserves its power.”* Demos¬ 
 thenes often implored respect for democratic equality. 
 “There is no more fatal error than the aggrandize¬ 
 ment of one citizen beyond the multitude.” This 
 multitude (of ttoLW), the lower classes, are the objects 
 of the greatest solicitude on the part of the Athenian 
 politician. He recalls their duties to them, but he 
 supports the right of indulgence by the rich for the 
 
 * Fourth Philippic , § 40. 
 
DEMOSTHENES — THE STATESMAN. 
 
 145 
 
 benefit of the State. In this manner Demosthenes 
 
 hoped to revive the internal, and thus the external, 
 
 power of Athens. He has described and summed up 
 
 his whole policy: u Such was the general tenor of my 
 
 administration in the affairs of this citv and in the 
 
 «/ 
 
 national concerns of Greece. Here I was never known 
 to prefer the favor of the great to the rights of the 
 people; and in the affairs of Greece, the bribes, the 
 flattering assurances of friendship which Philip lav¬ 
 ished, never were so dear to me as the interests of 
 the nation.”* 
 
 IY. From the beginning Demosthenes’ discernment 
 penetrated the most obscure plans of the enemy. U I 
 see the encroachments of Philip cause you more alarm 
 in the future than to-day. Yes, the progress of evil 
 forces itself upon my sight (344). May my conjec¬ 
 tures be false ! but I tremble lest we have already 
 touched the fatal goal.” Athens, on the contrary, so 
 ready to suspect her eminent citizens, became confident 
 and credulous as soon as her courtiers set forth the 
 royal good faith of the Macedonian. She scoffed at 
 the revelations of her wary orator, and looked with 
 complacency upon the future. Moreover, should all 
 oligarchies be considered by a democratic government 
 as her natural and implacable f enemies, how much 
 more reason had Athens to guard against a king ! 
 
 “ Various are the contrivances for the defense and security 
 of cities, as battlements, and walls, and trenches, and other 
 kinds of fortifications, all which are the effects of labor, and 
 attended with continual expense. [What would Demos- 
 
 * On the Crown , § 109. 
 
 t In some states the oligarchs took the oath : “ I shall be the con¬ 
 stant enemy of the people; I will do them all the harm I can.” 
 Aristotle, Politics , viii, 7. 
 
 7 
 
146 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 tlienes have said of our war budgets?] But there is one 
 common bulwark with which men of prudence are naturally 
 provided, the guard and security of all people, particularly 
 of free states, against the assault of tyrants. What is this? 
 Distrust ! Of this be mindful, to this adhere. Preserve this 
 carefully, and no calamity can affect you. ‘ What is it you 
 seek ? 1 said I. ‘Liberty ? 1 And do ye not perceive that 
 nothing can be more adverse to this than the very titles of 
 Philip? Every monarch, every tyrant, is an enemy to lib¬ 
 erty and the opposer of laws . 11 * 
 
 This distrust is especially demanded of Athens, for 
 it is she that Philip hates and doubts above all. 
 
 “First, then, Athenians, be firmly persuaded of this: that 
 Philip is committing hostilities against us, and has really 
 violated the peace; that he has the most implacable enmity 
 to this whole city, to the ground on which this city stands, 
 to the very gods of this city (may their vengeance fall upon 
 him!); but against our constitution is his force principally 
 directed. The destruction of this is, of all other things, the 
 most immediate object of his secret schemes and machina¬ 
 tions, and there is, in some sort, a necessity that it should 
 be so. Consider. He aims at universal power, and you he 
 regards as the only persons to dispute his pretensions. He 
 hath long injured you, and of this he himself is fully con¬ 
 scious; for the surest barriers of his other dominions are 
 those places which he hath taken from us, so that, if he 
 should give up Amphipolis and Potidæa, he would not think 
 himself secure in Maceclon. He is, then, sensible, both that 
 he entertains designs against you and that you perceive them; 
 and as he thinks highly of your wisdom, he judges that you 
 hold him in the abhorrence he deserves. To these things 
 (and these of such importance) add: that he is perfectly con¬ 
 vinced that, although he were master of all other places, yet 
 it is impossible for him to be secure while your popular gov- 
 
 * Second Philippic, § 23. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 147 
 
 eminent subsists; but that if any accident should happen to 
 him (and every man is subject to many), all those who now 
 submit to force would seize the opportunity and fly to you 
 for protection; and therefore it is with regret he sees, in 
 that freedom you enjoy, a spy upon the incidents of his for¬ 
 tune. Nor is this, his reasoning, weak or trivial. First, 
 then, he is on this account to be regarded as the implacable 
 enemy of our free and popular constitution. In the next 
 place, we should be fully persuaded that all those things 
 which now employ him, all that he is now projecting, he is 
 projecting against this city.”* 
 
 The Athenians were incapable of submitting volun¬ 
 tarily to the yoke, or of deserting the cause of Hel¬ 
 lenic liberty. 
 
 “ As ambition is his great passion, universal empire the 
 sole object of his views; not peace, not tranquillity, not any 
 just purpose. He knows this well, that neither our consti¬ 
 tution nor our principles would admit him to prevail upon 
 you (by anything he could promise, by anything he could 
 do) to sacrifice one state of Greece to your private interest; 
 but that, as you have the due regard to justice, as you have 
 an abhorrence of the least stain upon } T our honor, and as you 
 have that quick discernment which nothing can escape, the 
 moment his attempt was made you would oppose him with 
 the same vigor as if you yourselves had been immediately 
 attacked.” t 
 
 “Thebans, Thessalians, Argives, and Messenians, 
 are treated as his friends. He knows that at his first 
 sign they w r ould swell his army. You he abuses. 
 And this reflects the greatest lustre upon you, my 
 countrymen, for by these proceedings you are de¬ 
 clared the only invariable asserters of the rights of 
 Greece,— the only persons whom no private attacli- 
 
 * Fourth Philippic , § 11. f Second Philippic, § 7. 
 
148 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ment, no views of interest, can seduce from tlieir af¬ 
 fection to the Greeks.” These considerations do honor 
 to the magnanimity of Athens and the sagacity of her 
 statesman. 
 
 Every step the Macedonian advanced strengthened 
 Demosthenes’ zeal in shaking the torpor of the Athe¬ 
 nians. “It seems to me, Athenians, that some divinity 
 who, from a regard to Athens, looks down upon our 
 conduct with indignation, hath inspired Philip with 
 this restless ambition. For were he to sit down in 
 the quiet enjoyment of his conquests and acquisitions, 
 without proceeding to any new attempts, there are 
 men among you who, I think, would be unmoved at 
 those transactions which have branded our state with 
 the odious marks of infamy, cowardice, and all that 
 is base. But as he still pursues his conquests, as he 
 is still extending his ambitious views, possibly he 
 may at last call you forth, unless you have renounced 
 the name of Athenians!”* Philip’s avidity seemed 
 to be the spur with which the gods urged Athens; 
 but the true spur was Demosthenes; incessantly he 
 goaded her, benumbed by a lethargy from which she 
 awoke but to die. 
 
 A statesman so vigilant and strong in the grandeur 
 of his soul and genius, was Philip’s most formidable 
 enemy. Philip felt it and did him justice. After his 
 second Philippic (344), the king of Macedonia, im¬ 
 pressed with the exactness of his views, said: “I 
 would have given my voice to Demosthenes to declare 
 war for me, and I would have appointed him gen¬ 
 eral. * * * I would willingly exchange Ampliipolis 
 for the genius of Demosthenes.” Lucian faithfully 
 
 First Philippic , § 42. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 149 
 
 interprets the prince’s sentiments when he ascribes 
 to him these words: 
 
 “In spite of themselves Demosthenes arouses his fellow- 
 countrymen, lulled to sleep as by mandrake, from their weary 
 stupor. Taking little pains to be agreeable to them, his 
 candor is the iron that strikes and burns their indo¬ 
 lence. * * * If that single Demosthenes were only away 
 from Athens, I would subjugate the city more easily than 
 I did Thebes and Thessaly. * * * He alone watches for 
 his country, discovers all occasions, follows our proceedings 
 and confronts our armies. Nothing escapes him,— neither 
 my stratagems, enterprises, nor designs. * * * In a word, 
 this man is an obstacle, a rampart, that hinders me from 
 taking away everything in the course of a walk. * * * If 
 they made such a man as he absolute master of ammunition, 
 vessels, circumstances, and money, I fear I should soon be 
 forced to dispute Macedonia with him; he who, armed with 
 decrees alone, surrounds me on all sides, surprises me, dis¬ 
 covers resources, assembles troops, launches upon the sea 
 formidable fleets, puts armies into the field, and everywhere 
 equals me.” * 
 
 Philip at Chæronea fought against Demosthenes in 
 fighting against Athens, and the defeat of the Pe- 
 public was that of its statesman. Upon the field of 
 battle, in the intoxication of victory, Philip thought 
 first of Demosthenes: “ Demosthenes , son of Demos¬ 
 thenes of tlie Pæanian tribe , has said * * * ” He 
 recited, keeping time, the beginning of a decree of the 
 patriot, and danced around the corpses that covered 
 the plain; then recovering from his first transport, “he 
 shuddered with fear at the thought that the wonderful 
 eloquence of Demosthenes had compelled him to risk 
 for several hours his empire and his life.”f 
 
 * Lucian, Life of Demosthenes. 
 
 f Plutarch, Life of Demosthenes, cli. 20. 
 
150 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 The political penetration of Demosthenes sometimes 
 appeared at fault; his ideas of Philip and of the weak¬ 
 ness of the empire did not always seem worthy of an 
 intelligent statesman. In fact, Demosthenes does not 
 spare his invective upon this “barbarian, worthy of 
 all names one could wish to give him.” lie most 
 willingly branded his envious jealousy and debauchery; 
 he pictured him as surrounded, in his court at Pella, 
 by a lot of fools, thieves, and debauched people, 
 “abandoning themselves in their orgies to dances 
 wdiich I would blush to describe to you”; and still, 
 in this respect, Demosthenes knew that the Athe¬ 
 nians were little scrupulous with their eyes and ears. 
 This satire upon Philip’s morals was shabby, ’tis said: 
 Æscliines did right to reproach him for it. Why open 
 the eyes to gross intemperance and close them to 
 genius ? Some say, Demosthenes was guilty of a 
 graver mistake: he ignored the secret of Philip’s 
 power, a culpable error in an orator about to deter¬ 
 mine the destin v of Athens in a merciless combat; 
 but it appeared at the beginning of the struggle and 
 continued until the eve of Chæronea. The last Philip¬ 
 pic, like the first, expressed unwarrantable disdain and 
 unfounded hope. 
 
 “ It is worthy your attention to consider how the affairs of 
 
 Philip are at this time circumstanced. For they are by no 
 
 means so well disposed, so very flourishing, as an inattentive 
 
 observer would pronounce. Nor would he have engaged 
 
 # 
 
 in this war at all, had he thought he should have been 
 obliged to maintain it. He hoped that the moment he ap¬ 
 peared, all things would fall before him. But these hopes 
 are vain. And this disappointment, in the first place, troubles 
 and dispirits him.” * Perhaps his prosperity is only a snare 
 
 * Third Olynihiac , § 21. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 151 
 
 laid by divinity: “For great and unexpected success is apt 
 to hurry weak minds into extravagances. Hence it often 
 proves much more difficult to maintain acquisitions than to 
 acquire them.” 
 
 The temple of Philip’s power apparently so threat¬ 
 ening, is more imposing than real, and rests upon 
 rotten foundations. 
 
 “For when forces join in harmony and affection, and one 
 common interest unites the confederating powers, then they 
 share the toils with alacrity,— they endure the distresses, they 
 persevere. But when extravagant ambition and lawless 
 power (as in his case) have aggrandized a single person, the 
 first pretense, the slightest accident, overthrows him, and all 
 his greatness is dashed at once to the ground. At present 
 his successes cast a shade over him; for prosperity hath great 
 power to veil such baseness from observation. But let his 
 arms meet with the least disgrace, and all his actions will be 
 exposed; for, as in our bodies, while a man is in health he 
 feels no effect of any inward weakness, but when disease 
 attacks him, everything becomes sensitive in the vessels, in 
 the joints, or in whatever part his frame may be disordered. 
 So in states and monarchies: while they carry on a war 
 abroad, their defects escape the general eye; but when once 
 it approaches their own territory, then they are all detected. 
 Now such appears to be the fortune of this man, who is too 
 feeble for the load he wishes to carry. * * * And I also, 
 Athenians, would have believed Philip born to command fear 
 and admiration if I had seen him rise by legitimate means. 
 * * * But it is not possible, Athenians,— it is not possible 
 that iniquity, perjury and fraud can support durable powers. 
 By such adventurous means they may sustain themselves once 
 for a moment; they may even promise the most flourishing 
 future; but time exposes them, and they fall of themselves. 
 In a house, a vessel, or any other structure, the base should 
 be the most solid part, and likewise it is good to give prin- 
 
152 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ciples to action, a foundation of justice and truth,— now 
 this is what to-day the enterprises of Philip lack.*’ 
 
 The statesman may here be said to be the dupe of 
 the moralist; the jDatriot mistakes his wishes for reali¬ 
 ties; he deceives himself, and deluding one’s self is 
 more than a crime for a statesman. Æschines alleged 
 that the promises of Philip misled him. Demosthenes 
 rejected this excuse: “It is not admissible, neither in 
 politics nor equity, for in fact you induce, yon force no 
 one to mix in public affairs; only when a man who is 
 persuaded ot his ability presents himself do you wel¬ 
 come him with the gratitude of a good and confiding 
 people, and without jealous objection. He becomes 
 your choice, and you put your affairs into his hands. 
 If he is successful, he will be honored and will exalt him¬ 
 self above the multitude; but if he fails, shall he be 
 cleared of it with excuses and evasions ? This would 
 not be just. Would the allies who have perished, and 
 their wives and children, and so many other unfortu¬ 
 nate victims, be indemnified for their disasters by the 
 thought that it is the work of my folly, not to say that 
 of Æscliines ? Very far from it.”* How, can we 
 rightfully use these words against their author, and 
 throw upon him the responsibility of this blunder ? 
 
 To us it seems easy to justify Demosthenes. Philip’s 
 weakness, as described by him, was not a fancy. Those 
 domestic and national dissensions to which he points 
 really existed; the very death of the conqueror through 
 court intrigues proves it; and if Demosthenes, more 
 confiding it seems than Phocion in the equity of provi¬ 
 dence and the fortune of Athens, preserved some hope 
 till the end, the catastrophe of the battle of Chæ- 
 ronea, whose loss was due solely to the rashness of 
 
 * Embassy , § 99. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 153 
 
 Lysicles, then the sudden fall of Alexander’s empire, 
 proved that the orator’s hopes were not wholly delu¬ 
 sive. u If each city had had but one citizen like me 
 at the post that I occupied,— what say I? — if but a 
 single man in Thessaly, a single man in Arcadia, had 
 thought as I did, no Greek on this or the other side of 
 Thermopylae could have been reached even with pres¬ 
 ents ; but free and self-governed, without peril and 
 without fear, they would all live happy in their own 
 country, obliged for so much good to you, to all Ath¬ 
 ens, thankful to me.” Demosthenes was not so blinded 
 by his hatred of Macedonia as to believe and desire 
 the impossible. That which he saw was not fanciful; 
 and when often he feigned not to see it, he had rea¬ 
 sons, easy to conceive, for hiding it from the people. 
 
 It is in fact injudicious to admit that the true state of 
 affairs had escaped the penetration of such a mind. 
 Demosthenes was reason and reflection itself. He passed 
 his life in studying Philip, in watching all the turns in 
 domestic and foreign affairs; and Philip, through his 
 most wonderful qualities, escaped him. We would not 
 know how to admit such a strange contradiction. Who, 
 then, has given us the truest portrait of Philip, the 
 general and the politician, unless the orator of the Phi¬ 
 lippics f Did Demosthenes ignore the advantages that 
 gave to Philip the defeat of the Athenians and their 
 democratic constitution ? No, he perceived them clearly; 
 but he did not believe that the whole reality ought to 
 be placed before the eyes of his hearers. He satirized 
 Philip’s habits and his Macedonian nights (not Attic) 
 passed with actors, outcasts of the Piræus; with a cer¬ 
 tain Callias, a public slave, rejected by Athens with dis¬ 
 gust, and afterward the favorite of the king. He called 
 to witness a person who had been in that country an 
 
154 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 indignant witness of Philip’s baseness. He treated the 
 conqueror as a common drunkard,— for what purpose ? 
 To conceal by abuse the secret devotion of a man who 
 received wages ? Let us leave this frivolous interpreta¬ 
 tion to vEschines. He used thereby an orator’s ac¬ 
 knowledged right to exaggerate or curtail, according to 
 the necessities of his case. A Peter of Russia could 
 love wine as Henry IY and Louis XIY loved other 
 pleasures, without being for that reason less worthy 
 of the name of “ the Great.” Demosthenes did not 
 exaggerate the extent of Philip’s vices unreasonably, 
 and he certainly would not have sought reasons for 
 it if his auditors were merely such as Lycurgus, Hy- 
 perides, and Eubulus. But intellectual as were the 
 citizens of Athens, a city without blockheads, the as¬ 
 semblies there were none the less popular assemblies. 
 Oratory before the Areopagus or at the Pnyx, in the 
 forum or before the senate, was under different condi¬ 
 tions. Publius Seipio would not have dared, before 
 the conscript fathers, to caricature the descent of Han¬ 
 nibal’s army from the Alps, as he did before his army 
 (Livy, xxi, 40). He would have thought only of in¬ 
 structing the wise company. But it was necessary for 
 him to fortify the courage of his alarmed soldiers; and 
 what surer way than to inspire them with contempt of 
 the enemy ? Demosthenes likewise devoted himself to 
 remove the fears of the Athenians. To lessen Philip’s 
 strength in their eyes weakened him, for it strengthened 
 the confident courage of those whom he fought. In 
 general, Demosthenes paid homage to Philip when he 
 wished to spur the Athenians to emulation; he de¬ 
 nounced him, and justified the words of P. L. Courier, 
 calling him “the great pamjMeteer of Greece, ” when 
 he wished to give them courage; now, this was above 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 155 
 
 all what they lacked. The orator did not even think 
 of concealing his tactics. “ To enumerate the elements 
 of Philip’s power, and by this examination arouse you 
 to your duty, does not seem convenient to me. And 
 why ? Because all that could be said in this respect 
 would not be without glory to him, and not an eulogy 
 to our conduct. * * * But that which before an impar¬ 
 tial judge would cover you with ignominy, is what I 
 shall try to tell you here.” While he disparaged their 
 adversary he endeavored to strengthen their own feel¬ 
 ings and raise them to the level of their ancestors; 
 sometimes he played upon their fear. “Philip not 
 only wishes to subjugate Athens, but to annihilate it,” 
 an exaggeration suiting the purpose of the orator. 
 Sometimes instead of exaggerating he attenuated the 
 danger. Demosthenes called the Amphictyonie title 
 decreed to Philip a “vain shadow.” Can we dare con¬ 
 clude that he did not foresee for what purpose the adroit 
 Macedonian would use this remark ? Tie foresaw it but 
 too well; but powerless as he saw Athens to rescue this 
 sacred weapon from a prince who, by the consent of 
 all, had become the protector of Delphi and its Pythia, 
 Demosthenes should be praised for speaking disdain¬ 
 fully of a title whose denial would have provoked a 
 formidable levy of bucklers against his country. Let 
 us continue to do homage to his wisdom and his de¬ 
 
 signs; let us not impute to political blindness that for 
 which the moralist and the orator may be more prop¬ 
 erly praised. 
 
 Enlightened judges have esteemed Demosthenes one 
 of the greatest statesmen of antiquity; others have ac¬ 
 cused him of driving his country to the precipice. Was 
 Demosthenes right or wrong in advocating war against 
 the Macedonians ? Polybius reproached him for it. 
 
156 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 “The struggle of the Athenians against Philip tended 
 to plunge them into still greater evils; and without the 
 magnanimity of the king and his love of glory, the 
 policy of Demosthenes would have caused them still 
 heavier misfortunes. ” Polybius reproves Demosthenes 
 for having denounced as “traitors” the most important 
 people of those cities that concluded an alliance with 
 Macedonia. These citizens were not traitors, but rather 
 “benefactors” and “saviors,” since their frien 
 for Philip preserved their country from the greatest dis¬ 
 asters, and secured them very marked advantages over 
 inimical cities. The friend of Scipio Æmilianus could 
 not speak otherwise without running the risk of a trial. 
 Polybius, friendly to the Romans in their struggle 
 against Perseus, procured them the help of the Acliæan 
 league, whose cavalry he commanded; therefore he 
 praises himself when he congratulates Aristlienes for 
 having made the Acliæan league pass over “properly” 
 from the alliance of Philip to the friendship of the Ro¬ 
 mans; a policy which for the Acliæans was a source of 
 “security” and “ aggrandizement.” Polybius’views 
 were narrow and selfish. He justified the desertion of 
 nations on the ground that their secession was person¬ 
 ally profitable to themselves.* Demosthenes consid¬ 
 ered interest higher than independence and national 
 dignity. He accused the cities aiding Philip of failing 
 in their duties to the Hellenic cause; Polybius insists 
 upon the advantages which the alleged traitors procured 
 for their country. Nevertheless Demosthenes affirmed 
 that all the cities guilty of treason had more to suffer 
 
 * Polybius, xvii, 14, 13. Bora at Megalopolis, in Arcadia, the his¬ 
 torian would have greatly desired to protect his compatriots from the 
 branding reproaches of Demosthenes. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 157 
 
 from the triumph of the Macedonian than Athens her¬ 
 self, and history proves him right.* 
 
 Mablyf quotes Polybius, and approves him: u This 
 orator grossly deceived himself if he believed all the 
 Greeks would consult the interests of the Athenians. If 
 each republic, after the fall of the federal government, 
 could count only on itself, and had none but foes for 
 neighbors, why did Demosthenes believe himself jus¬ 
 tified in demanding that Thessaly, on the frontiers of 
 Macedonia, and which Philip himself had delivered 
 from tyrants, should become ungrateful f and expose 
 itself to the evils of war, to give Greece a useless ex¬ 
 ample of courage, and appear attached to the principles 
 of a union that no longer existed ? If the Argives 
 implored the protection of Philip, it was because Lace- 
 dæmon still desired to be the tyrant of the Pelopon¬ 
 nesus, and because Macedonia alone could give them 
 useful help. If the Thebans allied themselves with 
 Philip, it was because they saw that the Greeks no 
 longer wished to be free, and that they thought it 'pru¬ 
 dent not to offend the most poweiful enemy of public 
 liberty. Why did not Demosthenes perceive that the 
 injuries with which he afflicted the principal magis¬ 
 trates of Messenia, Megalopolis, Thebes, and Argos, 
 far from preparing their minds for the alliance which 
 he contemplated, were but able to multiply the civil 
 hatred and domestic quarrels of Greece ? By his in¬ 
 considerate conduct * * * he himself served the am¬ 
 bition of .Philip. After having tried the feebleness, 
 irresolution and timidity of the Athenians, why did he 
 
 * Grote, History of Greece. 
 
 f Observations sur l'histoire de la Grèce (édit, of 1791), iv, p. 157. 
 
 % Thus Polybius ( Examples of Virtues and Vices, § 38) opposes tlic 
 generous virtue of Philip to the ungrateful obstinacy of Athens. 
 
158 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 wish that the other cities should do for them what they 
 would not do for themselves ? After having learned 
 by experience the uselessness of the embassies with 
 which he fatigued Greece, why did he not change his 
 views ? and can we not condemn him as a statesman 
 and ccs a citizen , while we admire him as an orator?” 
 Mably would very willingly accept the saying of the 
 sceptics of Athens: “Demosthenes does not know his 
 country; he is a fool.”* In return he exalts the ad¬ 
 mirable sense of “ Phocion, who, as great a general as 
 Demosthenes was a bad soldier, knew how, by advis¬ 
 ing submission, to put himself within reach of his fel¬ 
 low citizens.” f 
 
 We shall leave to Mably the care of refuting himself. 
 Is it not in fact refuting one’s self to render homage to 
 Demosthenes in terms that assure him of our sym¬ 
 pathy at the cost of the prince, his opponent? “Philip 
 feared the impetuous eloquence that denounced him 
 as a tyrant. He did not wish that the pride of the 
 Greeks should be revived by awakening the memory 
 of the great deeds of their fathers. To speak to them 
 of the price of liberty was to force them to act with 
 circumspection distasteful to an ambitious man. The 
 more Philip endeavored to deprive Greece of her lib- 
 
 * Demosthenes, Embassy : è/j '.ftsfipovT^GOai, àyvoeïv. 
 
 f Æschines (Against Gtesiphon) rails at a “ long ” decree of Demos¬ 
 thenes, “full of hopes that could not be realized, and of armies des¬ 
 tined never to unite.” Was this the fault of Demosthenes or that of 
 the Athenians? This criticism is as good as the argument of Mably: 
 “ Demosthenes expected nothing from his enterprises, since in the 
 great number of exordia that he composed in advance, one hardly 
 tinds two or three which he had prepared for a happy result.” De¬ 
 mosthenes had not to fear that in case of success he would lack words ; 
 joy would assure him of the improvisation of an exordium to his 
 liking. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE STATESMAN. 
 
 159 
 
 erty, and to inspire lier with a certain indolence that 
 would prepare her to obey when she would be con¬ 
 quered, the more he saw with chagrin that the Athe¬ 
 nian orator revealed his projects, taught the Greeks 
 beforehand that they would some day blush for the 
 servitude that was inevitable, and, in a certain way, 
 rendered the fruits of his victories uncertain by pre¬ 
 paring them to become unquiet and seditious. * * * 
 Till then there had been no one in Greece but this ora¬ 
 tor, who, unraveling the ambitious plans of the Mace¬ 
 donian, had discovered the dangers with which the 
 liberty of his country was menaced. If any man was 
 able to draw the Athenians out of the disgrace into 
 which their taste for pleasure had cast them, and to 
 restore to the Greeks their ancient valor, that man 
 was Demosthenes, whose burning orations inflame the 
 reader even to-day. But he spoke to deaf people; and, 
 thanks to the more eloquent gifts of Philip, from the 
 time the orator in thundering terms proposed decrees, 
 to conclude alliances, form leagues, levy armies and 
 equip galleys, a thousand voices cried out that peace 
 was the greatest blessing, and that it was not worth while 
 to sacrifice the present to the imaginary fears of the 
 future.* Demosthenes appealed to love of glory, love 
 of country, love of liberty, but these virtues no longer 
 existed in Greece; the pensioners of Philip stirred up 
 and created in his favor laziness, avarice, and effemi¬ 
 nacy.” 
 
 “A victory due to such means lias little honor, especially 
 when we consider for what bad purposes it was used by a 
 prince who could only be praised for having the art to de- 
 
 * “ If the Arcadians neglected a remote evil to seek a remedy for 
 the one that oppressed them , ought Demosthenes to make it one of 
 their crimes ? ” (Mably.) 
 
160 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 base the Greek and to destroy the remnant of courage they 
 owed to their liberty. * * * Working but to satisfy his am¬ 
 bition, he employed the greatest talents and rarest gifts of 
 genius but to construct an edifice which, after his death, 
 must crumble into dust.” 
 
 Thus Philip did not serve the cause of “humanity” 
 as he ought to have done. He was not a provident 
 man. Why then summon Demosthenes to trial, the 
 enemy of a conqueror who did not even claim the 
 excuse of having bettered what he conquered? In 
 short, Mably has written in another work: 
 
 “With what noble and passionate firmness do free states 
 defend their liberty! Macedonia had more trouble in sub¬ 
 jugating several cities of Greece than entire Asia. Asia, 
 once vanquished, submitted forever. Vanquished Greece did 
 not at all allow herself to be overwhelmed with disgrace; 
 * * * she still found enough courage in herself, under Alex¬ 
 ander and after him, to resist her own vices and the power¬ 
 ful princes who had the art of dividing her. The desire to 
 be free remained after liberty seemed to be irretrievably lost, 
 and produced the Achaean league that could not be destroyed 
 but by another republic destined to conquer all.” 
 
 It is not very easy to comprehend how the author 
 of these lines on the virtue of liberty could disown 
 the orator whose passion was to awaken its desire. 
 Mably’s thoughts lack cohesion and precision, or, 
 rather, his thoughts and his sentiments contradict one 
 another. This was the eternal struggle of cold intel¬ 
 lect, moved everywhere by interest,with the generous 
 inspiration and impulse of honor. It is Demosthenes’ 
 glory to have ignored these internal struggles and to 
 have done all that the dignity of Athens might come 
 out triumphant. “Distrust the first move,” said a 
 politician. It is always the best. The first move- 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 161 
 
 ment of Demosthenes was that of his whole life. 
 Mably has condemned him, bnt at the expense of con¬ 
 tradictions that refute his iniquitous judgment. 
 
 An eminent genius, who has with distinction applied 
 his high faculties to the exposition of philosophical 
 doctrines, M. Cousin, has judged Demosthenes in one 
 of his most magnificent lectures.* The passage merits 
 citation: “Demosthenes, after all, was nothing hut a 
 great orator. Demosthenes, in his time, represented 
 the past of Greece, the spirit of small cities and small 
 republics, a worn-out and corrupt democracy,— a past 
 that could be no more and that was no more. To 
 revive a past irretrievably gone it was necessary to 
 wager truly against the possible. It was necessary 
 to attempt an unfolding of force and energy of which 
 others were incapable, and himself like the rest; for, 
 in short, one is always a little like others; one belongs 
 to his time. So Demosthenes failed; I add, with his¬ 
 tory, that he failed shamefully. * * * The eloquence 
 of Demosthenes is almost like his life. It is convul¬ 
 sive, demagogical, very unlike a statesman. ITe 
 had enough of invective and dialectics, as well as of a 
 skillful and wise use of language. But take the ora¬ 
 tions of Pericles, poorly arranged as they are by Thu¬ 
 cydides, compare them with those of Demosthenes, 
 and you will see what a difference there is between 
 the eloquence of the leader of a great nation and that 
 of the leader of a party. [It would be difficult to 
 compress more errors into fewer words.] If the strug¬ 
 gles of «nations are sad, if the vanquished claim our 
 pity, we must reserve our greater sympathy for the 
 conqueror [for Cæsar, apparently, and not for Ver¬ 
 cingétorix], since all victory infallibly indicates prog- 
 
 * Introduction à l'histoire de la philosophie : lOtli lecture. 
 
 7* 
 
162 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ress of the human race. * * * Unfortunate heroes 
 excite in us deeper sympathy than nations. Individ¬ 
 uality adds to sympathy, hut even there ’tis better to 
 be on the side of the conqueror, for it is always that 
 of the better cause, that of civilization and of human¬ 
 ity, that of the present and of the future, since that of 
 the vanquished is always that of the past. A great 
 man vanquished is a great man out of place in his 
 time. His triumph would stop the progress of the 
 world. We must therefore applaud his defeat, since 
 it was useful, since with his great qualities, his virtues 
 and his genius, he marched against humanity and 
 time.” 
 
 Thus Demosthenes is culpable for having yielded to 
 the allurements of patriotism, because he marched 
 against humanity and time. The triumph of Greece 
 would have arrested the progress of the world. These 
 are grand expressions, but when time alone has re¬ 
 vealed to us what was hidden from Demosthenes by the 
 shadows of the future, it is easier than it is just to 
 draw, at the expense of the generous citizen, the pom¬ 
 pous conclusions of a transcendental philosophy. 
 
 His maxim was that of Pericles, not to seek, for 
 the sake of our misgivings, to sound the future.* 
 4 ‘ Prophets should never sit in the council of states¬ 
 men.”*!' What we attribute to the force of circum¬ 
 stances is often due to the mere weakness of men. 
 Therefore the least questionable duty is here the near¬ 
 est. With righteous souls the moral of the present 
 will always prevail against the philosophy of the fu- 
 
 * “ They have abandoned the uncertainty of success to hope, but 
 think that they ought to count only upon themselves in the face of 
 the present duty.” (Funeral Eulogy , Thucydides, ii, 42.) 
 
 f Cf. De Rémusat (1834), cited by M. Stiévenart. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 163 
 
 turc. Demosthenes may have spoken in the name of 
 extinct virtue. Be it so, but he spoke in the name 
 of virtue. Intelligent as Themistocles, he was not 
 wholly ignorant of his inability to repair the edifice 
 from the foundation, decayed by time. In Aris¬ 
 tophanes, Agoraoritus makes People pass over to the 
 frying-pan and give him back his ancient virtues, to¬ 
 gether with youth. The counsellor of Athens could 
 not effect this magical change; but he was worthy of 
 praise for trying to draw from a dull old man the last 
 spark of youthful ardor. So many others around De¬ 
 mosthenes counselled the useful, the present utility. 
 It was well for the highest interests of Athens that the 
 voice of their ancestors resounded for a last time on 
 the tribune, that the emulation of the past was pro¬ 
 posed as the pledge of certain esteem, at least of the 
 respect of prosperity. Demosthenes, a worthy pupil 
 •of Pericles, said to the Athenians: “In deliberations 
 of public interest the glory of our ancestors is the 
 only law to consult. Each citizen, if he wishes to 
 do nothing but what this law approves, ought, in 
 mounting the tribune to judge a public cause, to think 
 that with the insignia of his office he is invested with 
 the dignity of Athens.” ITe himself set the example. 
 He struggled, in the name of national honor, against 
 the selfishness of citizens, the paltry interests of that 
 always abundant class of people attached exclusively 
 to the prosperity of their own trifling affairs, to the 
 inviolability of their own well-being,— the Chrysalcs 
 of patriotism, whose horizon is a good soup and a 
 well-cooked roast. Citizens like these were not scarce 
 at Athens.* Aristophanes engaged them in the gross 
 
 *“One dies on politics, one lives on business,” is tlieir device. 
 We suppose they will shortly translate beneficium as benefit. 
 
164 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 pleasantries of his Acharnians , and employed his comic 
 whims in increasing their number. Three cheers for 
 ringdoves and thrushes, tripe with honey, eels from 
 lake Copai's, biscuits, nicknacks, beautiful dancers, and 
 cool wine ! Fie on war and its disgraces ! In truth, 
 Lamachus is well advanced, having gone to break his 
 lance against the enemies. Pay attention ! There he 
 is coming back amidst the laughter of the theater, 
 with a cut from a lance somewhere else than in the 
 breast, groaning, limping, legs out of joint, head half 
 split, and without his plumes ! 
 
 This is the depth of Diceopolis’ political morality. 
 This just man and his equals saw in a buckler the 
 picture of a cheese, in a spear a spit. They judged 
 everything from the standpoint of good living and of 
 enjoyment. Very often such were the Athenians of 
 Demosthenes’ time, when the love of peace at any 
 price was much less excusable than at the time of the 
 Peloponnesian war. The contemporaries of Aristoph¬ 
 anes doubted whether it was their duty to dispute 
 preeminence with Sparta, or to seek the aggrandize¬ 
 ment of Athens in Sicily. Demosthenes’ hearers could 
 not doubt their obligation to drive the Macedonian 
 from Greece. Thus the orator, in attacking Philip, 
 obedient to the dictates of his conscience, could not 
 fail, and if he failed, his mistake was happy, and more 
 enviable than the cold prudence of the foreigner’s 
 partisans. There are situations where honor com¬ 
 mands us to fight, though the cause be hopeless. 
 If heaven has designs, it will always have power to 
 accomplish them, and men at least will have obeyed 
 that secret voice which inspired a .hero of Corneille 
 with this honest maxim: “Do your duty , and to the 
 gods leave the rest A 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 165 
 
 Now, it was undoubtedly Athens’ duty to delay 
 servitude by the manly efforts of an hour, and not 
 to hasten it by a weak submission. Fancying one’s 
 self to discover the men of Providence, and aiding the 
 evolutions of humanity by rallying to tlieir standards, 
 is to enter a dangerous way. Patriotism here can 
 easily err. 
 
 Demosthenes, condemned by speculative philosophy 
 and poetry, is acquitted by common sense and morality. 
 It is a narrowness of honorable minds not to set them¬ 
 selves up as especially interested interpreters of divine 
 commands, but to oblige themselves modestly to do 
 their duty without words. Fénelon * declares that Atti- 
 cus was wiser than even Cicero and Cato. Demosthenes, 
 in his eyes, was wrong in struggling against Philip; 
 it was impossible for him to restore his republic, and 
 to guard her from danger. The preceptor of the Duke 
 of Bourgoyne makes a distinction between the duty 
 of a private citizen and that of a prince: “A mere 
 private man ought to think of nothing but of regulating 
 his own affairs, and of governing his family; he ought 
 never to desire public offices, still less seek them.” 
 God has provided for this abstinence by entrusting 
 the mission of governing a state to a prince, who 
 would not be at liberty to abandon it, “in however 
 bad a state it was.” Without thinking of it, Fénelon 
 eulogizes the republican constitution: where there 
 is no monarch, the citizens inherit his duties, and 
 ought, in his place and position, never to abandon, 
 desperate as it may seem, the cause of the state. The 
 republic is not intrusted to the care of a single man, 
 but to the devotion of each of her children; Demos¬ 
 thenes’ care did not fail her. “Seeing that all Greece 
 
 * Thirty-third Dialogue, .Dêmosthène et Cicéron. 
 
166 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 f 
 
 was humiliated, branded and corrupted, by those who 
 received the gifts of Philip and Alexander for the ruin 
 of their country, that his city needed a man and all 
 Greece a city to take the lead, he gave himself to his 
 country, and the city to Greece for liberty.” 
 
 This homage, rendered by Hyperides to Leostlienes, 
 seems to he addressed to the orator of the Philippics. 
 Demosthenes was conscious of having served his 
 country well, “an august and holy recompense in 
 the eyes of him who esteemed virtue and honor.” He 
 enjoyed still another: roused by Æschines to avenge 
 her defeat upon her counsellor, Athens, acknowledging 
 his services, decreed him a golden crown, less brilliant, 
 however, than that with which he enriched his coun¬ 
 try’s brow. With all due deference to the critics vexed 
 by his policy, Athens may be pardoned for a part of 
 her long-extended weakness; her vigor, tardy, but 
 worthy of her past, has merited and will still receive 
 the eulogies of the future. 
 
CHAPTER Y. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS AND CHAR¬ 
 ACTERISTICS OF DEMOSTHENES’ ELOQUENCE. 
 
 portrait of my thoughts, a monument far more beautiful than statues 
 of bronze.” (Socrates.) 
 
 U Demosthenes the statesman is reflected in the ora- 
 
 J- tor ; Demosthenes is therefore the most useful 
 model to be studied by men who are called upon to 
 govern their equals by speech. TIis eloquence is prac¬ 
 tical and positive, born of affairs and used for them. In 
 this sense we can well accept Rousseau’s words: “Ani¬ 
 mated by Demosthenes’ masculine eloquence, my stu¬ 
 dent will exclaim, This is an orator! But in reading 
 Cicero, he will exclaim, This is an advocate!” On 
 the rostrum, Demosthenes disdains the artifices of art 
 and the desire to please the mind by employing re¬ 
 sources of the imagination. An oration in Demosthe¬ 
 nes’ style, delivered in our days before the English Par¬ 
 liament, or before the Congress of the United States, 
 would produce a greater effect than the most magnifi¬ 
 cent harangues of the Roman consul. Cicero spoke 
 before auditors who were moved by everything that dis¬ 
 played theatrical pomp. Rome’s majesty was imprinted 
 in his eloquence, and his eloquence was embellished 
 like the patrician’s toga. The Attic genius, as simple 
 and precise as the pallium, was not adorned with this 
 magisterial fullness. Demosthenes aimed at enlighten- 
 
 167 
 
168 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GllEECE. 
 
 J 
 
 ment and conviction before all other things ; and in treat¬ 
 ing public affairs without an apparent trace of literary 
 care,he realized effective eloquence,—the only eloquence 
 relished by our modern political assemblies. He car¬ 
 ried the votes most difficult to win, and like Yoltaire, 
 he accomplished it without making a phrase. In him 
 there was no show, no ostentation; no great words nor 
 periods for effect. “ His good sense spoke without any 
 other ornament than its own force. He made truth in¬ 
 telligible to the whole people; he awakened them, 
 he stimulated them, he showed to them the yawning 
 abyss. All was said for the common safety, not one 
 word for the orator himself.* All was instructive and 
 touching, nothing brilliant.” 
 
 Demosthenes pursued his object constantly and 
 bravely, without ever deviating to amplify; he ab¬ 
 stained from all development, even that which would 
 bjer most favorable to eloquence and most agreeable to 
 the ears of the people, if it was not essentially necessary. 
 Clearness, luminous precision, these were the secrets of 
 his power. 
 
 “And if you will be persuaded, Athenians, first to raise these 
 supplies which I have recommended, then to proceed to your 
 other preparations,— your infantry, navy, and cavalry; and 
 lastly to confine your forces by a law to that service which is 
 appointed to them; reserving the care and distribution of 
 their money to yourselves, and strictly examining into the 
 conduct of the general; then your time will be no longer 
 wasted in continual debates upon the same subject, and 
 scarcely to any purpose; then you will deprive him of the 
 most considerable of his revenues; for his arms are now 
 
 * Fénelon, Lettre à V Académie. Cicero’s orations are full of Cicero. 
 Demosthenes’ biographers cannot, to their deep regret, derive any in¬ 
 formation from Demosthenes’ harangues. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 169 
 
 % 
 
 supported by seizing and making prizes of those who pass the 
 seas. But is this all? No; you shall also be secure from 
 his attempts; not as when some time since he fell on Lemnos 
 and Imbrus, and carried away your citizens in chains; not as 
 when he surprised your vessels at Gerastus, and spoiled them 
 of ah unspeakable quantity of riches; not as when lately 
 he made a descent upon the coast of Marathon, and carried 
 off our sacred galley; while you could neither oppose these 
 insults, nor detach your forces at such junctures as were 
 thought convenient.’** 
 
 “ I have heard it objected, ‘that indeed I ever speak with 
 reason; yet still this is no more than words,f that the state 
 requires something more effectual, some vigorous actions.’ 
 Upon which I shall give my sentiments without the least 
 reserve. The sole business of a speaker is, in my opinion, 
 to propose the course you are to pursue. This were easy 
 to be proved. You know that when the great Timotheus 
 moved you to defend the Eubceans against the tyranny of 
 Thebes, he addressed you thus: ‘What, my countrymen! 
 when the Thebans are actually in the island, are you de¬ 
 liberating what is to be done? what part to be taken? Will 
 you not cover the seas with your navies? Why are you not 
 at the Piræus? why are you not embarked?’ Thus Timo¬ 
 theus advised; thus you acted; and success ensued. But had 
 he spoken with the same spirit, and had your indolence pre¬ 
 vailed, and his advice been rejected, would the state have 
 had the same success? By no means. And so in the present 
 case, vigor and execution is your part; from your speakers 
 you are only to expect wisdom and integrity. 
 
 * First Philippic , § 33. 
 
 t Aéyew rà apurra: to say only what is best to be said in the 
 people’s interest is the utmost requirement of the law. The 
 orator who fails in this duty is subject to the denunciation called 
 eiaayyeXia. Demosthenes willingly uses this formula in order to 
 remind the Athenians of his devotion to the superior law of patriot 
 ism. (Hyperides, Against Polyeuctus.) 
 
 8 
 
170 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 I shall just give the summary of my opinion, and then 
 descend. You should raise supplies, you should keep up 
 your present forces, and reform whatever abuses may be 
 found in them (not break them entirely upon the first com¬ 
 plaint). You should send ambassadors into all parts, to 
 reform, to remonstrate, to exert all their efforts in the ser¬ 
 vice of their state. But, above all things, let those corrupt 
 ministers feel the severest punishment; let them, at all times, 
 and in all places, be the objects of your abhorrence; that 
 wise and faithful counsellors may appear to have consulted 
 their own interest as well as that of others. If you will 
 act thus, if you will shake off this indolence, perhaps,— even 
 yet, perhaps,—we may promise ourselves some good fortune. 
 But if you only just exert yourselves in acclamations and 
 applauses, and when anything is to be done, sink again into 
 your supineness, I do not see how all the wisdom in the 
 world can save the state from ruin, when you deny your 
 assistance.” * 
 
 This is invincible evidence, and one that forces assent 
 like an arithmetical demonstration, according to Æs- 
 cliines’ comparison. 
 
 Demosthenes ignored long preparations, he never 
 “beat about the bush,”—he went directly to the facts. 
 “ Brief and without pretense will be my début, Athe¬ 
 nians. In my eyes the sincere orator ought, from 
 his first words, to clearly expose his proposition. 
 When his opinion is known, if you wish to hear him 
 further, he explains himself, he develops his plans 
 and means. If you reject his proposal, he descends 
 from the rostrum without fatiguing your patience and 
 his voice to no purpose. I therefore enter at once 
 upon my subject. Democracy is outraged at Mytilene, 
 and you ought to avenge this injury. By what means? 
 
 * Oration on the Chersonesus , § 73. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 TIIE ORATOR. 
 
 171 
 
 I can tell you, when I shall have established the 
 reality of this oppression, and your duty to put an 
 end to it.” Brief and full of sense, such is his aim; 
 proofs and examples are at once presented in his 
 thoughts; he confines himself to facts which are best 
 known and best adapted to his purpose (jmiiara 
 Tcpoyjtpov ): he can choose. He never likes to hear 
 himself speak, he has no leisure for it; he does not 
 mount the rostrum to speak, but to act, if we can 
 use such an expression. This brevity, always laud¬ 
 able, was particularly necessary in an orator whose 
 reprimands contained no flattery for Athenian weak¬ 
 ness. Sometimes they refused to hear him. Some 
 cried, Speak ! others, Do not speak ! If the orator 
 was able to triumph over the tumult, he did not con¬ 
 quer their rebellious dispositions. In such a case he 
 hastened his speech, he knew that they were impatient 
 to get^rid of him. 
 
 i) ^5emosthenes’ rapidity notably appeared in his ex¬ 
 ordiums. Aristotle compares the exordium to the 
 poet’s prologue, to the preludes of flute-players. A T e 
 could further compare it to the preparatory move¬ 
 ments of the wrestler when he wishes to make his 
 hands and arms supple;* but with this difference, that 
 the athlete strikes at nothing, while the exordium is 
 destined at once to reach the adversary. The exor¬ 
 dium is especially necessary to the advocate who sup¬ 
 ports, or appears to support, a bad cause. “It is more 
 advantageous to him to stop at every digression than 
 to come to his own affair. Thus slaves never gnswer 
 directly when questioned; they use circumlocutions and 
 preambles. The deliberative exordium is generally 
 
 * Such is the prelude of Dares, the pugilist. ( Æneid , v, 375.) 
 
 f Aristotle, Rhetoric , iii, 14. 
 
172 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 short, sometimes useless. Everybody knows the subject 
 under consideration; the exordium, then, has no other 
 object than to awaken the attention of the hearers to 
 the importance of the debate, and to inspire them with 
 dispositions favorable to the person or to the orator’s 
 thesis. Demosthenes and his principles were suffi¬ 
 ciently well known to the Athenians; he had only to 
 use before them the common resources of the bar. 
 Two statements were sufficient for him: “Judges, 
 before all things, the thought that the abrogation of 
 the law (of Leptines) is useful to the commonwealth, 
 and, secondly, the interest of Chabrias’ son, have 
 made me consent to support these citizens with all 
 npy power.” 
 
 Iiis peroration was likewise remarkably simple. It 
 was the formula familiar to the Athenians: “I see 
 nothing more to say, and all my words have, I be¬ 
 lieve, been comprehended ( Contra Leptinern) ” \ or a 
 rapid review of the arguments develop ed. At the con¬ 
 clusion of the oration all is clear; the sentiment de¬ 
 sired by the orator is inspired then or never. Many 
 an orator prepares his peroration immediately after 
 his exordium: he fears that breath will fail him at the 
 end. Demosthenes did not fear these swoons; he 
 felt strong and sure of himself; he had no weak troops 
 adorned and surrounded by chosen soldiers; in him 
 all was solid and ardent. An intense heat animated 
 his harangues from beginning to end: his life, his 
 soul, circulated in them from the first word to the last: 
 spiritus intus alit. * * * What good is it to adjust 
 a peroration carefully prepared to a discourse which 
 is all peroration ? The orator concludes with some 
 grave and simple words, without using pathetic ges¬ 
 tures or oratorical efforts; he descends from the ros- 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 173 
 
 trum with the same step and with the same air as he 
 mounted it.* 
 
 Demosthenes had little success in improvisation; 
 but when he was compelled to speak impromptu, he 
 did it with an energy superior to that of his written 
 orations. This compulsion to do himself injustice by 
 departing from his natural course, imprinted upon his 
 mind an agitation the result of which was remarkably 
 vigorous language. Then, without doubt, escaped 
 from him those bold terms or images with which 
 Æscliines reproaches liim.f Not endowed with the 
 gift of easy productions, he also failed in the indiscreet 
 vivacity of his imagination and his thoughts. In 
 his orations he sometimes appeared to he transported, 
 by a divine inspiration. Ilis nature was irascible and 
 violent; sometimes he inclined to wrangling and to 
 the abuse of subtile reasoning. At all times he had 
 to govern himself and to undergo a severe preparation. 
 Improvisation would have given him loose reins; 
 the pen restrained him. Thus calmed and chastised, 
 he was not only protected from the railleries of comic 
 poets, but incomparable in point of beauty. He was 
 unexpectedly called upon to mount the rostrum: “I 
 am not prepared,” was his excuse. He knew the 
 exigencies of an artistic people, whose delicacy had 
 more than once chagrined his début. He judged it 
 prudent to meditate and to write his harangues 
 
 * Modern speakers, in general, think that they must make a great 
 effort at the close. Taste among the ancients was different. A Pin¬ 
 daric Ode of Horace (Lebrun deemed it worthy to be translated by his 
 own hand) concludes thus: “The young calf which is to liquidate 
 my debt has a white spot on his forehead, the rest of him is of a dun 
 color ” (iv, 2). Pindar finishes the Fourth Olympic thus : “ Even young 
 men’s hair often turns white before their age warrants it.” 
 
 f Against Gtesiphon , § 166. 
 
174 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 thoughtfully, in order to satisfy the people and to 
 justify himself if malignity should compel him to 
 defend himself, as in the Oratio in Midiam , against 
 the assaults of Athenians, who were the first to profit 
 by his admonition. 
 
 Demosthenes’ imagination was more vigorous than 
 prompt. With all that, he was timid. A vigorous 
 exercise had rendered his voice sufficiently powerful 
 to triumph over the roar of the waves. It was, per¬ 
 haps, always difficult for him to overcome the emotion 
 which the storms of the popular assembly aroused in 
 him. It was, no doubt, to the preoccupation of an 
 orator who was easily disconcerted and obliged to en¬ 
 trust his strong reflections to an attentive memory that 
 Demosthenes owed the meditative and anxious attitude 
 ridiculed by ÆscliinesA* An easy and spontaneous 
 eloquence would have given him more freedom and 
 abandonment. It would have doubled his powers. 
 Sudden inspiration is one of the most powerful instru¬ 
 ments of speech, and the source of irresistible effects. 
 If living words affect us more than reading, what ad¬ 
 vantages instantaneous eloquence has over the pre¬ 
 meditated oration ? In place of being reduced to 
 silence by an unworthy adversary, it is always ready 
 for his orders, never at his mercy. It follows him 
 over his own ground. Against his prepared sentences 
 it offers arguments which spring from a sudden con¬ 
 ception, and which are in the highest degree marked 
 by the expressive beauty of living nature. The spec- 
 
 * On the rostrum, before speaking “ lie rubbed his forehead ” ; he 
 assumed “ the attitude of a charlatan who meant to impose on his 
 hearers”; that is to say, his attitude was grave and collected. (Æs- 
 cliines, Embassy , § 49.) “ When he composed he held his pen in his 
 mouth and bit it.” (Plutarch, Life of Demosthenes, 29.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 175 
 
 tator who sees them born assists the creative act of 
 the genius; he admires it, and this admiration disposes 
 him to be easily persuaded. A penetrating glance 
 from a calm orator confounds and chastises an inter¬ 
 rupter. A fortunate rally can reestablish a battle that 
 has been almost lost. What does it profit to be right 
 if we cannot prove it at once, when the refutation must, 
 without delay, destroy the effect of an adversary’s ora¬ 
 tion ? Without improvisation, the orator in the heat 
 of the contest is disarmed as soon as he has spent the 
 arrows brought from his shop. Improvisation assures 
 him of a supply that is ever new. See how Cicero, by 
 an extemporaneous outburst, dismayed Clodius in that 
 passionate altercation before the senate, a graphic de¬ 
 scription of which is found in one of his letters {Ad 
 Atticum , i, 16). An extemporaneous debate is a duel 
 in which the attack and reply cross each other with 
 the rapidity of two swords. Victory is sometimes the 
 reward of the most agile dexterity. 
 
 To be wanting in improvisation is therefore a grave 
 defect in a statesman, especially at Athens, where the 
 citizens of the Pnyx, daily occupied in the current of 
 public affairs, represented a permanent parliament. 
 The eloquent ministers of the state were also called 
 upon to act as her ambassadors. Now, what are we 
 to think of an Athenian deputy who is deficient in 
 oratory ? Demosthenes must have suffered cruelly be¬ 
 fore Philip for having failed in prompt eloquence, on 
 which his contemporary orators prided themselves. 
 Python of Byzantium flattered himself on his ability 
 to write, but he also knew how to improvise. De- 
 mades had a prompt conception and ready language. 
 In his extemporaneous speeches he often completely 
 reversed all the arguments which Demosthenes had 
 
176 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 carefully studied and premeditated. Sometimes also, 
 when he saw Demosthenes troubled, he came to his 
 assistance and aided him in regaining control of his 
 audience. What are we to say of -Æschines, whose 
 eloquence, according to his rival’s testimony, flowed 
 abundantly, like the rolling waves of a torrent ? De¬ 
 mosthenes must have been touched by his own in¬ 
 feriority in this respect. Modern orators are more 
 felicitous. Words have wings and fly away; writings 
 remain. Without mentioning Cimon, Themistocles, 
 Phocion, and Pericles, who have left us nothing of 
 their eloquence, how little of Demades’ brilliant im¬ 
 provisations remains to us, and what a great damage 
 has Æscliines, our orator’s rival, inflicted on Greek 
 letters by transmitting so little of his fertility ! The 
 Three Graces ,* due to Æschines’ chisel, increase our 
 regret for having been deprived of such masterpieces 
 which were born from day to day of inspired but fra¬ 
 gile designs. 
 
 Plutarch, in his comparison of Demosthenes and 
 Cicero, does not admire the habit of continually exer¬ 
 cising the talent of “haranguing and pettifogging.” 
 Athens was not wanting in fertile speakers, always 
 disposed to improvise an opinion. Demosthenes pre¬ 
 ferred to polish the expression of his thought as he 
 matured his deliberations. Thus he did not fear repe¬ 
 titions. When a period, a comparison or an entire 
 development, thoughtfully elaborated, appeared to him 
 as near as possible to the desired ideal, and worthy of 
 being peremptorily preserved, he had no scruples to 
 use it again and again. He wished to submit the 
 Athenians to the control of his speech, and to direct 
 
 * The ancient critics thus designated Æschines’ works : Against 
 Timarchus; Oration on the Embassy; Against Ctesiphon. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 177 
 
 their attention to the public good; whence his perse¬ 
 verance in repeating until he accomplished his object. 
 Socrates* excused himself for always saying the same 
 thing upon the same subject to the sophists, thinkers 
 who were very changeable. Demosthenes concen¬ 
 trated his attacks upon the same weak points of the 
 Athenians. Perhaps they are wounded by these repe¬ 
 titions. To whom do they attribute them ? Are they 
 not the first authors? “Change your conduct, and I 
 will change my language.” 
 
 True and noble thoughts, when once in a mould 
 worthy of them, are always pleasant to hear. If they 
 are applicable to the subject, it is unnecessary to 
 search for their origin and the date of their birth. 
 Within an interval of two years (355-353), at the close 
 of his oration Against Timocrates , Demosthenes re¬ 
 produced an invective which had already been directed 
 against Androtion. He did not pretend to dissimulate 
 the repetition, but he announced it in such a manner 
 that it was pardoned: “I have already had occasion to 
 pronounce the words which I am about to say to you; 
 but only those of you heard them who assisted in 
 the debates provoked by Euctemon.” The tribunals 
 changed judges every year. The audience was almost 
 entirely renewed. The orator thought it unnecessary 
 to renew himself. Elsewhere, Demosthenes alleged 
 that he returned to facts already mentioned, and in the 
 same terms, for the instruction of young classes who had 
 been neither witnesses nor hearers. Theophrastus’ 
 great talker (fiâAoç) “recounted what applause one of 
 
 * The Pierrot of the Festin de Pierre is Socratic on this point. To 
 Charlotte : “ I always tell you the same thing because it is always the 
 same thing; and if it were not always the same thing, I would not 
 always tell you the same thing.” 
 
178 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 his orations received which he delivered in public, and 
 he repeated a great part of it.” The author of the 
 oration On the Crown sometimes resisted this tempta¬ 
 tion, which had such influence on the Greek mind. 
 He said he feared that “such retrospective eloquence 
 would fatigue the judges in vain.” When he was 
 assured of escaping this danger he was less scrupulous. 
 He drew before the eyes of the Messenians “dazzling 
 examples ” of Philip’s perfidy. He considered it useful 
 to repeat them before the Athenians, and he repeated 
 his little address whose “judicious truth” had (he 
 himself takes care to inform us) excited the “roaring 
 acclamations” of the Messenians.* The Athenians 
 saw, if they did not all feel like Demosthenes, .the 
 alarms at the news of the capture of Elatea. Ctesi- 
 phon’s defender did not omit to picture it before their 
 eyes. This picture was not merely, under the orator’s 
 pen, an illustrious testimony of his courageous devo¬ 
 tion. He found another opportunity to charm the 
 people with the refreshing remembrance of his incom¬ 
 parable eloquence. “On that day, then, I was the 
 man who stood forth. And the counsels I then pro¬ 
 posed may now merit your attention on a double 
 account: first, to convince you that of all your leaders 
 and ministers I was the only one who maintained the 
 part of a zealous patriot in your extremity, whose 
 words and actions were devoted to your service in the 
 midst of public consternation; and secondly, to enable 
 you to judge more clearly of my other actions, by 
 granting a little time to this.”;); Demosthenes omitted 
 
 * In tlie Embassy Æscliines reproduced, in substance, an oration 
 already pronounced by him before Philip, and repeated previously in 
 the assembly of the people. It was therefore delivered three times. 
 
 f Pro Corona , § 173. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE OR ATOR. 179 
 
 a third reason; it is that he derived as much pleasure 
 from repeating his orations as did his fellow-citizens 
 from hearing them. Homer never fails to repeat ver¬ 
 batim the messages or the speeches of his characters. 
 It is his advantage,— his naïve simplicity. The Attic 
 orators followed this example in order to please their 
 hearêrs and themselves, and did it with artistic scru¬ 
 ples. It was well; let us imitate it. The better is 
 sometimes an enemy of the good. It is thus with our 
 virtuosi. If they excel in certain pursuits, in which 
 their talent has full scope, they continue the same pur¬ 
 suits, and will compel the world to admire their execu¬ 
 tion. Il nous faut du nouveau , n'en fut-il plus au 
 monde. 
 
 On this point the French are more Athenian than 
 the Athenians themselves. The Greeks love novelty 
 (Aristophanes did not forget to entertain them with 
 new inventions), but the beautiful allured them still 
 more; though it might be repeated many times. It 
 was never unacceptable to them. Thus they allowed 
 no one to practice originality with impunity. It would 
 have been even dangerous, especially for an accused 
 man, to do it with éclat. u Now if I ask you to listen 
 to an oration quite different from those habitually 
 delivered before you, you will not be angry with me, 
 but pardon me, reflecting that the particular nature of 
 the attacks against me renders these explanations of a 
 new kind necessary. * * * I hesitate to speak, for I 
 have such new and strange opinions to expose to the 
 consideration of you all that I fear you will, at my first 
 words, fill the tribunal with your murmurs and cries. 
 * * * I beseech you, however, not to become prepos¬ 
 sessed with the idea that I would have been so foolish, 
 when I am under an accusation, as to choose a method 
 
180 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 of defense which contradicts your opinions, if I did 
 not think that this part of my oration accorded with 
 that which precedes.”* 
 
 Sometimes the Athenian orators took care to remark 
 that their sentiments were those of their hearers. Like 
 Aristogiton’s accuser, they defended themselves from 
 being original. “I will say nothing new, nothing 
 original, nothing particularly remarkable (-spir 
 Superiority was the danger to avoid. Pericles dissimu¬ 
 lated his. “I will endeavor, in accordance with the 
 law, to meet the desires and sentiments of each one of 
 you to the best of my ability. ”f He was satisfied with 
 the honor of being in harmony with the city, and of 
 being alone the interpreter of all. Thus the speakers 
 considered the susceptibility of hearers who would be 
 insulted by an elevation and richness of thought by 
 which they might, perhaps, feel humiliated. The people 
 desire that the man be one of their number, and like 
 them. Hero became the idol of the plebeians by publicly 
 sharing their tastes. The literati of Pome denied the 
 appellation of learned, and shared the popular preju¬ 
 dices against the Greeks. Aristides the Just was ex¬ 
 iled. Athens would have tolerated him if he had 
 merely merited the qualification of moderate citizen 
 ( uirpux ;). Under Caligula and Domitian, probity was 
 an offense to the emperor. The Athenian people 
 were tyrannical; their jealous temper imposed equality 
 imperiously and in all respects; all eminent merit, 
 even in eloquence, made them distrustful. 
 
 It is therefore not astonishing that the Athenian ora¬ 
 tors aspired to originality only indifferently. They 
 cared little for it; they did not fear to resemble their 
 
 * Isocrates, Antidosis. 
 
 f Funeral Oration . ii, 35, fin., 45. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 181 
 
 rivals, to copy tliem as they copied themselves.* In¬ 
 novation in thought stimulated them less to emulation 
 than elegance of expression. Isocrates’ testimony is 
 significant in this respect. 
 
 “ Past events are a common domain, open to every man. 
 To make use of them tidy, to draw from them suitable reflec¬ 
 tions, to enliven them with charms of expression, is the office of 
 the skillful. The surest means, in my opinion, to promote all 
 the arts, and the superior art of speech, would be to honor and 
 to admire, not those who first grappled with a subject, but 
 those who brought it to perfection ; not the author anxious to 
 speak of things which have not been touched upon before him, 
 but the talent capable of treating a known subject in a man¬ 
 ner that cannot be equaled.”! 
 
 II. Perfection of form in language, as in all other 
 things, was the desired aim of the Greek artist. Now 
 perfection is rarely improvised. £ Pascal tells us that 
 we should not fear to repeat the proper word when 
 we have found it. Our pulpit orators have extended 
 this principle to entire pages, when careful reviewing 
 brought them to the highest degree of beauty possible 
 to reach. 
 
 Fénelon, in his third Dialogue on Eloquence , de- 
 
 * Demosthenes and Isæus established the utility of the torture in 
 the same terms. “ Having to express the same thoughts, I do not 
 think that I ought to trouble myself to express in another manner 
 what has been presented felicitously. * * * I would be unreasona¬ 
 ble if, seeing others protit by what belongs to me, I was the only one 
 who did not dare to use what I myself composed. Isocrates (Letter to 
 Philip). 
 
 t Panegyric on Athens , § 9. 
 
 X Sometimes a sudden inspiration creates at once a perfect master¬ 
 piece (ef. Plato’s Ion). Thus from patriotic feeling was born, with a 
 perfect harmony of words and song, the finished hymn of Rouget de 
 l'Isle ; but these etfusions are the exception. 
 
182 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 mands that the preacher shall speak with effusion, 
 and 230iir his soul out in a touching and familiar ser¬ 
 mon. These pastoral exhortations are capable of 
 powerful effects, but they also have their dangers: it 
 is dangerous to improvise at the foot of the altar. 
 Bossuet’ s method is safer: Bossuet revised his ser¬ 
 mons without recoiling before patient erasures. What 
 Bossuet, Bourdaloue and Massillon did in the Christian 
 pulpit, which is devoted to the saving of souls, the 
 political orators of Athens could not refuse to their 
 love of art and of the state. It was not, however, 
 without sometimes exposing themselves to criticism. 
 Demosthenes thought that he ought to exculpate him¬ 
 self for having written the Oratio in Midi am before 
 appearing at the tribunal. Tie said that he had pre¬ 
 pared a bill against the opposing party, ai rich collec¬ 
 tion of the crimes and insolences of the criminal. He 
 offered to give the judges a lecture on it. Nothing 
 was more natural, in the eyes of the lieliasts, than to 
 see an accuser carefully draw up and magnify his 
 brief against his adversary: this was the right of an 
 enemy. Condemnation was passed on the memoirs, 
 but not on the perfect beauties of the speech itself; 
 for the speech was a snare to captivate the artistic 
 sensibility of the hearers: u Perhaps Midias will add 
 that I have studied and prepared all that I am now 
 saying. Yes, Athenians, I have studied it; why should 
 I deny it ? I have weighed it with all the care im¬ 
 aginable. In fact, I would be foolish if, after the out¬ 
 rages which I have received and am still receiving, 
 I had neglected the accusation which I am about to 
 present to you. As to my oration, Midias himself 
 wrote it; for the author of a bill of accusations is 
 really that man whose actions have furnished the sub- 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 183 
 
 ject, not that one who has taken care to elaborate 
 the arguments which, by my right as a citizen, I lay 
 before you to-day. Such is my custom, Athenians: 
 I agree with Midias. But he, undoubtedly, has never 
 made a wise reflection in all his life. For if he had 
 only reflected a little, he would not have acted with 
 such extravagance.” 
 
 Isocrates, a professional writer, also apologized to 
 the people, but in a different tone. He declared to 
 the admirers of familiar orations that he knew as well 
 as any one the merit of simplicity. Master of all 
 the resources of his art, he could be brilliant and 
 simple at his will. The severity of these austere 
 writers betrayed them: they reserved their eulogies 
 for works whose weakness could not discourage them. 
 Thus the author of the Panegyric was neither sur¬ 
 prised nor intimidated by their disdain for his fine 
 diction. Orontes asked indulgence in favor of his 
 sonnet: he had so little time to write it. Isocrates, 
 more sincere, made this candid confession to the de¬ 
 tractors of finished orations: “Most orators, in their 
 exordiums, assuage their audience in advance; they 
 prelude by pretexts to the oration which they are 
 about to deliver. Some allege the little leisure given 
 them to prepare themselves; others the difficulty ot 
 finding expressions equal to the grandeur of the sub¬ 
 ject. As for me, if I do not speak in a manner worthy 
 of the subject, of my reputation, of the time devoted 
 to the composition of this oration, (nearly ten years, 
 the duration of the siege of Troy!) and finally of the 
 long experience of my whole life, I do not ask any 
 forgiveness; I consent to ridicule and contempt.”* 
 Renown and length of time compelled him to submit 
 
 * Panegyric , §§11 and 14. 
 
184 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 All written orations, however, owe to the reader 
 qualities which the harangues that are horn of daily- 
 disputes in the forum do not possess. “A written 
 oration derives its merit from expressions rather than 
 the thought it contains.” * If the author wished to 
 polish it with his pen, it was apparently in the hope 
 that it would be admired by posterity. How, how 
 can he be assured that it will reach its destination, if 
 not by the imperishable and inalienable beauty of 
 diction? “Well written works,” says Buffon, “will 
 be the only works that will pass to posterity.” Modern 
 law protects literary property; the genius of the writer 
 will protect it as surely. Bossuet and Demosthenes 
 are less “ liable to be robbed ” than Harpagon. 
 
 To the reasons which Demosthenes alleges to justify 
 the artistic work done in the introduction of the Ora- 
 tio in Midiam , we can add one relative to the fitness 
 of revising it after delivery: “Written orations ap¬ 
 pear meagre when delivered in public. The finest 
 harangues at the bar seem ordinary when they are 
 read in print. It is because they are made for action, 
 and if they are not used for action they no longer 
 produce their effect, but appear insipid.”f 
 
 Action was their dominant virtue ( ÔTtoxptTtxioTdTT] 
 and that was precisely the power of which they were 
 deprived. As soon as they were written they needed 
 the essential merit of written orations, which was a 
 scrupulous perfection of style. Thus Demosthenes’ 
 harangues, so powerful by action, were weakened when 
 transferred from the tumultuous tribune to paper. 
 They were like a statue with dim eyes, substituted 
 for the living ‘athlete. They would never seem lan¬ 
 guid and cold, even without the revisions; and yet, 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric, iii, 1. f Aristotle, Rhetoric , iii, 12. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 185 
 
 notwithstanding their innate vigor, they must neces¬ 
 sarily gain by being reviewed before reading. In the 
 cabinet the writer reanimates his work with a new 
 life; with purity of language, with perfection of de¬ 
 sign, with the coloring of pencil, he unites at his 
 leisure pathetic energy and the beauty of expression; 
 finally, he uses all the secrets of his art capable of 
 making the marble breathe, and of giving, by force of 
 illusion, the w T armth of life and action to the motion¬ 
 less canvas. 
 
 As to the proofs of revision, they are numerous in 
 the orations of Demosthenes and his contenrporaries. 
 Thus we do not find to-day, in the oration On the Em¬ 
 bassy ., several expressions or traits criticised by Æsclii- 
 nes. Demosthenes profited by his enemy’s criticisms; 
 he suppressed them as soon as he made his final revis¬ 
 ion. The harangues of the two rivals contain many 
 passages as follows: “I learn that my adversary will 
 excuse himself in this manner. * * * ITe will, I know, 
 offer this objection. * * * He will give me this reply. 
 When he will say to you, * * * do not listen to him; 
 if he insists, answer him,” or other analagous formulas. 
 Evidently the speeches in which these anticipations are 
 met have not reached us in their primitive form. Per¬ 
 haps in civil cases the logographers were so unfaithful as 
 to mutually communicate their arguments,— the client 
 was the only one to suffer; but in political and passion¬ 
 ate debates this supposition is inadmissible. Hever did 
 Æschines and Demosthenes extend their disinterested 
 love of art to such a degree that they refrained from 
 dealing the blows which their hatred demanded. These 
 literary preoccupations do not agree with the eulogy of 
 Fénelon, which we have referred to. In Demosthenes 
 “ not one word is for the orator. ” * * * Pytheas re- 
 
 8 * 
 
186 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 proaclied this same Demosthenes for bestowing so much 
 labor on his orations that they smelt of the lamp; Æs- 
 cliines, for using expressions that were polished to ex¬ 
 cess ( -zf)Lipyotq ). Like Thucydides, according to the re¬ 
 mark of Dionysius of blalicarnassus, Demosthenes pre¬ 
 ferred a studied diction to ordinary and natural lan¬ 
 guage, aiming at originality of attitude and relief. How 
 can we harmonize this apparent contradiction ? It is 
 true Demosthenes did not pursue the beauty of diction 
 to aggrandize himself; he disregarded himself and 
 looked only to his country’s interests; but even his 
 country’s safety made him an excellent artist. “Demos¬ 
 thenes did not strive after the beautiful ; he created it 
 without thinking of it. He used language as a modest 
 man uses his coat, to cover him.” With all due defer¬ 
 ence to the author of The Letter to The Academy , 
 Fénelon, Demosthenes aimed not only to dress his 
 thoughts decently, but to present them under a costume 
 which attracted the eyes of those who admired the ex¬ 
 quisite perfections of form everywhere. Demosthenes 
 did strive for the beautiful, and thought of it constantly, 
 but he knew how to realize it with an imperceptible 
 art; * he assiduously studied his eloquence, but this 
 study never in the least deprived him of his nature and 
 his disinterested sincerity. 
 
 The orator, even after his studious labors by the 
 lamp, could always apply to his political harangues the 
 words which close the Fourth Philippic: “Such is tie 
 truth, Athenians, told in all frankness, with simplicity 
 and devotion. I know nothing better to say.” He 
 might have added, if he had Isocrates’ disposition, I 
 could not say it in better terms, nor with a more per¬ 
 suasive talent. Demosthenes was precise and rapid 
 
 *AavOavcov 7 :oUc. (Aristotle, Itheloric , iii, 1G.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES —THE ORATOR. 187 
 
 in liis thoughts, measured in his vigor, warm and sober 
 in his style; in a word, he was a perfect Attic. The 
 audience made the orator. The Areopagus acquitted a 
 courtesan who was accused of impiety because she 
 was beautiful. The Athenian people likewise were in¬ 
 dulgent toward TEschines, the friend of Philip, because 
 he was eloquent and handsome. In order to be master 
 of such a city, and to exercise Pericles’ undisputed as¬ 
 cendency over it, Demosthenes had to derive his power 
 from the union of the practical eloquence of former 
 ages with the polished eloquence which his contempo¬ 
 raries exacted. Ilis attainments had to be such that it 
 would be said of him, “The Graces reposed on his lips; 
 when he opposed the will of the Athenians, when his 
 voice, animated by his country’s interests, assumed the 
 severe tone of reprimand, it had to render agreeable and 
 popular the censures which it hurled at men who en¬ 
 joyed the favor of the people.”* If Demosthenes as 
 an orator of the state had to be artistic on the rostrum, 
 he certainly should have the privilege of being artistic 
 when writing his orations in his cabinet. There he no 
 longer addressed the men of Athens; he pleaded in a 
 manner his cause before posterity. He meant to sub¬ 
 jugate us also by his sound reasoning, his elevated senti¬ 
 ments, and his perfect language. If he has treated us as 
 Athenians, let us not complain of it. 
 
 We have praised Demosthenes’ brevity and his dis¬ 
 dain for all that was merely ornamental. This eulogy 
 applies without restriction to the Philippics and to 
 the harangues, which are exclusively political and full 
 of action. His other orations sometimes contain speci¬ 
 mens of pure charms, which alone afford us pleasure 
 in reading them, and dissuade us from pronouncing 
 
 * De Oralore, iii, 34. 
 
138 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 them tedious works. Papyrus is patient; the Athe¬ 
 nian judge who did not share with Philocleon the 
 Aristophanic privilege of eating his soup before the 
 audience was, perhaps, not always so patient, and yet 
 the Greek mind was generally indulgent toward ora¬ 
 tions delivered for the sole object of pleasing. Trag¬ 
 edy sometimes permitted them. Such were the long 
 geographical sketches in Æschylus’ Prometheus and the 
 detailed description of the Pythian games in Sopho¬ 
 cles’ Elecira , a picture sufficiently interesting, ac¬ 
 cording to the taste of the Athenians, to make them 
 pardon an anachronism. The recital of Hippolytus’ 
 death, for which Fénelon reproached Pacine, would 
 certainly have found mercy before the Athenians. 
 Even in civil speeches, where the clepsydra measured 
 the time, Attic sobriety was not always averse to 
 agreeable amplifications. Demosthenes, in his oration 
 Against Afecera , went back even to Theseus in order to 
 prove citizenship at Athens by history,— a digression 
 undoubtedly well received by the audience, but not 
 indispensable to the debate. The speech Against Lac - 
 •ritus contains an enumeration of the Athenian tribu¬ 
 nals and their respective attributes, which is instruct¬ 
 ive to us but useless to the case. Did the dicasts 
 find particular pleasure in an enumeration of the com¬ 
 plicated cases for which they used to go and receive 
 their three oboles? We are tempted to believe it 
 when we see Demosthenes renovating and displaying 
 his judicial knowledge in the speech Against Andro- 
 tion , and Hyperides adorning the exordium of his ora¬ 
 tion For EuxennipusA Demosthenes’ speech On the 
 
 * Demosthenes (Against Aristocrates) opportunely recalls the six 
 criminal procedures disregarded by Aristocrates’ decree. This enu¬ 
 meration, remarkable in several respects, is here a powerful argu¬ 
 ment. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 189 
 
 Embassy contains two splendid digressions, worthy of 
 the orator’s gravity, hut they are none the less digres¬ 
 sions {purpureas pannus). The first is the descrip¬ 
 tion of the contagious plague which destroyed all 
 Greece, a description so justly admired by Pliny the 
 Younger; 44 the second is a thrilling recapitulation of 
 Philip’s invasions,— an eloquent page of political his¬ 
 tory, but foreign to the demonstration of HCschines’ 
 culpability. 
 
 Aristotle has clearly described the different condi¬ 
 tions of the tribune and bar in this respect: u Delibera¬ 
 tive oratory does not admit the digressions which are 
 received at the bar, where the orator can inveigh 
 against his adversary, speak of himself, and arouse the 
 people’s passions. Deliberative oratory opens up a 
 field to malice less vast than judicial oratory. In 
 fact, deliberative discussions appeal to the interests of 
 the people. Here the hearer is judge in his own cause, 
 and the orator ought to be satisfied with showing that 
 what he supports is truly such as he describes it to be. 
 At the bar this is not sufficient. It is very useful to 
 
 t j 
 
 engross the hearer’s mind. In fact, when the interests- 
 of another are at stake, the judges only seek their own 
 satisfaction, listen for their pleasure, accord all to the 
 orator, and forget their duty as judges. Thus in sev 
 eral places the law forbade the orator to enter upon 
 digressions which were foreign to the subject. But in 
 the public assemblies those who deliberated on state 
 affairs greatly observed this rule.”*)* Those speeches 
 of Demosthenes which are both political and judicial 
 possess qualities natural to the eloquence of the trib¬ 
 une and that of the bar. The orator, who was both an 
 advocate and counsellor of the people, here gives free 
 
 * Letters , ix, 26. f Rhetoric, iii, 17, i, 1. 
 
190 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 scope to liis powers, and realizes, by virtue of the 
 variety of his means, the ideal eloquence, a triumph 
 which, according to Cicero, w r as reserved for judicial 
 causes, and especially for works in which the two kinds 
 of eloquence united their resources and peculiar beau¬ 
 ties.* 
 
 When Demosthenes revised his orations he sup¬ 
 pressed all proofs, the letters, treatises, law-texts, 
 decrees or projects of decrees, and testimonies. Some 
 of these documents, which were very often necessary 
 for the cause, and sometimes almost useless, served to 
 give the orator and the judges relief. “These facts 
 are well known to you,” said Lycias in the speech 
 Against Eratosthenes , “and I do not see the necessity 
 of producing witnesses. However, I will do it; for I 
 need rest myself, and several among you will be 
 pleased to hear as much testimony as possible on the 
 same subject.” The tribunal was not only refreshed, 
 but charmed, wdien the testimonies were from the 
 poets, such as Solon, Homer, Hesiod and Euripides. 
 The author has carefully reproduced these testimonies, 
 to the great satisfaction of the reader. He suppressed 
 the others. The latter might have given some respite 
 to the audience, inasmuch as tliev would cause a short 
 suspension of close attention, since they were insipid. 
 
 * Demosthenes’ orations, with the exception of his speeches, which 
 are purely civil, may be divided into three classes: First, orations 
 which are at the same time civil and political, and composed for 
 others (Against Androtion , Timocrates , Aristocrates). Here the orator 
 does not speak in his own behalf, and does not appear in the contest. 
 Second, orations in which he defends his own interests, and which 
 belong both to the deliberative and judicial classes (la Midiam , Em¬ 
 bassy, Pro Corona). Third, harangues before the people, in which 
 Demosthenes exclusively performed political work, and spoke as a 
 responsible counsellor. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE OKATOK. 
 
 191 
 
 Demosthenes did not give them to the reader; he left 
 them in the echinos (lawyer’s satchel), as literary rub¬ 
 bish.'" Many of the official pieces transcribed in the 
 oration On the Crown are spurious. One orator has 
 preserved some of them, which are manifestly authen¬ 
 tic: the decree of the Byzantians, that of the Clierso- 
 nesians, and Demosthenes’ decree. The first two, 
 proofs of the acknowledgment of the people whom 
 Athens had saved were too honorable to the minister of 
 Athens to frustrate his apology. The third is a pa* 
 thetic speech delivered before the Thebans against 
 Philip. In it w T e can easily trace the orator’s hand 
 and soul. Certain civil speeches have the advantage 
 over political harangues of not being deprived of their 
 supplementary proofs. Thus the orations Against 
 Neœra and Against Lacritus have come down to us 
 in their complete form. Such has been the will and 
 caprice of the copyist or of the times, which destroyed 
 or preserved them blindly. Destiny, with its inequali¬ 
 ties and injustices, extends its empire even over writ¬ 
 ings: habent sua fata . libelli. We do not speak of 
 certain convincing pieces which were of a special and 
 fragile nature, and unworthy of being preserved, for 
 example the nose which a poor devil of Tanagra left 
 under the tooth of his enemy, Aristogiton. 
 
 Titus Livius recapitulates the decrees of the senate, 
 even the most important, in place of transcribing them; 
 for example, that of the Bacchanals. In the last edi¬ 
 tion Demosthenes generally omitted technical docu¬ 
 ments in which there was no oratorical display. Cras- 
 sus wrote but little (. Brutus , 44), and even his written 
 
 * Thus we have only the titles of CliabYias’ services; of the bills 
 drawn up against Midias; of the administrative documents (military 
 and financial) of the Third Philippic; of the financial plan of the First. 
 
192 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 orations do not contain all that he said at the tribune. 
 He sometimes deemed it sufficient to indicate certain 
 points without treating them thoroughly. Such ap¬ 
 peared like headings of chapters, or at the most brief 
 summaries. The Roman orator disdained the glory of 
 a writer. Hot caring to transmit the beauties of form, 
 he was particular to represent clearly the essential 
 groundwork. A different sentiment guided Demos¬ 
 thenes in his selections. He sacrificed the unworthy 
 portions which could not be treated in an elegant 
 manner. 
 
 Quæ desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit. 
 
 'Documents whose loss is obvious to modern readers 
 had little value in his eves. He seemed to fear that 
 posterity would not be interested in certain particular 
 topics; he wished to transmit to posterity orations em¬ 
 bellished with such developments as would earn ad¬ 
 miration in all countries and at all times. 
 
 III. Hence the suppression of a thousand local 
 or temporary circumstances, which were undoubtedly 
 present to the mind of his hearers, but which are 
 passed over in silence with the reader. To these 
 details Demosthenes expressly preferred political, ad¬ 
 ministrative, moral theses, in which eloquence was dis¬ 
 played‘with all its advantages, and this to the great 
 displeasure of modern criticism. Why is it so difficult 
 to assign exact dates to the Olynthiacs f * It is be¬ 
 cause they do not contain sufficient precise indications 
 of the circumstances which preceded or called forth 
 the orator’s speech. It would be easy to assign De- 
 
 * Dionysius of Halicarnassus gave the Olynthiacs in an order con¬ 
 trary to that of the manuscripts and of the most ancient commen¬ 
 tators. 
 
193 
 
 DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 mosthenes’ works to their proper time and events if 
 history were found repeated in them from day to day. 
 These details would throw light on his harangues for 
 us, as the frame of the historical narrative throws light 
 on those of Thucydides. But Demosthenes did not 
 write for critics or historians of the future, hut for the 
 learned. 
 
 Attic eloquence did not dislike commonplace things, 
 taking this word in its highest acceptation. It will¬ 
 ingly effaced the realities of the moment that it might 
 elevate the oration to considerations which were su¬ 
 perior to actual events. Thus the sculptor effaced the 
 personal traits of the victor in the games in order to 
 substitute for it an anonymous and impersonal beauty, 
 but its effect was sure and universal. There is in 
 Demosthenes’ eloquence a trace of philosophical spirit 
 which is attached less to those particular accidents 
 which are modified to infinity and pass away than to 
 the general and immutable element. The author of 
 the Antidosis eulogized general developments and suc¬ 
 cessfully applied his talent to them. By this means, 
 but by this means only, he justified the complacent 
 praise which Socrates gives him in the Phœdrus : “ In 
 this young man there is philosophy.” To this spirit 
 of generalization are attached political or moral theo¬ 
 ries, recitals of principles, oratorical definitions, and 
 portraits (the true democrat, the faithful ambassador, 
 the sycophant, etc.), which are diffused in the works of 
 masters of oratory. Their style w r as indebted to that 
 manner of majestic gravity which, even at the time 
 when the tribune was most exciting and militant, re¬ 
 called the union of the milder eloquence of former 
 ages with moral philosophy. Themistocles’ harangue 
 9 
 
194 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 on the Greek fleet of Salamis ruled over all opposi¬ 
 tion.* 
 
 The Athenian people, frivolous and ideal as a poet, 
 were also very capable of abstract meditation. Their 
 philosophers, Plato, even Aristotle, whose eloquence 
 Cicero compares to a golden stream (flumen ctureum 
 orationis ), were consummate orators; their orators like¬ 
 wise were fond of philosophical considerations. The 
 first speech against Aristogiton presents a remarkable 
 proof of it. Lycurgus, says Ariston’s defender, has al¬ 
 ready treated the cause profoundly. “As to me, I wish 
 to entertain you with thoughts which will direct all de¬ 
 liberation on state interests and laws. Permit me, Athe¬ 
 nians, in the name of Jupiter, permit me to use here 
 that method which is natural to me and has my prefer¬ 
 ence. I could practice no other.” And immediately 
 he .enters upon general reflections, morals, laws and pub¬ 
 lic order. “ I will say nothing new nor striking, noth¬ 
 ing special nor original (r&wv), but that which you all 
 know as well as myself.” No man can announce the 
 commonplace things which follow this declaration in a 
 more determined manner. The orator interrupts them 
 a moment in order to make valid certain proofs which 
 escaped from Lycurgus. But he quickly returns to his 
 accustomed manner. He bows before Adrastia and 
 Nemesis; he recalls the universality of religious senti¬ 
 ment. “All nations have erected shrines to Justice, 
 to Law, to Modesty. Although an honest man’s heart 
 may be the most beautiful and most saintly sanctuary, 
 those which his hand has raised are not less worthy of 
 veneration. But what sacrifices were ever offered to 
 Impudence, to Perjury, to Ingratitude,— vices which 
 dwelt in Aristogiton’s heart? ” Later he traces à priori 
 
 * Herodotus, viii, 83. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 195 
 
 the picture of this public snarler’s partisan; and at the 
 close, in a pathetic appeal, he asks the judges with what 
 conscience they will ever dare prostrate themselves 
 before Cybele, if, false to their oaths, they violate the 
 laws intrusted to their defense. 
 
 It is unnecessary to mark clearlv in what sense and 
 
 •/ o 
 
 in what measure Demosthenes favored general develop¬ 
 ments; even in these specimens he remains himself, 
 that is to say, sober and rigorous. “Persons of no 
 instruction persuade the multitude more easily than 
 the learned. In fact, they have recourse to common¬ 
 place things, to general considerations; the learned to 
 things which they know, and which pertain to the sub¬ 
 ject.”* In this respect Demosthenes 1 elocpience is both 
 learned and popular. Always and everywhere he con¬ 
 fines himself closely to his subject and remains a pre¬ 
 cise logician. Nevertheless, if he is not one of the 
 school of Buffon, who seeks general terms as the most 
 noble, he admires general themes as the best adapted 
 to eloquence. Thus, having selected a theme, Demos¬ 
 thenes develops its thoughts with sound reasoning and 
 not phrases, by producing arguments and facts. These 
 developments are entirely different from commonplace 
 things or abstract conceptions, without direct applica¬ 
 tion or supplementary proofs; but with all that, they 
 are of such a character that he could repeat them al¬ 
 most indifferently every time he mounted the rostrum, f 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric , ii, 22. 
 
 t Here are some of them: It is the orator’s duty to give the best 
 counsels, yours to follow them Equity is the only solid foundation 
 of the undertakings of men. If you wish to fight the public enemy 
 successfully, at first chastise your domestic enemies, the traitors. 
 Venality is the never-dying worm of Greece. If Athens does not save 
 the people who are attacked by Philip, there will come a day when 
 she cannot save herself. Defiance is the surest rampart of free 
 
196 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 The situation, on the whole, always remains the same; 
 the orator’s objective also remains the same; and con¬ 
 sequently his eloquence, rich and various in its means, 
 is uniform in the common basis of ideas and senti¬ 
 ments. Demosthenes’ political orations, especially 
 the Olynthi.acs and Philippics, do not reflect, like the 
 orations of our modern assemblies, the various inci¬ 
 dents of the political life of each day. They all have a 
 familiar air; they are all born of necessities and of the 
 same spirit. 
 
 These reflections on general developments are es¬ 
 pecially applicable to the Orations of Demosthenes, 
 which belong to the purely deliberative class; in those 
 which belong in some degree to the judicial class, 
 the orator, without hesitation, enters upon arduous 
 discussions of facts and dates. From minute details 
 he draws indications or proofs with the marvelous 
 sagacity of his civil speeches, in which he finds it 
 necessary at every moment to offer comments on the 
 laws. Thus the oration On the Embassy , notably in 
 the first part, is a concise controversy in which De¬ 
 mosthenes seizes his adversary hand and foot, and 
 binds him in all manners. If he retreats, he follows 
 him step by step; if he advances, he incloses him in 
 iron bands, without permitting him to escape from 
 them. He constantly holds him at the sword’s point, 
 and baffles all his disguises and efforts to disengage 
 himself. Æschines is a Proteus; but Demosthenes 
 
 states. Philip is the aggressor,— to tight him is to defend ourselves. 
 Philip hates and distrusts our republic; his sole aim is to destroy 
 it. Do not depend on another, nor on the gods, if you do not aid 
 yourselves. Athens has always been more careful of her honor than 
 of her money. At all times she has preferred the rights of the Hel¬ 
 lenes to her own advantages. She ought to be inspired by the mag¬ 
 nanimity of her ancestors. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 197 
 
 knows how to entangle him so cunningly in his strong 
 and inflexible meshes of argument, that he cannot 
 escape him. If he does not succumb under his ad¬ 
 versary’s blows, he at least receives them all; he 
 withdraws from the contest defeated, if not pros¬ 
 trated.* 
 
 In the second part of the harangue, general themes 
 find place,—it is because the oration On the Embassy 
 belongs to both the tribune and the bar. Likewise, 
 the oration On the Chersonesus contains a debate which 
 relates to Diopithes, and considerations on general 
 politics. Only one of Demosthenes’ exclusively po¬ 
 litical harangues is really technical,—the Oration on 
 the Navy Boards . The author has taken care to show 
 this peculiarity of his work: “As for me, Athenians, 
 imbued with these reflections and other similar ones, 
 I have not employed boasting expressions, nor use¬ 
 less and long orations; but your preparations, their 
 best form, their greatest haste,— such is the difficult 
 subject which I have taken the pains to investigate.” 
 Demosthenes pursued this course so much more will¬ 
 ingly because he could not permit this rigid oration 
 to face the tribune. Our political orator of thirty-one 
 years would undoubtedly have needed an authority 
 in which he was wanting, even after his success against 
 Leptines, to make this dry work agreeable to an 
 audience of amateurs. We doubt, with the wise 
 critics, that the Oration on the Navy Boards was ever 
 delivered. 
 
 * He reminds us of Entellus, who makes blows fall like liail-stones 
 on Dares. 
 
 Nee mora, nec requies, quam multa grandine nimbi 
 
 Culminibus crepitant, sic densis ictibus héros 
 
 Creber utraque manu puisât versatque Dareta. {Æ?ieid,Y, 458.) 
 
198 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GItEECE. 
 
 Judicial oratory dwells on tlie past, deliberative 
 on the future. The deliberative is, therefore, the 
 more difficult; but it is, in turn, the more beautiful,'”* 
 for it is nourished with the noblest material. Elo¬ 
 quence is free from the miseries and petty passions 
 of every-day life. Besides the interests and safety of 
 private individuals, it watches the interests and safety 
 of the commonwealth. It does not stop to torture a 
 law text which may be left a prey to eternal chicanery. 
 Like the Roman pretor, it does not oversee trifling 
 things. It is occupied with public duty, political and 
 social justice, national honor, and the human and 
 divine laws which are the unchangeable interpreters 
 of the conscience of all times. Demosthenes’ soul 
 was adequate to these sublime objects, and his elo¬ 
 quence equaled them without an effort. This preemi¬ 
 nent dignity was due. to the orator’s taste for general 
 developments, and to the superior talent with which 
 he gave finished expression to the conception and 
 sentiment of what was true and beautiful. 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric , i, 1 ; iii, 17. 
 
“V. 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS AND CHAR¬ 
 ACTERISTICS OF DEMOSTHENES’ ELOQUENCE. 
 
 (continued.) 
 
 ^HE spirit and life of Demosthenes’ eloquence 
 
 A- was born, in a great degree, from the nature of 
 his reasoning. He employed no long, logical deduc- 
 tions, but a series of striking observations, recollec¬ 
 tions, examples, and convincing pictures. Demos¬ 
 thenes often proved without reasoning. He spoke 
 and painted the truth. lie repeatedly impressed the 
 hearer with it. He urged him, hurried him, compelled 
 him to march with him. Ilis power was invincible. 
 Compelled to yield to the evidence, the Athenian 
 could cry out, as did Marshal Gramont at the foot of 
 Bourdaloue’s chair, “ By heavens, he is right! ” 
 
 His motto was, Hot words, but deeds (Où Myoç, àU' 
 epyov.) You lost your opportunity at Heræa, Athe¬ 
 nians; do not lose it again at Olynthus. See the 
 mistakes which caused you to lose Amphipolis; avoid 
 falling into them again. Philip protests with his 
 pacific designs. Consider the plan of his usurpations 
 which he has perfidiously followed, and which Demos¬ 
 thenes now unrolls before the eyes of the assembly. 
 Apology and parabole are suitable to orations delivered 
 before the multitude, and it is easier to invent them to 
 please the people than to draw examples from history. 
 ‘•‘But examples have more weight in deliberations; for 
 the future generally bears a great resemblance to the 
 
 199 
 
 % 
 
200 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 past.” * Demosthenes had too rich a provision of 
 examples at command to have recourse to fable, and 
 the vivacity of his arguments further aided the natural 
 force of the lessons which he drew from the past. “ It 
 is folly and cowardice, in the presence of such exam¬ 
 ples, to constantly recoil before duty, * * * to imagine, 
 on the faith of the enemy’s orators, that Athens, by 
 her grandeur, is out of all danger. How shameful to 
 say in the future, after the event: But , just gods ! who 
 could have expected it f We should have done this , 
 not that .” All nations that have perished could to¬ 
 day make many such tardy reflections. “But what 
 doth it avail them now ? While the vessel is safe, 
 whether it be great or small, the mariner, the pilot, 
 every person, should exert himself in his particular 
 station, and preserve it from being wrecked, either by 
 villainy or unskillfulness. But when the sea hath 
 once broken in, all care is vain.”f For Demosthenes’ 
 history is literally “the torch of truth,” the “mistress 
 of life.” (De Oratore , ii, 9). His maxim was that 
 “past events ought to always be present to the minds 
 of the wise.” His conduct conformed to this precept: 
 “Observing affairs from their beginning, foreseeing 
 their results, announcing them to the people, is what I 
 have done.” An eloquence thus furnished with coher¬ 
 ent reflections, and recollections must be rich in dem¬ 
 onstrations from facts. It was not Demosthenes who 
 convinced and put the Athenians to the blush; it was 
 the reality he drew before their eyes. Zeno compared 
 eloquence to the open hand, dialectics to the clinched 
 fist. Demosthenes’ eloquent dialectics united the ad¬ 
 vantages of both processes. He developed truth with 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric, ii, 20. 
 
 Third Philippic , § 67 et seq. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE OKATOR. 
 
 201 
 
 
 irresistible éclat; and lie dealt blows on the contradictor 
 from which he could not recover. 
 
 Demosthenes, as a political orator, owed much to 
 the logographer. From Isæus, his master, he learned 
 to cut down his long sentences, to chasten his style, 
 and to soften its harshness. Fie especially accustomed 
 himself to dialectics in the midst of the arduous dis¬ 
 cussions of cases which bristled with as many thorns 
 as a hedgehog , and wdiicli contained tedious arguments. 
 Demosthenes would not have been so powerful against 
 Philip if the gymnastics at the bar had not developed 
 his language and mind. Traces of these strengthening 
 studies are found in the orator’s art to seek the reason 
 of things and the motives of actions. ‘‘Deflect for a 
 moment, Athenians. You have often made war on 
 democracies and oligarchies; you know it as well as I 
 do. But the motives which armed you in both cases 
 none among you, perhaps, inquired into. What are 
 these motives ? ” And the orator indicates them with 
 sagacity. He likewise excels in analyzing the human 
 mind: if he wishes to exculpate himself from the diverse 
 sentiments to wdiicli his enemies might attribute his 
 action against FEschines, he reviews all the suppo¬ 
 sitions of malevolence, and sliow T s their vanity like a 
 skillful logician. He explores the soul of the Mace¬ 
 donian king, and discovers his most secret calculations 
 with a perspicuity which was sharpened for these divi¬ 
 nations by his exercise in detecting the true motives 
 of Philip’s orators, who practiced deceit and falsehood. 
 Thus his practice at the bar developed the penetration 
 of a genius which was naturally observing. 
 
 One of Demosthenes’ most powerful forms of argu¬ 
 ment was the dilemma. We do not see liowÆschines 
 could have answered this: 
 
202 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 “ Now, consider in your minds how convincing the proof 
 of his guilt will be. I presume that Æschines, the defend¬ 
 ant, must have addressed those speeches to you,— those about 
 the Phocions and Thespiæ and Euboea (supposing he was 
 not, from a corrupt motive, intentionally playing false),— 
 from one of two causes: either because he had heard Philip 
 expressly promise to effect and do the things in question, or 
 else because he was charmed and beguiled by Philip's general 
 liberality, and therefore expected those things from him also. 
 There is no other alternative. Now, in either of these cases 
 he ought, beyond all other men, to detest Philip. Why? 
 Because, so far as it depended on Philip, he has suffered the 
 utmost indignity and disgrace. He has deceived you; he 
 has become infamous; he is judged to be a lost man, if he 
 had his deserts. Had due proceedings been taken he would 
 have been impeached long ago; but now, through your sim¬ 
 plicity and good nature, he attends his audit and chooses his 
 
 * 
 
 time for it. Is there one of you who has heard the voice of 
 Æschines accusing Philip? — who has seen him pressing any 
 charge or speaking to the point? No one. Every Athenian 
 is more ready to accuse Philip,— any, indeed, that you like,— 
 though none of them has assuredly sustained personal injury. 
 I should have expected language like this from him if he 
 had not sold himself: ‘Men of Athens, deal with me as you 
 please. I believed. I was deluded. I was in error. I con¬ 
 fess it. But beware of the man, 0 Athenians! He is not 
 to be trusted. He is a juggler, a villain. See you not how 
 he has treated me? — how he has cajoled me?’ I hear no 
 language of this kind, nor do you. Why? Because he was 
 not cajoled nor deceived, but had hired himself and taken 
 money when he made those statements and betrayed you to 
 Philip, and has been a good, true and faithful hireling to 
 him, but a traitorous ambassador and citizen to you, deserv¬ 
 ing to perish not once, but three times over.”* 
 
 * Embassy, 102 et seq. 
 
203 
 
 DEMOSTIIEKES-THE OEATOE. 
 
 Where can we find a closer alliance of logic and 
 passion ? 
 
 Without having a prompt imagination on the ros¬ 
 trum, Demosthenes sometimes found happy replies. 
 Pytheas once told him that all his arguments 
 smelled of the lamp. Demosthenes retorted sharply 
 upon him, “Yes, indeed; but your lamp and mine, 
 my friend, are not conscious of the same labors.” 
 This same Pytheas was dissuading his fellow citizens 
 from uniting themselves with the Athenians: “As 
 some sickness is always supposed to be in the house 
 into which asses’ milk is brought, so the city which 
 an Athenian embassy ever enters must necessarily 
 be in a sick and decaying condition.” Demosthenes 
 turned the comparison against him by saying: “As 
 asses’ milk never enters but for curing the sick, so the 
 Athenians never appear but for remedying some dis¬ 
 order.” Æschines reproached him for his excessive 
 movements on the rostrum. “ It is not for the orator, 
 Æschines, but for the Ambassador, to hold his hand 
 under his cloak.” 
 
 Demosthenes’ formal refutations had a vigor at least 
 equal to the sallies of his replies. Here is a speci¬ 
 men in which both logic and sense are united: “I 
 know, indeed, that Æschines will avoid all discus¬ 
 sion of tlie charges against him; that, seeking to 
 withdraw you as far as possible from the facts, lie 
 will rehearse wliat mighty blessings accrue to man¬ 
 kind from peace, and, on the other hand, what evils 
 from war; in short, he will pronounce a panegyric 
 on peace, and take up that line of defense. Yet even 
 these are so many arguments to convict him. For if 
 the cause of blessings to others has been the cause 
 of so many troubles and such confusion to us, what 
 
204 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 else can one suppose, but tliat by taking bribes these 
 men have spoiled a thing in its own nature excellent ? 
 Oh, but — he may say, perhaps,— have you not pre¬ 
 served, and won’t you preserve through the peace, 
 three hundred galleys, with stores for them and 
 money ? In regard to this you must understand that 
 Philip’s resources likewise have been largely aug¬ 
 mented through the peace, in supplies of arms, in 
 territory, in revenues, of which he has gained an 
 abundance. * * * But that establishment of power 
 and alliances, through which people hold their good 
 things either for themselves or their superiors,— ours 
 has been sold by these men, and gone to ruin and 
 decay; his hath become formidable and mightier by 
 far. It is not just that Philip, through these men, 
 should have augmented both his alliances and his rev¬ 
 enues, while what Athens must naturally have gained 
 by the peace they set off against what was sold by 
 themselves. The one has not come to us in exchange 
 for the other,—very far from it: one we should equally 
 have had, and the other in addition but for these 
 men. Moreover, has Æschines the right to declare 
 himself the author of the peace ? 
 
 “What I am about to say is strange, yet perfectly 
 true: if any one is really glad of the peace, let him 
 thank the generals for it, whom all accuse. Had they 
 carried on the war as you desired, the very name of 
 peace would have been intolerable to you. Peace, 
 therefore, is owing to them: perilous and unstable 
 and insecure has it become through these men having 
 taken bribes. Bar him, bar him, then, from any argu¬ 
 ment in favor of peace, and put him to his defense 
 for what he has done.” * 
 
 * Embassy , §§ 88, 96. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 205 
 
 The comparative study of the orations of Demosthe¬ 
 nes and Æscliines at first suggests one remark,— the 
 identity of their means. Their arms seem to have 
 been chosen exactly equal, as if for a duel. The two 
 orators draw powerful effects from the decrees which 
 they place in contrast. They eulogize Solon and their 
 ancestors. They speak with the same respect of the 
 majesty of the laws and the guardians of the city. 
 Both declare their sincerity, their disinterested devo¬ 
 tion to the commonwealth, and they censure the Athe¬ 
 nians for their indulgence toward flattering demagogues. 
 If they recommend themselves by the same oratorical 
 manners, they blacken the character of their enemy 
 with the same stains. Æscliines and Demosthenes 
 had souls that were covetous and ridiculously vain. 
 They attached a higher price to the specious beauty of 
 their orations than to truth; to an ephemeral success 
 on the rostrum than to the safety of the state. Æs- 
 cliines was at first the enemy, then the hireling, of 
 Philip. Demosthenes, at first the accomplice of Phi- 
 locrates, subsequently became his accuser. They in¬ 
 cessantly changed their politics, faithful only to the 
 unchangeable inspiration of their own interests. They 
 invoked the same examples, — that of Arthmius of 
 Zelea. They reproached each other for complicity 
 with the enemy, by the intermedium of the spy, Anax- 
 inus, or of Aristion, Demosthenes’ young friend. De¬ 
 mosthenes alone has ruined all. lie was damned. 
 Æscliines alone has lost all. He was the chief of the 
 traitors. Demosthenes falsified concerning the woman 
 of Olynthus. Ilis entire harangue is therefore a false¬ 
 hood. Æscliines attacked Ctesiplion in place of pro¬ 
 voking Demosthenes face to face. The whole ground¬ 
 work of his accusation is therefore as contrary to justice 
 
POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 206 
 
 as it is to truth. The two adversaries pursue the same 
 tone in a docile manner. “As to his tears, his wail¬ 
 ing voice, when he will cry out: Where am 1 to flee , 
 Athenians? exiled f/om Athens, 1 no l(,nger have an 
 asylum / answer him: Ah, Demosthenes, where will 
 
 find money and 
 allies ? what resources has your ministry assured the 
 republic?” “ This • culpable deputy will weep over 
 himself. He will perhaps present his little children. 
 He will show them before the rostrum. With the 
 children of this man, judges, compare in your minds 
 the children of so many allies and friends, dispersed, 
 wandering and miserable, afflicted with cruel evils on 
 account of him, and much more worthy of compassion 
 than the sons of so criminal a father and of so treach¬ 
 erous a traitor. Think of your own children, and of 
 their descendants, from whom Philocrates and yEselii- 
 nes (allusion to the perpetual peace) have taken away 
 all hopes.” The orations On the Grown and On the 
 Embassy might have been written in juxtaposition, 
 since Æschines would wish to see the ancient and the 
 new decrees compared. Their constant affinities, their 
 exact parallelism, is striking. The two antagonists 
 attacked each other like two powerful athletes of equal 
 size. Every member of their bodies was developed 
 and peculiarly fitted to cope with the antagonist : 
 hceret pede pes , densusque viro vir. 
 
 These similarities depend upon two principal causes: 
 the orations of the two rivals were revised with care, 
 after the debates, so that no weak points were left 
 uncovered, no advantages unseen; they were adjusted 
 to each other during leisure hours. Furthermore, 
 at the bar and on the rostrum of Athens, certain argu¬ 
 ments or oratorical proceedings were employed out 
 
 the Athenians fly ? where will they 
 
207 
 
 DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 of respect for tradition. The orator did not, perhaps, 
 draw great and powerful effects from them, but if he 
 disregarded them, lie ran the risk of appearing too 
 confident in his own ability and disdainful toward 
 sacred custom,-—a neglect doubly dangerous before a 
 sensitive and formal audience. For more than a 
 century (1635-1755), until Duel os, the prizes decreed 
 by the French Academy for the finest eloquence drew 
 their subjects from ethics and moral philosophy. Long 
 after him, the orations on reception followed a cer¬ 
 tain outline which had been traced beforehand (as 
 was that of the funeral orations at Athens), and the 
 only thing to relieve the monotony was the talent 
 of the new member. The tyranny of usage was like¬ 
 wise imposed on Attic eloquence. Without speaking 
 of the uniform developments which the uniformity of 
 situations produced, the orators of the Pnyx or the 
 logographers sometimes willingly bound themselves 
 to socomes which were not necessary, but decorous. 
 They prayed the judges to defend themselves from 
 the instances of solicitors, to rigidly confine the 
 orator to the subject; they contrasted the wise parsi¬ 
 mony of recompenses in former times with the in¬ 
 discreet prodigality of the present time; the severity 
 of their ancestors with the indifference of their de¬ 
 scendants. Themistocles was banished; Cimon con¬ 
 demned to pay a fine of fifty talents. To-day, when 
 our public enemies are convicted, they are acquitted 
 for twenty-five drachmas. 
 
 The occasion can justify these and other similar com¬ 
 monplace remarks; but there are some to which this 
 excuse is injurious. Thus bold pleaders, in order to 
 impose upon the tribunal of judges and readers, offer 
 to yield the floor to their adversary. “Let him speak 
 
208 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 of my water-drinking, I consent to it.” They launch 
 bold challenges (w pôzXyfftç) on paper, assured that they 
 will not be taken at their word. “ He asserts that the 
 delegates of Greece were then among you. * * * Well, 
 then, Demosthenes, mount this platform. I yield it to 
 you. * * * If you can prove that their presentation to 
 the council, and the decrees are of the date which you 
 assign to them, I will descend and condemn myself to 
 death. ” These challenges are simple modes of speaking, 
 so much so that sometimes the author of the interpola¬ 
 tion immediately passes on and continues to address the 
 audience without awaiting, even for the sake of form, 
 his adversary’s response. They administer the torture 
 with as much ease as the simple oath. u We therefore 
 produce our slaves and deliver them to the question; 
 
 I will interrupt myself if the accuser consents to it; the 
 executioner will come immediately and put them to the 
 torture before you if you order it.” The opposing 
 party does not answer, as it is supposed, and the orator 
 triumphs. u Then Demosthenes refuses my challenge, 
 does not accept the testimony of slaves when put to 
 the torture, and takes Philip’s letter.” In reading the 
 Attic orators we would suspect the Athenians of enjoy¬ 
 ing the spectacle of torture as naturally as Perrin Dan- 
 din; and yet, the humane city of Minerva never saw 
 this incident produced before an audience. 
 
 Among the conventional proceedings of Greek elo¬ 
 quence there are some very striking peculiarities. Re¬ 
 spect for the letter of the law has been able to dictate 
 to a council of war this sentence: The accused is con- . 
 demned, first to death; second to a fine of one dollar 
 (the assessment for the offense of public drunkenness). 
 The Attics generally at first demanded the punishment 
 of their adversary, but they did not long maintain this 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOB. 209 
 
 rigor; they retreated very gracefully, and were satisfied 
 with a fine. “ Those Athenians who wish to rid them- 
 selves of Aristogiton, whose crime against the law is 
 evident and manifest, have only one thing to do,— to 
 condemn him to death, or at least to such a fine that he 
 cannot pay it during his life.” (Aristogiton did not 
 atone for the crimes of which he was convicted, either 
 with his head or purse; later he had still to escape from 
 the teeth of another “ dog of the people,” Dinarchus.) 
 
 The accuser rarely forgot to ask the court to refuse 
 the criminal permission to speak. Æscliines did not 
 disregard this established custom. Permitting Demos¬ 
 thenes to exculpate himself before the judges is au¬ 
 thorizing him to involve them in perjury. Let Ctesi- 
 phon himself establish harmony between his decree 
 and the laws if he can, and the cause will be judged. 
 If the decree is found to be illegal, Demosthenes can 
 speak in the special pleading, which relates to the fix¬ 
 ing of punishment. Laharpe was indignant at this 
 “revolting” pretension of JEschines. He would have 
 been more inspired not to take it so seriously. The 
 Greeks, no doubt, had not the high respect and idea 
 of justice and law which exist among modern men; 
 and even reduced to its true work, this custom of 
 barring the defender from the right of speech bears a 
 strong contrast to the institution of our official advo¬ 
 cates. Nevertheless, the Athenians were not unpro¬ 
 vided with moral or common sense to such a degree 
 that they saw in it anything but an instigation, which 
 was sanctified and almost imposed by hatred. Hy- 
 perides said to Polyeuctes, the accuser of Euxenippus: 
 You do not wish that any one should assist and give 
 him the support of his words. On the contrary, you 
 advise the judges not to listen to those who will mount 
 9 * 
 
210 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 this rostrum in liis behalf; and nevertheless in our 
 city, among so many excellent institutions, is there 
 anything more beautiful, more conformative to democ¬ 
 racy, than to behold, in the presence of judicial dan¬ 
 gers which threaten an accused man who is unable to 
 defend himself, a well wishing citizen using his right 
 and departing from the crowd,— advancing and coming 
 to his aid,— to acquaint the judges with the truth of 
 the case ? Polyeuctes’ pretension, contrary to jus¬ 
 tice, would likewise have been so to the reality of 
 practice. Polyeuctes himself, besides other Athenians 
 who were called to his assistance before the court, had 
 recourse to ten orators in his suit. Demosthenes like¬ 
 wise shows us “all orators” under arms for their rich 
 client Midias. The venerable traditions and proceed¬ 
 ings of Greek eloquence made each of the two orations 
 On the Crown the counterpart of the other. Never 
 did harangues resemble each other more in exterior 
 forms, never were harangues more dissimilar. The 
 two bodies are almost equal, but as to soul and heart, 
 what a profound difference ! 
 
 The form of Demosthenes’ oration is often dramatic. 
 Now it is a dialogue between the hearer and himself, 
 or between the Athenians, or between the Athenians 
 and Philip; now it is a monologue of the king reflect¬ 
 ing on the surest means of accomplishing his projects 
 in all security. Demosthenes moderately uses the 
 apostrophe, the grape-shot of eloquence , according to 
 P. L. Courier, but always with fitness and energy. 
 
 “ Some of our orators, I observe, take not the same thought 
 for you as for themselves. They say that you should keep 
 quiet, though you are injured; but they cannot themselves 
 keep quiet among you, though no one injures them. Come, 
 raillery apart, suppose you were thus questioned, Aristode- 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 211 
 
 mus: ‘Tell me, as you know perfectly well, what every one 
 else knows, that the life of private men is secure and free 
 from trouble and danger, while that of statesmen is exposed 
 to scandal and misfortune, full of daily trials and hardships, 
 how comes it that you prefer, not the quiet and easy life, but 
 the one surrounded with peril?’ What should you say? If 
 we admitted the truth of what would be your best possible 
 answer, namely, that all you do is for honor and renown, I 
 wonder what puts it into your head that you ought, from 
 such motives, to exert yourself and undergo toil and danger, 
 while you advise the state to give up exertion and remain 
 idle. You cannot, surely, allege that Aristodemus ought to 
 be of importance at Athens, and Athens to be of no account 
 among the Greeks. Nor again do I see, that for the common¬ 
 wealth it is safe to mind her own affairs only, and hazardous 
 for you not to be a superlative busybody. On the contrary, 
 to you I see the utmost peril from your meddling and over¬ 
 meddling; to the commonwealth, peril from her inactivity. 
 But I suppose you inherit a reputation from your father and 
 grandfather which it were disgraceful in your own person to 
 extinguish, whereas the ancestry of the state was ignoble and 
 mean. This, again, is not so. Your father was a thief if he 
 resembled }'OU, whereas by the ancestors of the common¬ 
 wealth, as all men know, the Greeks have twice been rescued 
 from the brink of destruction. Truly the behavior of some 
 persons, in private and in public, is neither equitable nor 
 constitutional. How is it equitable that certain of these 
 men returned from prison should not know themselves, while 
 the state that once protected all Greece, and held the fore¬ 
 most place, is sunk in ignominy and humiliation?” * 
 
 The scenes in the Agora and Pnyx present in De¬ 
 mosthenes lively pictures. Scarcely has the lot de¬ 
 signated the judges when intrigue besieges them. The 
 question is, which of the two parties can best show 
 
 * Fourth Philippic, 70. 
 
212 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 contempt for the law. They are like two armies 
 drawn up in battle array (-apdrasw), and emulating each 
 other in factious zeal ( -apayyeMa ) to charm the con¬ 
 science of the heliasts. The tribune is no calmer. 
 Demosthenes has just mounted it. Posted near him, 
 one on the right, the other on the left, Æschines and 
 Philocrates cry out, interrupt and torment the orator 
 with sarcasm. “Great wonder, Athenians, that De¬ 
 mosthenes and myself are not of the same opinion: 
 he drinks water and I wine! ” and the Athenians 
 laugh. After Philocrates’ impertinence, Æschines ex¬ 
 hibits his by addressing the assembly. Compelled 
 by outcries to descend from the tribune: “Among 
 so many criers, how few would be willing to fight, if 
 it w r ere necessary.” Aristogiton had no equal in shout¬ 
 ing the cry of war at the Agora. One day the citizens 
 were being enrolled; our warrior crawls to the assem¬ 
 bly leaning on a crutch, and his leg bandaged. Pho- 
 cion, who was presiding, seeing him from afar, cried 
 out: “Clerk, write down Aristogiton, lame and 
 
 cowardly.” Aristogitons were numerous at Athens. 
 They revenged themselves for their cowardice in the 
 innocent struggles of the public place during the 
 session. “If they appear in the assembly, their 
 arms are vociferations, audacity, calumnious imputa¬ 
 tions, invectives of sycophants, impudent gestures, and 
 other similar practices. Nothing, in my opinion, is 
 more contrary to deliberations, more dishonorable to 
 Athens. By these scandalous excesses they triumph 
 over our wisest regulations; they make a jest of the 
 laws, of presidents, and of all conveniences.” Such 
 are the madmen, the wild beasts (-à rotadra Qrjpia ) who 
 encumber the tribune to-day.” This dissoluteness of 
 the cccles.ia , exaggerated, no doubt, by the orators 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 213 
 
 when it was their turn to suffer from it, hacl perhaps 
 become a custom; and custom modifies everything. 
 Such small disorder, when passed into the custom, 
 loses much of its malignity. This is credible, since 
 the storms of the Attic swarm were inoffensive and 
 easy to calm, like the great conflicts of the bees in 
 Virgil : 
 
 Pulveris exigui jactu compressa quiescent. 
 
 In the Council of the Five Hundred (this testimony 
 is borrowed from the same painter of the parliament¬ 
 ary violences at Athens) a weak grate kept off the 
 public and made them respect the secret of delibera¬ 
 tions. The Areopagus was seated in the royal portico 
 and surrounded by a mere rope, which kept off the 
 troublesome and insured tranquillity. As soon as the 
 clerk cried out Retire , all the magistrates, appointed 
 by lot, consulted in peace, under the protection of the 
 laws, without fearing the insults of the most violent. 
 These and a thousand other equally noble rules af¬ 
 forded respect and surety to the state. Perhaps the 
 day will come when a mere rope will with us be a 
 sufficient barrier in a similar case; but even up to this 
 time French petulance could learn lessons of respectful 
 discretion from Athenian democracy, which is termed 
 so undisciplined. 
 
 Demosthenes was nurtured in the school of Thucydi¬ 
 des, and in imitating this orator as his master he sur¬ 
 passed him. Bossuet confessed that he read little of 
 Demosthenes. “ The study is too difficult for those 
 who are occupied with other thoughts.” In fact, sub¬ 
 stantial and concise, he gives us much to meditate on. 
 He charms the reader and demands all his attention, 
 but his profundity remains luminous. His orations 
 are concentrated and limpid. Sometimes reasoning 
 
214 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 suffocates passion in the austere historian. His strong 
 logical conceptions are addressed to the intelligence 
 rather than to real hearers. Demosthenes often allows 
 the general idea to mingle with the impression of act¬ 
 ual reality. The words reason, consider, reflect, are 
 found in him every moment. He wrote his harangues 
 for the Athenians and for the thinkers of the future; 
 but their augmentation is always allied to an intense 
 passion with direct effect. Besides facts which speak 
 and “cry out” (aùrà Boa) themselves, we find in them 
 warm exhortations, which constitute their charming 
 conclusions. Emotion and demonstration, reason and 
 passion,— such is his eloquence. 
 
 II. The law of the tribunals forbade the pathetic at 
 Athens, a striking indication of the extreme sensibility 
 of the Hellenes. Æneas was reproached for weeping 
 more profusely than was becoming to the founder of 
 an empire. The heroes of Homer, tender and fero¬ 
 cious in their turn, were not less prompt to be satiated 
 with tears (jôoto répit strOai). According* to Herodotus 
 (vi, 21), the Athenians fined the poet Phryniclius for 
 making them weep in the theater over The Capture 
 of Miletus, and they prohibited by a decree the repre¬ 
 sentation of the drama because it aw~akened the mem¬ 
 ory of domestic misfortunes. On the tribunal the 
 orator was forbidden to move the people by relating 
 the misfortunes of another ; but here also customs 
 were more powerful than laws. The accuser employed 
 the least justifiable resources of art and hatred to 
 prejudice the judges against his adversary. It would 
 have been rigorous to deprive the accused of the nat¬ 
 ural right of petition. u If I had to prosecute Midias 
 for an illegal motion,— for being an unfaithful ambas- 
 
DEMOSTHENES — THE ORATOR. 
 
 215 
 
 sador or some other similar crime,— I would not think 
 myself obliged to address you with prayers, persuaded 
 then that the part of the accuser was to furnish proofs, 
 that of the accused to use supplications. But * * * 
 since I have been struck, outraged as no choregus was 
 ever outraged before, * * * I will not hesitate to im¬ 
 plore you, for, if I may be allowed to say it, I am the 
 accused, since a want of judicial satisfaction makes an 
 intense prejudice press upon an insulted citizen.” 
 
 Custom tolerated the use of the pathetic in orations, 
 and especially permitted the accused to assist his 
 defender's eloquence by affecting the judges with his 
 tears. Demosthenes feared the effect which Midias’ 
 lamentations might produce upon them. “What then 
 remains ? Ah ! by Jupiter ! compassion. For Midias 
 will present his young children. He will shed tears, 
 lie will supplicate you to pardon him for their sake. 
 This is his last resource. But (you are not ignorant of 
 it) piety is due to the innocent victim of intolerable 
 severity, not to the culprit who is justly punished. 
 Who could have pity on the children of Midias, when 
 he has not had pity on the children of Straton ? ” 
 Farther on the orator redoubled his efforts, so much 
 did he wish to prevent the emotion of the court. u He 
 will come, I know, to lament with his children. He 
 will express the most humble declarations. He will 
 weep. He will make himself as miserable as possible. 
 * * * I have no children myself, and I could not, by 
 producing them here, bewail and weep over the out¬ 
 rages which I have received. It is therefore rational 
 to treat the victim less favorably than the prosecu¬ 
 tor ? ”* 
 
 The poet of the Wasps has not forgotten this trait of customs iu 
 the lawsuit of the dog Labes. (Cf. Racine, Plaideurs , iii, 3.) 
 
216 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 The impression of pity was much more powerful 
 when the orator was accused himself, and united his 
 pathetic pleading to the spectacle of his family in tears. 
 So JEscliines presented his whole family on the ros¬ 
 trum in his oration On the Embassy. Sometimes the 
 advocate, respectful toward the law, entrusted the care 
 of exciting pity to his client. u Euxenippus, I came 
 to your aid as far as I was able. It remains only to 
 beseech your judges, to implore the assistance of your 
 friends, and to make your children mount this place.” 
 This conclusion of Hyperides is according to Attic 
 tradition, and conciliates all. The same design to har¬ 
 monize the law and the interests of the pleaders some¬ 
 times caused the orator, in the midst of his oration, to 
 dissimulate pieces for the purpose of exciting pity. 
 Demosthenes, in his second oration Against Ajphohus , 
 paints before the judges’ eyes his mother’s grief, her 
 anxiety for the issue of a lawsuit which can deprive 
 her of her last resources, and prevent her from marry¬ 
 ing her only daughter. Tie conjures them in the name 
 of their wives, their children, and all they possess. 
 Then he closes with a phlegmatic conclusion, as if he 
 wished to be pardoned for having shed tears. 
 
 Ho man at Home ever thought of reproaching Cicero 
 for his pathos. Æscliines reproached Demosthenes 
 for his; he marks the lamentable tone of his voice, 
 the expression of an illegal and hypocritical grief in 
 his eyes. Æscliines would have been pleased to see 
 the law master here, and to see Ctesiplion’s defender 
 deprived of one of the greatest resources of his elo¬ 
 quence. Demosthenes, far from abdicating, used 
 against Æschines all his right to pathos, but with a 
 violence of emotion peculiar to him. Pathos was 
 usually born in him from an elevation of sentiment; 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 217 
 
 lie charmed the soul by 1ns exaltation; he transported 
 his hearers by his generosity and moral reasoning. 
 This intense passion, constantly springing from the 
 bottom of his heart, seems to be unconscious of itself, 
 so sincere and naïve is it. “In spite of the passion 
 that carries me away, I perceive that water is going 
 to fail me, and that I am losing my way in orations 
 and recriminations which would take up whole days 
 (Antidosis).” The author of the ode On the Conquest 
 of Namur likewise tells us of the “learned and sacred 
 intoxication ” which transports him. Demosthenes did 
 not feel conscious of his transports because he did 
 not seek them. 
 
 Æscliines attributes to Demosthenes this pathetic 
 interrogation: “When he will demand of you, Athe¬ 
 nians, where can I take refuge, etc. * * * ” Farther 
 on: “When at the close of his oration he will call 
 near him the accomplices of his venality to defend 
 him. * * * ” There is nothing like this in the ora¬ 
 tion On the Crown. Æscliines feigned to foresee these 
 oratorical buoyancies, in order to have the advan¬ 
 tage of using them and of bringing around the tribune 
 the shades of Solon, Aristides and Themistocles: “Do 
 vou not believe that the warriors who died at Mara¬ 
 
 thon and Platæa, that the very graves of our ances¬ 
 tors would wail, if the man who confesses that he 
 has worked against Greece, in concert with the bar¬ 
 barians, were crowned? ” Ctesiplion’s accuser develops 
 this prosopopoeia with fervor and makes it effective in 
 the close. Demosthenes is sometimes content to in¬ 
 dicate one or two of them occasionally, and leaves 
 the care of reviving their ardor to his hearers. “When 
 Midias, surrounded by his children, will entreat you 
 to grant them his acquittal, then imagine that you 
 
 10 
 
218 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 see me appear, escorted by the laws and your oaths, 
 begging you, soliciting you to pronounce in their 
 favor.” “How, consider, reflect how just the indig¬ 
 nation of these illustrious dead would be, if they had 
 any idea of what we are doing to-day.” (. Against 
 Leptines.') Reflection is here closely united to emo¬ 
 tion, and this alliance well measures Demosthenes’ 
 pathos. His prosopopœiæ are of such an Attic so¬ 
 briety that they could find place in a pleading. That 
 which closes the speech against Macartatus, and in 
 which Sositheus evokes, in the name of a child, all 
 the deaths of Buselus’ family, is by far the longest 
 and most touching of our orator. Demosthenes knew 
 better than any other man the common sources of 
 pathos, but he’disdained to draw from them. “True 
 eloquence mocks at eloquence.” (Pascal.) 
 
 Demosthenes’ pathos is very seldom affecting. Give 
 this material to Æschines, — a picture of the desolation 
 of Phocis in ruins. If he wished, he could put into this 
 picture emotions of the most touching sensibility. The 
 accent of Demosthenes’ soul is different; he discloses 
 to the Athenians the source of the catastrophe of 
 Phocis, and he interrupts his exposition with this cry: 
 Shocking and pitiable spectacle! On our late jour¬ 
 ney to Delphi we were compelled to see it all,— houses 
 razed to the ground, walls demolished, a country 
 stripped of its adult population; a few poor women, 
 little children, and miserable old men. Ho language 
 can do justice to the misery now existing there; and 
 yet I hear you all say that this people once gave a neg¬ 
 ative vote to the Thebans on the question of enslaving 
 us. If then, your ancestors, Athenians, could return to 
 life, wjiat vote or judgment would they pass upon the 
 authors of this destruction of Phocis ? In my opinion, 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 219 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 though they stoned them with their own hands, they 
 would consider themselves pure. For is it not dis¬ 
 graceful,— is it not, if possible, worse than disgrace¬ 
 ful,— that people who had then saved us, who gave 
 their vote for our preservation, should have met with 
 an opposite return through these men, and be suffered 
 to incur greater misfortunes than any Greeks ever 
 knew ? Who, then, is the author of them ? Who was 
 the deceiver % _Æscliines, — who but he ? * 
 
 Sentiments of national dignity, branding of ingrati¬ 
 tude, hatred toward the traitor Æsehines, — these are 
 the true sources of Demosthenes’ pathos, rather than the 
 picture of the misfortunes of Phocis, or another similar 
 subject capable of exciting pity. 
 
 The nature of the conflict which he supports for his 
 public life is “full of daily struggles and sufferings,” 
 and his own nature willed it to be so. Demosthenes’ 
 eloquence is the image of his character; there is some¬ 
 thing rough in both. Dionysius of Halicarnassus attrib¬ 
 utes this kind of roughness to a scrupulous imitation 
 of Thucydides’ style. We must rather find its source 
 in a soul whose steadfastness borders upon severity. 
 Demosthenes could not apply to himself the words of 
 Antigone: “I am created to love, not to hate.” His 
 incisive words can better accuse than defend, f ITer- 
 mogenes marks its biting sharpness (d/n/Arvjç) ; FEschi- 
 nes its sharp bitterness (nzjod»v). According to the taste 
 of Ctesiphon’s accuser, Leodamas the Acharnian had 
 not less force than Demosthenes, and he had more 
 pleasantness ( r/diw *). 
 
 * Embassy, § G4. 
 
 f Only two of his civil speeches are defensive. One For Pliormio 
 (he had even pleaded against this person a short time previous), the 
 other For Apollodorus, on the subject of the naval crown. 
 
220 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Tliis want of pleasantness did not exclude ingenuity 
 in our orator. Could lie have been an Athenian if he 
 had no ingenuity ? £ £ One day when he was desiring to 
 
 address a large meeting in the city, the people would not 
 have heard him had he not informed them that he 
 only wished to tell them a story. Hearing this, they 
 listened to him, and he commenced in this manner: 
 “ Once upon a time,” he said, “there was a man who 
 hired an ass to go from this city to Megara. About 
 noon, when the sun was burning hot, both the driver 
 and the hirer sought the shade of the ass, and mutually 
 hindered each other. The owner said that the traveler 
 had hired his ass, and not its shadow. The traveler, in 
 opposition to him, maintained that the whole ass was 
 under his jurisdiction.” Having thus commenced his 
 story, he withdrew. The people recalled him, and 
 begged him to finish the story. “ Ah,” said he, “how 
 eager you are to hear a story about an ass’s shadow, 
 and you will not listen when I speak of your most im¬ 
 portant affairs.” 
 
 We find proofs of Demosthenes’ ingenuity in several 
 passages of his writings, in certain untranslatable deli¬ 
 cacies of style, in which the art of the Attics is sur¬ 
 prised by a play on words of different shades of mean¬ 
 ing, by passing from the proper to the figurative sense; 
 by delighting the mind with refined thoughts and 
 language, accompanied by a mixture of delicate irony 
 and subtility.* Sometimes even Athenian taste did 
 
 * Aristotle ( Rhetoric , iii, ii, 3) cites this passage from Isocrates: 
 TTjv TÎjz OaÀÀdrrjç àpyrps (empire) àpyrpj (principium) elvac rà)v 
 y.ay.îüv. Cf. Oration on The Chersonesus. up.tby uyiaiyovTiov sound 
 body), si ôrj robç rà roiaùra Tzoiobvraq oytaisiv (sound mind) <pv}<rcusv . 
 Farther on: syuvr àtpsÀéaOat (destroying tyrants) dstvo\ xai -âvraq 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 221 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 not recoil before puns, if they can be so considered. 
 Aristophanes is prodigal of them. Athenian orators 
 ventured to use them with great circumspection. They 
 meant that puns and ambiguities (^.ww/ü'a) should 
 always respect the law of urbanity («<xt£?o!/). Usually 
 they disdained these doubtful pleasantries, and avoided 
 them, even where they most naturally presented them¬ 
 selves. Æscliines, said Demosthenes, would give from 
 his blood , rather than from.his oration/ and Ctesi- 
 plion’s accuser, in his turn, said: “This man has on 
 his shoulders not a head , but a source of revenues ,— a 
 farm.” Few modern men would have resisted the temp¬ 
 tation to replace the sayings of the two orators by 
 these: he would give his blood rather than his water ; 
 he lias not a head , but a capitol. A commentator, 
 chagrined at seeing Æscliines on such an occasion, 
 utterly wanting in wit a la Française, effaces the word 
 revenue (-poeodov), and substitutes for it capital (xscpakawS). 
 This is too kind. To these doubtful niceties the Attics 
 preferred traits after Gorgias’ taste : “ A little sparrow 
 had dropped some excrements from its stomach upon 
 him.” The sophist raised his eyes and said: “That 
 is not fair play, O Philomela”; as if he should say : 
 “That does not look well, princess.” 
 
 Notwithstanding the delicacy of his wit, frequently 
 ingenious, Demosthenes had little success in pleas¬ 
 antry. In Cicero’s judgment, he is an accomplished 
 model of urbanity; but he seems to have ignored the 
 well known piquant ( < facetus ) playfulness of Lysias 
 and Hyperides. According to the author of the fifth 
 
 àvOpatTzouc; eiç khuOeptav àfpsXéffOat (to charm, to excite to liberty) 
 CTuc/xot. Severe Aristotle himself said that it was necessary to use 
 epithets as seasoning, not as food, èdéffparc. 
 
222 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 of the letters attributed to Æscliines,* his jests never 
 made any one laugh except Ctesiphon. Quintilian was 
 disposed to judge them in like manner : “They show 
 clearly that this kind of wit was not displeasing to him, 
 but that nature did not endow him with it.”f The 
 author of Oratorical Institutions has a right to feel 
 triumphant here, and to assert that Rome surpassed 
 Athens in pleasantry, as well as in touching pathos 
 (miseratione et sali bus vincimus). The Greeks can 
 console themselves for this inferiority. It is better to 
 be wanting in that talent which produces laughter than 
 to abuse it as did the Roman consul. But was laughter 
 of so high a value at the Athenian court ? There was 
 no need of exciting the Athenians by it. 
 
 The pleasantries of Demosthenes have something 
 peevish, or even the roughness of sarcasm. Æschines 
 is ungrateful for attacking Demosthenes, for he fur¬ 
 nished him a living. Without devoted citizens who 
 fight against the Macedonian, whence would the hired 
 orators of Philip receive their revenues ? Demades 
 one day said to him, “That Demosthenes should repri¬ 
 mand me is like the hog governing Minerva.” “Ah,” 
 said Demosthenes, “this Minerva was caught in the act 
 of adultery, the other day, near Colyttus.” Demos¬ 
 thenes defied the accomplices of Philocrates to come 
 and justify themselves on the rostrum. Under differ- 
 
 * The pleading against Callicles, a suit on a gutter, contains this 
 passage: “When all shall have been drained from me, the water will 
 remain with me. By Jupiter! what will I do with this water? Will 
 Callicles force me to drink it?” A pick-pocket named Chalcous was 
 ridiculing him for his nightly toils: “I understand that my lighted 
 lamp vexed you. But, Athenians, do not be surprised by all the 
 thefts that are committed. Our thieves are of brass (jfaXxoùç) and our 
 walls of clay.” 
 
 f Quintilian, vi, 3. (Cf. Orator , 20.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 223 
 
 ent pretexts, no one appeared there. What is Phrynon’s 
 pretext? “He has a son-in-law in Macedonia.” This 
 Phrynon had sent his son, a handsome youth, to Philip. 
 The Athenians readily used euphemisms. A euphem¬ 
 istic jurisconsult, Tourreil, called an exploit a stamped 
 compliment / a salary, a coined gratitude. Thus Phil¬ 
 ip’s hirelings at Athens were his guests , his friends. 
 The household flatterers of Dionysius, living at his 
 table, when they did not die from his fancies (Atovuao- 
 y.ûlay.sç), were called artists and skillful men (rey'Araq), 
 Sycophants were “curators ( k-iixeAr^q ) of public and 
 private affairs.” Thieves and pillagers, or brigands 
 and pirates, modestly declared themselves “men who 
 labor to acquire.” Everybody must live, and poverty 
 is an attenuating circumstance. Imperious necessity 
 confounds all ideas of what is allowed and prohibited. 
 This indulgence, which was shown by Demosthenes to 
 needy Charidemus, is an oratorical concession. In gen¬ 
 eral, he sees men and things as they are : he calls a cat 
 a cat, and Philocrates a-. 
 
 Even his praises savor of rudeness. One of his col¬ 
 leagues on the embassy to Macedonia extolled, on the 
 rostrum at Athens, Philip’s marvelous qualities. De¬ 
 mosthenes, in Philip’s presence, ridiculed the foolish 
 flattery. “I have not praised your beauty, — the most 
 beautiful of beings is woman ; nor your ability to drink,— 
 this eulogy is due to a sponge ; nor your memory,—this 
 is the merit of a sophist who deals in words.” His 
 unpremeditated frankness is one of the grievances which 
 Æschines brings against him. He has the rusticity of a 
 barbarian , like the Great King, writing to the Athenians 
 with the delicacy of a crowned Turcaret : “I will not 
 give you gold ; do not ask me for it ; you shall have 
 none.” His abruptness provoked “before the deputies 
 
224 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ■* 
 
 of all Greece an explosion of uncommon laughter.” 
 He interrupts the people with great cries ; he is a Boeo¬ 
 tian (JiouoTtdZei) worthy of sympathizing with that coarse 
 people. Are we to be astonished at it? He is a Scyth¬ 
 ian (a peasant from the Danube) by his mother, not an 
 Athenian. 
 
 It is seldom that Demosthenes’ irony is sufficiently 
 free from passion to be lively. His smiles are not 
 malicious, but contracted and half grimacing. Another 
 orator would have chastised with a lighter hand the 
 cowardly self-conceit of Midias and his zeal, which 
 was always unseasonable. If the danger is on the 
 sea, Midias procures supplies from the Egyptian Pam- 
 philus. If the contest is to be tried on land, Midias 
 runs to the assembly and loudly promises to fit out a 
 trireme. He is always just where there is no danger. 
 He is elected hipparchus, and he cannot assist in a 
 procession on horseback without losing his stirrup, 
 and, furthermore, his nag is borrowed. Instead of 
 agreeably enjoying himself at the expense of this boast¬ 
 ful blunderhead, Demosthenes employs in the recital 
 of his subterfuges the epithets of covjcird , execrable 
 man, etc. For jocularity he substitutes invective. The 
 author of Nicomachean Ethics allows the magnani¬ 
 mous to use scornful irony. Such is most frequently 
 that of Demosthenes. Horace played with the human 
 heart by pleasingly ridiculing its weaknesses. Juvenal 
 vigorously branded its vices. The same difference 
 distinguishes our orator from other Attics in the use 
 of irony. Demosthenes’ irony is especially indignant 
 and virulent. 
 
 “ Evidently, Æschines, these evils move you, and the The¬ 
 bans inspire you with pity,— you, who have lands in Bceotia 
 and who cultivate the fields of which they were robbed; and 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 225 
 
 I rejoice,— I, whose head was immediately after demanded 
 by the author of these disasters.” * * * “ By such a language, 
 you miscreant, while of the deeds of our ancestors you made 
 sport and havoc with your tongue, you ruined all our affairs. 
 And out of all this you are a land-owner and become a con¬ 
 siderable personage. For here again : before he had wronged 
 the state so grievously he acknowledged that he had been a 
 clerk and was under obligation to }’ou for electing him, and 
 he behaved himself with decency; but since he has wrought 
 such infinite mischief he lias drawn up his eyebrows, and if 
 any one says ‘ the ex-clerk Æscliines,’ he is at once his enemy 
 and says he has been slandered; and he traverses the market 
 with his robe down to his ankles, walking as sharply as Pytho- 
 cles, puffing out his cheeks: — one of the friends and acquaint¬ 
 ances of Philip for you. That’s what he is now,— one of 
 those that would be rid of the people and regard the present 
 establishment as a raging sea,— he that formerly worshiped 
 the dining-hall.”* 
 
 Irony is a resort skillfully managed by the tragic 
 poets. In them it is sometimes derisive, as in the 
 mouth of the Nicomedes of Corneille ; sometimes as 
 bitter as in Racine’s Orestes. Demosthenes gives to his a 
 sort of dolorous acriditv. The ancient comedian Archias 
 
 o 
 
 allured Demosthenes with pleasing words. u Quit 
 your asylum ; I will conduct you to Antipater ; he will 
 do you no harm.” From the place where he was seated, 
 Demosthenes beheld him. “ Archias, you never moved 
 me on the stage; your good promises will not move 
 me more to-day.” Archias is enraged and threatens: 
 
 * Embassy, § 313; Pro Corona , § 41. The oration On Halonnesus 
 is animated from one end to the other with a fine irony and capricious 
 spirit, which turns those acquainted with Demosthenes from attrib¬ 
 uting this piece to him. Demosthenes would have commented on 
 Philip’s letter with biting penetration and an acidity very remote 
 from the liveliness of Hegesippus. He has developed almost the 
 same ideas, but in an entirely different manner. 
 
226 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 “Now you speak like an inspired man, on the Macedo¬ 
 nian tripod (the Macedonian is liis oracle) ; a moment 
 ago you acted the part of a comedian.” 
 
 III. He that would gather in Demosthenes all the 
 energetic expressions that tend to place the object be¬ 
 fore our eyes, would have to transcribe nearly all his 
 writings. His intensity is often born of brevity : 
 “In live days only, Æscliines pronounced his false¬ 
 hoods ; you believed them ; Pliocis was acquainted with 
 them, surrendered herself, and perished.” It is also 
 born of the agitating [kvspyowra) image that paints and 
 communicates life. In the pleading Against Macar- 
 tatus , he says that he at first thought of offering to the 
 view of the judges a genealogical table of Agnias’ de¬ 
 scendants ; “but as all, and especially those who are 
 farthest from me, could not have seen it distinctly, I 
 am obliged to trace it orally and to address the whole 
 tribunal at once.” The orations of Demosthenes are 
 speaking pictures; living paintings and striking reliefs 
 abound in them. Rhetoricians who were curious to cite 
 models of liypotyposis, had a rich harvest to gather from 
 his works. Besides, energy seems to have been the 
 common quality of the Attics during the Macedonian 
 period. “ Hyperboles,” says Aristotle, “are becoming 
 to youth and to wrath ; the orators of Athens make very 
 frequent use of them.*’' For want of youthful ardor, 
 the passions excited by the political contests during 
 Philip’s time sufficed to suggest bold figures. Even a 
 pure Attic, Lysias, did not hesitate to write in a funeral 
 oration: “It is just that Greece be shorn (xsipaaOai) on 
 the tomb of the brave who perished at Salamis, since 
 her liberty was buried with their courage.” Æsion, a 
 contemporary of Demosthenes, could allow himself this 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 227 
 
 expression : The Athenians have “ turned their city into 
 Sicily.” Hegesippus was advising them to exterminate 
 Philip’s partisans, “if you have your brains in your 
 heads and not in your heels.” 
 
 Demades says that he guides the wreck of the repub¬ 
 lic (noXireOsffOat -à vauayta t^ç -6ha>^. “The news of the 
 conqueror’s death creates an emotion at Athens. 
 “Athenians, Alexander is not dead; for the world 
 would be filled with the odor from liis corse.” (Dema¬ 
 des.) Hyperides was reproached for an illegal motion. 
 “It is not I who made this proposition ; it is the battle 
 of Chæronea. Did you not see the laws which forbade 
 it? The arms of the Macedonians, veiling them with 
 their shadows ( è-co/.ôrei ), concealed them from my view.” 
 Demosthenes “is composed of words, * * * deprive 
 him of his tongue, and he will then become a mere flute 
 without a mouthpiece.” (Æscliines.) The greater por¬ 
 tion of Demosthenes’ expressions, which are cited by 
 Æschines, are not found in liis harangues ; they are 
 usually improvised sallies that owe even the privilege 
 of having struck his rival’s memory to their vigor. 
 
 Cicero permits the orator to use expressions almost 
 poetic (verba jpvope poetarum). Aristotle, less indul¬ 
 gent, censured as poetic a number of terms and images 
 which the scrupulous Isocrates himself would undoubt¬ 
 edly have accepted. He does not wish that we should 
 say: “Philosophy is the bulwark of laws.” “You 
 have sown shame; you have reaped misfortune.” So 
 Voltaire, in an emotion of ill humor against J. J. Rous¬ 
 seau, saw an example of “excessive extravagance” 
 into which the “would-be wits” fall while moved by 
 “a mania for making themselves singular.” It was in 
 this image: “I was cultivating hope, and I saw it fade 
 every day.” The author of the Philosophical Pic- 
 
228 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 tionary is here more Attic than Demosthenes himself 
 would have been. His poetical figures are numerous, 
 and he often borrows them from scenes of nature. The 
 audacious Python launches against the assembly floods 
 of impetuous eloquence (jtoXXü pèovri). Without the 
 reveille of the Thebans the burden of the war would 
 have fallen upon Athens like a torrent in winter 
 (yjt/j.âppouç'). If a reverse befalls the city, Æscliines 
 immediately starts from his repose, like a sudden gust 
 of wind ( co<7-ep Tt'Æopa w;e<pdvr)). Philip’s attack is u a 
 liail-storm that ruins the harvest.” “This decree (of 
 alliance with Thebes) expelled the danger which en¬ 
 veloped the city like a cloud.”* Cicero extolled this 
 merit in Demosthenes’ elocution: “The frequent use 
 of metaphors is, in the eyes of certain critics, the prin¬ 
 cipal merit of his eloquence; and, in fact, we rarely 
 find a passage in his works in which his ideas are not 
 introduced in a salient form; yet he is the only orator 
 who knows how to give to all, or at least to nearly all 
 his thoughts a lively turn and a luminous splendor. ”f 
 Demosthenes owes the picturesque relief of his style 
 to the vivacity of his imagination and also to the ge¬ 
 nius of his colored and expressive mother-tongue. The 
 Greeks made it in their own image, and handled it as 
 a painter handles his brush. J 
 
 * Touto to (prj<ptafia rov tote ry tîoXsc TZEpiaravra xîvôuvov i:ap- 
 eXOs'tv ènoirjffev, œazzsp vépoç. (Pro Corona .) 
 
 f Cicero, Orator, 39 ; De Oratore , i, 28. “ L’éloquence est une pein¬ 
 ture de la pensée.” (Pascal.) 
 
 X The carelessness of the Athenians will be a breakneck for them 
 ( èxTpayrjXaffOjjvat ). The Byzantians would have submitted to all, 
 swallowed (ela^prjaeaOac) all, rather than fall into the hands of Philip. 
 This prince was sounding the Hellenes with a golden probe (diexiu- 
 dcb'xi^e. This word properly signifies to test a spirited horse by the 
 sound of liand-bells, and it suggests the idea of jingling pieces of 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 229 
 
 The coarseness of Demosthenes’ images did not al¬ 
 ways find grace before Æschines. He mentions sev¬ 
 eral which the vivacity of improvisation alone could 
 justify. “ Do you not remember his odious and in¬ 
 credible words ? How could you ever patiently toler¬ 
 ate them, O men of iron ? He said to you from this 
 tribune: They nip the buds of the republic; they cut 
 off the sprouts of democracy ; they have broken off the 
 nerves of our resources . We are packed up in a bundle 
 and sewed into straw mats. They pierce us as with lard¬ 
 ing-pins. * From wdiom are these expressions, shock¬ 
 ing beast, or rather these monsters of language ? ” 
 Cicero condemned images that were less bold. “The 
 African’s death has deprived the republic of its genera¬ 
 tive power (castratam) ; Glaucia, the excrements of the 
 senate ( stercus curiœ)f\ and nevertheless he pleaded 
 attenuating circumstances in favor of Demosthenes. 
 It is easy, said he, to coolly catch a word of fire and 
 turn it into derision when the aroused minds of the 
 hearers have had time to grow cool; but do not these 
 temerities of language find their excuse in the pas¬ 
 sionate heat of debate? Pliny the Younger, a man 
 of talent and very desirous in his letters to follow 
 Cicero step by step, recalled this passage of the Ora¬ 
 tor. lie justifies some of his expressions, which are 
 “inflated and violent” according to the judgment of 
 his correspondent Lupercus, but which are “auda¬ 
 cious, full of intelligence and sublime,” according to 
 
 gold in the ears of the Greeks. The least reverse suffices to over¬ 
 throw all, àveyaiTiae. This is said of a horse that capers and throws 
 off his rider by shaking his mane (youry). It would be easy to mul¬ 
 tiply these examples. 
 
 * TWç rà (Tzsvà (j:(no y ~<)'/) wansp ràç fte/.ôvaç dcsipoufft. 
 
 t De Oratore , iii, 41 ; Orator , 8. 
 
230 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the author’s taste. He alleges the examples of Homer, 
 Æschines, and Demosthenes, and he extols the “daz¬ 
 zling grandeur”* of those traits which Ctesiphon’s ac¬ 
 cuser has censured. The fragments of Demosthenes 
 which Pliny cites certainly deserve this eulogy; but 
 who will dare to confer it on the comparison of the 
 larding-pins, which indeed is not Attic ? 
 
 Antithesis is often employed in Demosthenes’ plead¬ 
 ings. It tends to brevity by rapidly placing face to 
 face two ideas which the clepsydra did not always 
 permit him to develop. Thus the pleading Foi * Apol- 
 lodorus contains two antitheses, which recapitulate it 
 with great effect. Demosthenes’ antitheses never have 
 false windows , designed for symmetry. “What I 
 fear is, not that Philip may be living, but that the 
 hatred toward the prevaricators, and the eagerness to 
 punish them, may be dead in the heart of the state.” 
 The antithesis, or contrast of things, is one of his favor¬ 
 ite methods. An almost continual parallel is estab¬ 
 lished, in the orations On the Embassy and On the 
 Crown , between the birth, education, family, private 
 and public life, of the two adversaries. The bright 
 and clear light of Attica gave the Athenians a taste for 
 luminous relief. Demosthenes, in this respect, knew 
 the force of parallels and did not conceal 
 
 his intention to profit by them. “With my conduct 
 compare theirs. Light will shine from this parallel. ”f 
 
 We will conclude these remarks on Demosthenes’ 
 elocution with the citation of a page which reproduces 
 some of the traits of the expressive physiognomy of 
 his eloquence. 
 
 * Granditas elucet. ( Letters , ix, 2G.) 
 
 f This taste for contrasts was practiced by the comic poets. Ti- 
 mocles calls him “a man who dislikes orations ancT never made an 
 antithesis.” 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 231 
 
 “ What matters, they will say, the loss of Serrhium, of 
 Doriscus ? Let these insignificant spoils accumulate. They 
 will finally raise themselves to a disastrous ‘ sum-total . 1 Do 
 you believe you are wise in purchasing peace at the cost of 
 such concessions? ‘I fear that some day, like imprudent 
 borrowers, who procure passing ease at large interest, and 
 consequently see themselves deprived even of their patri¬ 
 mony, we, also, will pay dearly for our indolence; and that, 
 for having devoted all to pleasure, we will sooner or later 
 undergo the necessity of suffering many hardships to which 
 we formerly objected, and of trembling for the very soil of 
 our country.* * * * You must, Athenians, from to-day, shake 
 off this weakness. See how far this man has pushed his arro¬ 
 gance. He does not even now leave you a choice between 
 action and repose. He threatens. He utters, they say, inso¬ 
 lent speeches. Incapable of contenting himself with what he 
 has captured, he surrounds himself each day with a rampart 
 of new conquests, and while we are remaining inactive, he is 
 encircling us and infesting us on all sides. 
 
 When then, Athenians, when, pray, will you do your duty? 
 What are you waiting for,— an event? necessity? But what 
 other understanding can you have of what is passing before 
 our eyes? As for me, I know of no more pressing necessity 
 for free men than dishonor. Tell me, will you always go to 
 and fro on the public square, asking each other ‘ What is the 
 news? 1 Ah! what news could be greater than that a Mace¬ 
 donian is the conqueror of Athens, and the ruler of Greece? 
 ‘Is Philip dead? No, her is sick.’ What difference is it to 
 you whether he is dead or sick? If any misfortune has be¬ 
 fallen him, you will very soon make another Philip, with the 
 vigilance which you now use in your affairs.” 
 
 IY. The disposition of Demosthenes’ plans sometimes 
 needs more light. Exactitude of method is one of the 
 superiorities which modern men manifest over the 
 
 * First Olynthiac. “ Si noies sanus, curres hydropicus.” (Horace.) 
 
232 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ancients. The admirers of antiquity had a giant task 
 to sustain, in the time of Charles Perrault, when 
 they undertook to prove that the Iliad and Odyssey 
 left nothing to be desired as a composition. The in¬ 
 telligent admirers of Homer could allege the differ¬ 
 ence of taste in former ages and in our own; and in 
 fact, a modern tragedy similar to Sophocles’ Ajax 
 would not escape criticism. With us the drama ends 
 with the death of the hero: the Greeks heard with 
 delight the four hundred verses (more than one-fourth 
 of the tragedy) which survived the true conclusion. 
 Ho doubt they were less moved than we by tjie in¬ 
 distinctness in the canvas of one of Demosthenes’ 
 works. What is, in detail, the plan of the oration On 
 the Crown , or more particularly the plan of the oration 
 On the Embassy f The critics contend over this ques¬ 
 tion: instead of examining the diverse opinions ex¬ 
 pressed in this debate, we will substitute a certain 
 number of incontestable observations, suggested by an 
 assiduous reading of the orator. 
 
 Would Demosthenes, an accomplished artist, have 
 cheerfully deprived his master-piece, worked with 
 jealous care, of one of the essential forms of literary 
 beauty,—that of order ? We cannot admit it, especially 
 when we see him so eager to give the merit of dis¬ 
 position to simple sentences. Each of the stones 
 whose combination will constitute the oratorical edi¬ 
 fice is hewed by Demosthenes with admirable art. 
 This same art presides over the formation of groups 
 which are born from their assemblage. In consequence 
 of this wise structure, the group, or partial develop¬ 
 ment, forms a little harangue which has its own com¬ 
 mencement, its middle and its end; it constitutes an 
 organized and complete body. Why is the organism 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 233 
 
 of the whole work less striking, and so incommo¬ 
 dious as to disjoint it ? It is because the ordinary 
 method yields to a superior art, which disregards 
 those rules of convenience in order to attain effects 
 which rules could never teach.* Modern critics ex¬ 
 pect to find in the Pro Corona a plan designed ac¬ 
 cording to the prescriptions of the rhetoricians, and 
 they do not find it there. Who is at fault ? Some¬ 
 times, by a wrong method they imagine they have dis¬ 
 covered between certain parts of the work mysteri¬ 
 ous lines which do not exist; is the orator responsi¬ 
 ble for their fancies ? He did not always disclose 
 his secrets to them; it was their duty to discover 
 them. Demosthenes has not always a regular plan; 
 he has a wise disposition, which is justified by a de¬ 
 termined and premediated design, not on the obser¬ 
 vation of common practices, but on the effect to be 
 produced. Thus the artists to whom we owe the 
 wonderful beauty of the Parthenon allowed the 
 columns to deviate from the perpendicular; they con¬ 
 tracted certain parts of the monument’s ornamenta¬ 
 tion; they diminished the intervals progressively, 
 altered the rectilinear surfaces, to attain certain de¬ 
 lusions of perspective; the right line is not always 
 the shortest line to lead to the accomplishment of 
 art. Demosthenes, like the Athenian architects, used 
 inclined planes and curves: he was justifiable. 
 
 The great compositions of the deliberative class are 
 not bound to the same exactitude as the works of the 
 bar. An Athenian lawyer’s speech had to present a sim- 
 
 * It is instructive to study, in this respect, one page of the Oration 
 on the Chersonesus. In noting the words: Ttpwrov * * * yvœvat, 
 * * * ôsùrepov eiôévou, then eiôâraç * * * t yvtoxéra? we can see 
 with what care he arranges his words. 
 
 10 * 
 
234 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 pie and clear order. On tliis condition alone the client 
 could trust it to his memory. On the other hand, a 
 little design, easy to be seen at a glance, must be elab¬ 
 orated more exactly in its lines than a large picture rich 
 with episodes, and whose learned complexity is destined 
 to produce a powerful effect of harmony. These large 
 canvases object to a close examination; smaller draw¬ 
 ings ought to be able to endure the indiscreet curiosity 
 of the glass. The political oration is better adapted to 
 be heard than to be read; The reader, master of his 
 own time and of himself, wishes to taste all at his lei¬ 
 sure, and to take everything into consideration. While 
 reading he analyzes his impressions and the different 
 qualities of the work; he sometimes even rests to pene 
 trate it more thoroughly. The hearer, less exacting, only 
 asks to be convinced and entertained; he especially 
 desires emotion, action, sensible and repeated state¬ 
 ments. Now, these redoubled expressions will be 
 given him by the rich succession of arguments and 
 passions, of which the, mass (o/A«ç) of the political ora¬ 
 tion is composed. If the orator succeeds in proving 
 and affecting, without following a plan of irreproacha¬ 
 ble regularity, his success acquits the w T riter. A baker 
 asked whether he should make the nie hard or soft. 
 
 i 
 
 “ Can you not make it good ?” * “ Demosthenes, says 
 
 Ulpian, does not follow method, but he is guided by 
 what is advantageous.” If without method he wins 
 our suffrages, what more can we ask ? All’s well that 
 ends well. - . 
 
 According to their own criticisms, Æschines and 
 Demosthenes delivered “confused and embroiled ora¬ 
 tions.” The two orators gave this criticism precisely 
 to the passages of their harangues in which they were 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric , iii, 1G. (Cf. Horace, Ad Pisones.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES — THE ORATOR. 
 
 235 
 
 the clearest,—too clear, in fact, to suit the adversary’s 
 will. These are tactics addressed to the judges. They 
 wish to persuade the judges that they have not clearly 
 heard the orator, when they have comprehended him 
 perfectly. 
 
 Let us not, therefore, believe their criticism. Æscbi- 
 nes (and on this point he does himself justice) contrasts 
 the order and clearness of his oration with Demosthe¬ 
 nes'' premeditated and artificial confusion. He an¬ 
 nounces a luminous (vfKpltnspuv} exposition of his ene¬ 
 my’s iniquities; he intends that there should be “no 
 difficulty in following him.” In fact, the plan of the 
 oration Against Ctesijphon is neatly traced and faith¬ 
 fully followed.* That of the speech Against Aristoc¬ 
 rates, one of Demosthenes’ most remarkable speeches, 
 is equally irreproachable in this respect. Usually, 
 however, his manner is less methodic than that of Æs- 
 chines, Hyperides, or Isocrates. He indicates an idea 
 and sets it aside; later he returns and develops it; he 
 
 *Æschines pretends to have formed tlic plan of the third part of 
 his oration on that which he knew ought to be adopted by Demosthe¬ 
 nes. Demosthenes will divide his administration into four periods. 
 Æschines then examines these four periods successively. The truth 
 is that there is no relation between the speeches of the two adversa¬ 
 ries, either in the disposition of the whole, or in the development of 
 parts. In his oration Æschines has followed an order which differs 
 from that of the act of accusation ; now, it is to the order of the act of 
 accusation that Demosthenes devotes himself in his defense. The 
 portion of Demosthenes’ oration which is devoted to the apology of 
 his ministry offers no trace of the four epochs mentioned by his 
 accuser. Why, then, has Æschines attributed to him a plan which 
 exists only in his own imagination ? Is the object of this disguise to 
 show that he docs not fear to follow him over the ground of his own 
 choice? Elsewhere he attributes in advance to Demosthenes pathetic 
 apostrophes which Demosthenes did not use. This gratuitous fic¬ 
 tion gives him an opportunity for sharp replies. This is the whole 
 secret of his artifice. 
 
236 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 announces a proof, and lie delays to give it; lie com¬ 
 mences a contrast, and lie stops in the midst of it. He 
 marks out the plan which he says he intends to follow, 
 and he does not follow it (. Against Timocrates , second 
 part). Demosthenes draws strong general lines which 
 divide the subject into its essential parts, but that which 
 fills up the intervals is disposed of without rigorous 
 order. Occasionally he recapitulates forementioned 
 grievances and demonstrated facts. These landmarks, 
 these beacons indicating the route already passed and 
 that which remains to be traveled, are not superfluous. 
 The orator frequently leaves his road to toil on the 
 right and left in foot-paths where he neither loses his 
 time nor his pains, for they forward him to the desired 
 end; but instead of a straight line, they are windings 
 and turns to and fro, like those of a free improvisation. 
 u But let us speak of the decree of invitation (to the 
 feast of the Prytaneum); I had almost forgotten this 
 point, one of the most important of my cause.* 
 
 If it is sometimes difficult to follow Demosthenes in 
 the windings of his plan, it is always easy to compre¬ 
 hend the ruling idea of his orations. Every one of 
 them is inspired by a dominant thought—the soul of 
 the entire composition. Thus the oration On the Crown 
 is summed up in the lines which form the epigraph to 
 the work. This unity of principal thought and com¬ 
 municated expression makes the true unity of the ora¬ 
 tion. Demosthenes, an obstinate and tenacious orator, 
 
 * These artifices of the orator are frequent. “ Clerk, take again the 
 decree in favor of Chabrias; look it up, search for it; it ought to be 
 here somewhere” [Against Leptines ), and especially Against Aris¬ 
 tocrates. Cicero imitates the Greeks even in these little tricks. “ These 
 two statues are called Canephores. “ But the artist * * * who is he,— 
 who, pray? * * * You are right; it is Polycletus.” (Verrines, De 
 Sigriis, iv, 3.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 237 
 
 does not wish to appear such. He insists on determin¬ 
 ing proofs, but not at once ; he leaves them and returns 
 to them again. When the hearer has once been drawn 
 over to that point which pleases him, he knows how to 
 hold him there without fatiguing him with monotonous 
 repetitions. On the contrary, he studies to dissimulate 
 the persistence of his means under a variety of forms 
 and skillful weaving. His plans do not form a chain, 
 but a net which Yulcan would not have disowned. 
 
 Demosthenes’ composition resembles the open order 
 of military tactics. It is not the regular disposition of 
 a regiment in files, marching with uniformity and sym¬ 
 metry, with all its detachments in their regulated posi¬ 
 tions. His exordiums, we have seen, never have those 
 showy plumes with which studied orations are wont to 
 be adorned. Narration, confirmation and refutation 
 take part in the conflict like irregular troops, without 
 any precise method ; the peroration is everywhere at 
 the same time, like a good general animating all with 
 his presence. The entire harangue is a legion dispersed 
 into sharp-shooters, advancing, retreating, obliquing to 
 the right and left, according to the accidents of the 
 ground and the necessities of the contest. All argu¬ 
 ments, like scattered soldiers, concur in the same action; 
 strike the same enemy, obey the same directing thought; 
 but how far is it from the order of parade! The scru¬ 
 pulous observation of the rules of art is here subordi¬ 
 nated to the requirements of the action. The art, the 
 only necessary art, is the art to conquer. 
 
 The liberty of Demosthenes’ plans belongs to a per¬ 
 sonal cause, the orator’s genius; and to general causes, 
 the traditional customs of Attic eloquence. Diversions 
 were familiar to them (in spite of the law which forbade 
 
238 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 them to wander from tlieir subject), but especially an¬ 
 ticipated refutations, written after the charge. 
 
 The composition of Æschines’ oration Against Ctesi- 
 jphon seems to us irreproachable, save some long tirades 
 in the second part, due to this process of prolepsis. In 
 general, the harangues exchanged between Æschines 
 and Demosthenes, are, as a whole, attacks and replies ; 
 or replies and rejoinders at the same time. They fin¬ 
 ished them after the debate, according to the means 
 employed by the adversary. These additions, after 
 important inlaid work, are as so many incumbering 
 overcharges ; they destroy the economy of the primi¬ 
 tive oration, and are prejudicial to the simplicity and 
 purity of the composition. Two works kneaded together 
 cannot have the harmonious homogeneity of one work 
 moulded by a single cast. 
 
 Demosthenes was asked, What is the first quality 
 of the orator? — action. And the second? — action. 
 And the third? — still, action. This remark clearly 
 proves that Demosthenes had suffered from the imper¬ 
 fections of his own action. Action, u the eloquence of 
 the bodv”* had for a long time been somewhat de- 
 fective in Demosthenes. Whence the obstacles that 
 at first discouraged him: u Of all orators, I take the 
 most pains; I have almost exhausted my powers in 
 training myself for eloquence, and with all that, I 
 cannot make myself agreeable to the people. Igno¬ 
 rant sailors and drunkards occupy the rostrum, and 
 they are heard while I am disdained.” The comedian 
 Satyrus knew the cause of the evil, and prescribed a 
 remedy for him. lie made Demosthenes recite, then 
 recited himself, some verses from Euripides. Demos¬ 
 thenes was struck with the different effects which they 
 
 * “ Quasi sermo corporis.” [De Oratore , iii, 59.) 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 239 
 
 TIIE ORATOR. 
 
 produced when spoken by himself and by his friend. 
 He saw the power of the art of declamation, and, 
 at the cost of an obstinate struggle, he succeeded in 
 acquiring it; without, however, correcting his action 
 in a certain impetuosity, the object of Æschines’ crit¬ 
 icism. 
 
 At Rome, an orator might make use of the most 
 vehement gestures; he could touch the earth* with¬ 
 out wounding the taste of connoisseurs. Attic Æs¬ 
 chines, a constant attendant at the palæstra, reproaches 
 his rival for not frequenting it. Demosthenes might 
 there have acquired a measured suppleness, a har¬ 
 monious proportion of movements,— that grace and 
 dignity of attitude so admired by the Greeks. In¬ 
 stead of that he preserved the habit of sharp and 
 violent movements. He does not mount the rostrum, 
 he jumps ((bs-rjdyffsv) on it; he does not present him¬ 
 self to the ecclesia , he rushes on it. Do not expect 
 that he, like Pericles, will hold his hand under his 
 cloak; calm on the rostrum, and as erect as the statue 
 of Apollo. He leaves this bearing to Solon, the 
 personified moderation of ancient orators; he prefers 
 gestures as irregular as his conduct. On the rostrum 
 he throws himself to the right and then to the left 
 (xu/j.oj Treptôtvûv (7tauzox)\ lie becomes as enraged as a 
 wild beast ( OrjpU »). 
 
 In his Discours de Deception to the French Academy, 
 Buffon has painted in lively colors the eloquence of 
 action that “ speaks to the body,” and that which, 
 born of the soul and thought, speaks to the soul 
 and mind. Demosthenes, master of these two elo¬ 
 quences, united the charm of action with that of con¬ 
 viction and passion. Imagine him standing on the 
 
 * Vidi Antonium terrain tangere. (Cicero.) 
 
240 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 rostrum, animated with indignation against a miser¬ 
 able accuser, full of noble thoughts and generous 
 sentiments due to the memory of his ancestors, hav¬ 
 ing completely in his power the double pathos of 
 gestures and speech, and we can then have some idea 
 of the transports which such words as the following 
 produced on a sensitive people : 
 
 “ Such was the commencement and first step in the re¬ 
 conciliation of Athens and Thebes. Before then the countries 
 had been led by these men into discord, hatred and jeal¬ 
 ousy. * * * As to me, I have confidence enough to say, If 
 anyone now can point out a better course, or, indeed, if any 
 other was practicable but the one which I adopted, I con¬ 
 fess that I was wrong. For if there be any measure now 
 discovered which (executed then) would have been to our 
 advantage, I say it ought not to have escaped me. But if 
 there is none, if there was none, if none can be suggested 
 even at this day, what was a statesman to do? Was he not 
 to choose the best measures within his reach and view? 
 That did I, Æschines, when the crier asked: ‘Who wishes to 
 speak?' not ‘ Who ivishes to complain of the past or to 
 guarantee the future?' While you, on those occasions sat 
 mute in the assembly, I came forward and spoke. How¬ 
 ever, as you omitted then, tell us now: say what scheme I 
 ought to have devised; what favorable opportunity was lost 
 to the state by my neglect? what alliance was there, what 
 better plan, to which I should have directed the people? 
 
 “ But no. The past is with all the world given up. No 
 one even proposes to deliberate about it. The future it is, or 
 the present, that demands the action of a counsellor. At the 
 time, as it appears, there were dangers impending, and dan¬ 
 gers at hand. Mark the line of my policy at that crisis. 
 Don’t rail at the event. The end of all things is what the 
 Deity pleases. His line of policy it is that shows the judg¬ 
 ment of the statesman. Do not then impute it as a crime to 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE OEATOE. 241 
 
 me that Philip chanced to conquer in battle. That issue 
 depended not on me, but on the Gods. Prove that I adopted 
 not all measures that according to human calculation were 
 possible; that I did not honestly and diligently, and with 
 exertions beyond my strength, carry them out; or that my 
 enterprises were not honorable and worthy of the state, and 
 necessary. Show me this, and accuse me as soon as } 7 ou like. 
 But if the hurricane that visited us hath been too powerful, 
 not for us only, but for all Greeks besides, what is the fair 
 course? As if a merchant, after taking every precaution, 
 and furnishing his vessel with everything that he thought 
 would insure her safety, because afterward he met with a 
 storm, and his tackle was strained or broken to pieces, should 
 be charged with the shipwreck! ‘Well, but I was not the 
 pilot,’ he might say; just as I was not the general. Fortune 
 was not at my control; all was under hers.’ 
 
 “ Consider and reflect upon this. If, with the Thebans on 
 our side, we were destined to fail in the contest, what was to 
 be expected if we had never had them for allies, but they had 
 joined Philip, as he used every effort of persuasion to make 
 them do? And if, when the battle was fought three days’ 
 march from Attica, such peril and alarm surrounded the city, 
 what must we have expected if the same disaster had happened 
 in some part of our territory? As it was (do you see?), we 
 could stand, — meet breath. Mightily did one, two, three 
 da} r s help to our preservation. In the other case, — but it is 
 wrong to mention things of which we have been spared the 
 trial by the favor of some deity, and by our protecting our¬ 
 selves with the very alliance which you assail. 
 
 “ All this, at such length, have I addressed to you, men of 
 the jury, and to the outer circle of hearers; for, as to this 
 contemptible fellow, a short and plain argument would suffice. 
 If the future was revealed to you, Æschines, alone, when the 
 state was deliberating on these proceedings, you ought to 
 have forewarned us at the time. If you did not foresee it 
 11 
 
242 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 you are responsible for the same ignorance as the rest. Why 
 do you accuse me in this behalf, rather than I you? A better 
 citizen have I been than you in respect of the matters of 
 which I am speaking (others I discuss not at present), inas¬ 
 much as 1 gave myself up to what seemed for the general 
 good, not shrinking from any personal danger, nor taking 
 thought of any; while you neither suggested better measures 
 (or mine would not have been adopted) nor lent any aid in 
 the prosecuting of mine. Exactly what the basest person and 
 worst enemy of the state would do, are you found to have 
 done, after the event; and at the same time Aristratus in 
 Naxos, and Aristolaus in Thasos, the deadly foes of our state, 
 are bringing to trial the friends of Athens, and Æschines, at 
 Athens, is accusing Demosthenes. Surely the man who 
 waited to found his reputation upon the misfortunes of the 
 Greeks deserves rather to perish than to accuse another; nor 
 is it possible that one who has profited by the same conjunc¬ 
 tures as the enemies of the commonwealth can be a well- 
 wisher of his country. You show yourself by your life and 
 conduct, by your political action, and even your political 
 inaction. Is anything going on that appears good for the 
 people? Æschines is mute. Has, anything untoward hap¬ 
 pened or amiss? Forth comes Æschines, just as fractures 
 and sprains are put in motion when the body is attacked 
 with disease. 
 
 “ But since he insists so strongly on the event, I will even 
 assert something of a paradox, and I beg and pray of you not 
 to marvel at its boldness, but kindly to consider what I say. 
 If, then, the results had been foreknown to all,— if all had 
 foreseen them, and you, Æschines, had foretold them and 
 protested with clamor and outer}',— you that never opened 
 your mouth,— not even then should the commonwealth have 
 abandoned her design, if she had any regard for glory or 
 ancestry or futurity. As it is, she appears to have failed in 
 her enterprise,— a thing to which all mankind are liable if the 
 Deity so wills it; but then, claiming precedence over others, 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 243 
 
 and afterward abandoning her pretensions, she would liavc 
 incurred the charge of betraying all to Philip. Why? Had 
 we resigned without a struggle that which our ancestors en- 
 countered every danger to win, who would not have spit 
 upon } r ou? Let me not say the commonwealth or myself. 
 With what eyes, I pray, could we have beheld strangers 
 visiting the city, if the result had been what it is and Philip 
 had been chosen leader and lord of all? But other people 
 without us had made the struggle to prevent it, especially 
 when in former times our country had never preferred an 
 ignominious security to the battle for honor. For what 
 Grecian or what barbarian is ignorant that by the Thebans, 
 or by the Lacedaemonians, who were in might before them, 
 or by the Persian Icing, permission would thankfully and 
 gladly have been given to our commonwealth to take what 
 she pleased and hold her own, provided she would accept 
 foreign law and let another power command in Greece ? 
 But, as it seems, to the Athenians of that day such conduct 
 would not have been national or natural or endurable. 
 None could at airy period of time persuade the common¬ 
 wealth to attach herself in secure subjection to the powerful 
 and unjust. Through every age has she persevered in a 
 perilous struggle for precedence and honor and glory, and 
 this }'ou esteem so noble and congenial to your principles 
 that among vour ancestors vou honor most those who acted 
 in such a spirit, and with reason; for who would not ad¬ 
 mire the virtue of those men who resolutely embarked in 
 their galleys and quitted country and home rather than 
 receive foreign law, choosing Themistocles, who gave such 
 counsel, for their general, and stoning Cyrsilus to death, 
 who advised submission to the terms imposed; not him only, 
 but your wives also stoning his wife? Yes, the Athenians 
 of that day looked not for an orator or a general who might 
 help them to a pleasant servitude. They scorned to live if 
 it could not be with freedom; for each of them considered 
 that he was not born to his father or mother only, but also 
 
244 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 to bis country. What is the difference? He that thinks 
 himself born for his parents only waits for his appointed or 
 natural end. He that thinks himself born for his country 
 also, will sooner perish than behold her in slavery, and will 
 regard the insults and indignities, which must be borne in a 
 commonwealth enslaved, as more terrible than death. 
 
 “ Had I attempted to say that I instructed you in senti¬ 
 ments worthy of your ancestors, there is not a man who 
 would not justly rebuke me. What I declare is, that such 
 principles are your own. I show that before my time such 
 was the spirit of the commonwealth, though certainly in the 
 execution of the particular measures I claim a share also for 
 myself. The prosecutor, arraigning the whole proceedings 
 and imbittering you against me as the cause of our alarms 
 and dangers, in his eagerness to deprive me of honor for the 
 moment, robs you of the eulogies that should endure forever. 
 For should you, under a disbelief in the wisdom of my policy, 
 convict the defendant, you will appear to have done wrong 
 not to have suffered what befell you by the cruelty of fortune. 
 But never, never can you have done wrong, 0 Athenians, in 
 undertaking the battle for freedom and safety of all! I 
 swear it by your forefathers, those that met the perot at 
 Marathon, those that took the field at Platæa, those in the 
 sea-fight at Salamis, and those at Artemisium, and many 
 other brave men who repose in the public monuments, all 
 of whom alike, as being worthy of the same honor, the coun¬ 
 try buried, Æschines, — not only the successful or victorious! 
 Justly. For the duty of brave men has been done by all; 
 their fortune has been such as the Deity assigned to each. 
 
 “Accursed scribbler! You, to deprive me of the approba¬ 
 tion and affection of my countrymen, speak of trophies and 
 battles and ancient deeds, with none of which had this present 
 trial the least concern; but I,— 0 you third-rate actor!—I, 
 that rose to counsel the state how to maintain her preemi¬ 
 nence, in what spirit was I to mount the hustings? In the 
 spirit of one having unworthy counsel to offer? I should 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 245 
 
 have deserved to perish! You yourselves, men of Athens, 
 may not try private and public causes on the s’allie princi¬ 
 ples. The compacts of every-day life you are to judge of 
 by particular laws and circumstances; the measures of states¬ 
 men by reference to the dignity of your ancestors; and if 
 you think it your duty to act worthily of them, you should 
 every one of }’ou consider, when you come into court to 
 decide public questions, that, together with your staff and 
 ticket, the spirit of the commonwealth is delivered to you. 
 But in touching upon the deeds of your ancestors there were 
 some decrees and transactions which I omitted. I will re¬ 
 turn from my digression. 1 ’* 
 
 Such is the development which Demosthenes calls the 
 'paradox of his oration. Two reasons have persuaded 
 us not to detach it from the frame which the author 
 has given it. This immortal oath, more honorable to 
 Demosthenes, according to Cardinal Duperron, than if 
 the orator had raised from the dead the warriors whose 
 memory he evokes, is not an eloquent climax placed at 
 the close of the oration, like Æschines’ prosopopoeia. 
 It is a digression, a kind of unpremeditated parenthe¬ 
 sis, spontaneously bursting from the orator’s soul. 
 Cicero or Mirabeau would undoubtedly have reserved 
 it for the peroration; Demosthenes, the accomplished 
 artist, did not. This trait gives an idea of the wise 
 economy of his great orations. Furthermore, to isolate 
 his apostrophe to the heroes of Marathon, is to weaken it. 
 It must be produced as the orator himself produced it; 
 we must mark the progression of the sublime crescendo 
 whose thunder (Où /m r<>b<; èv MapaOàivt) is the culmi¬ 
 nating point. After this peal of thunder the orator 
 gradually becomes calm. Demosthenes seems to obey 
 the inspiration that governs him, as the waves of the 
 
 * Pro Corona , § 154 et seq. 
 
246 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ocean obey the force which raises and calms them. In 
 reality he remains in full possession of his genius; 
 while appearing to follow the emotions of his soul with 
 docility, he directs them. Jupiter illuminates the heav¬ 
 ens and thunders at his will. Demosthenes acts in like 
 manner, but not in the manner of Pericles; for in him 
 a vehemence of passions bursts forth,— a vehemence of 
 actions and words of which Pericles was ignorant. He 
 has the sudden spring of a lion that leaps upon the 
 weapon which has pierced him; he invokes all the 
 gods and goddesses of Attica, and Pythian Apollo 
 against the impure bigot who dares to treat him as 
 sacrilegious. lie interrupts a citation in order to 
 launch against him an imprecation; he crushes him 
 with scorn: “May the gods, may the Athenians wdio 
 are here present, destroy you, wretch, depraved citizen, 
 vicious actor ! ” 
 
 When Dionysius of Halicarnassus was reading a 
 page of Isocrates, he felt an impression like that of 
 limpid oil agreeably flowing into his ears. He thought 
 he heard the calm harmony of a spondaic song in Dorian 
 style. When he took up an oration of Demosthenes, 
 enthusiasm seized him. He was agitated in every 
 sense by the different passions governing the human 
 heart; he experienced the transports of the priests of 
 Cybele. In Plutarch’s time there w T as to be seen at the 
 Prytaneum, “on the right, on entering,” a portrait of 
 Demosthenes with a sword at bis side. This sword 
 w r as glittering in the hands of Demosthenes on the 
 rostrum; it was the attribute of the king of eloquence, 
 as in the first circle of Dante’s Inferno , it consecrates 
 the command of Homer, “the sovereign poet.” 
 
 V. Demosthenes marked at different times the effi¬ 
 cacy of oratorical precaution and manners: “ Eloquence 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 247 
 
 falls powerless on ill-disposed hearers,” and so he 
 always studied his hearers carefully. The interest of 
 Athens imposed a duty on him of not saying truths 
 too readily, nor striking too blindly. He attacks the 
 theoricon , but Qot openly. He would destroy this 
 abuse without inconsiderately falling upon the sword 
 of the law which protects it. Courage among the 
 Greeks never excluded prudence. Like the preachers 
 of Louis XIV, he sometimes congratulates the Athe¬ 
 nians on qualities of which they are totally destitute. 
 Athens was the fatherland of jealousy, ingratitude and 
 ostracism. Demosthenes pretends to forget it, and 
 makes his counsels agreeable by eulogies which he is 
 desirous to see merited. 
 
 “ If you confirm the law of Leptines, the suppression of 
 immunities will be attributed to envy. Now, of all dishon¬ 
 orable vices, it is most essential that you should shun this, 
 Athenians. Why? because envy is an unmistakable mark of 
 a bad nature, and the envious can allege no excuse to obtain 
 pardon. Besides, there is no disgrace from which our state 
 should be freer than from envy, — our state to which all kinds 
 of baseness are repugnant. How many proofs bear witness to 
 it! See, you alone, among all nations, honor the brave with 
 public 'funerals and funeral eulogies, in which you celebrate 
 their exploits. This custom characterizes a nation passion¬ 
 ately devoted to virtue, and incapable of envy toward those 
 who owe to it their reward. You accord, also, at all times, 
 the highest honors to the victors in the gymnastic contests at 
 which crowns are awarded. These honors cannot be extended 
 beyond a small number of fortunate ones; and yet you are 
 not jealous of them; you hold nothing from them. Let us 
 add that Athens never seems outdone in generosity, so far 
 does the grandeur of her gifts excel the services received. 
 All these traits, Athenians, are proofs of justice, virtue and 
 magnanimity. Do not, then, to-day, take away from our 
 
248 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 country what was her glory in all ages; and, for the sake of 
 aiding Leptines, to personally outrage some citizens who dis¬ 
 please him, do not deprive the city and yourselves of the good 
 reputation which has always followed you. In this judicial 
 combat, the only question at issue is to know whether the 
 national dignity is to be preserved pure, and worthy of its 
 past, or shall it be degraded and annihilated.” 
 
 Demosthenes praises Athens for her aversion to 
 envy. In the meantime, the irritation of this passion 
 was one of the greatest means employed by her ora¬ 
 tors. It inspired them with invective and calumny 
 against the adversary, and imposed on them strict 
 obligation and modesty. 
 
 Modesty is a decency which the ancients, in general, 
 little knew. U I am pious Æneas, whose renown and 
 glory is known beyond the stars.” To whosoever 
 asks his name and race, the son of Tenus, unknown in 
 Libya, is obliged to repeat the echoes of this fame 
 beyond the stars. By his ingenious vanity, Cicero 
 was worthy of living in the heroic age. Justly proud 
 of a consulship from which his poetic enthusiasm even 
 dated the birth of Borne, the vanquisher of Catiline 
 would, according to his own assertion, sing his praises 
 in prose and verse. (Ad Atticum, i, 19.) Isocrates, 
 a timid rhetorician, praised himself with an intrepid 
 assurance. In his Panegyric he boasted of having 
 eclipsed his predecessors, vanquished and discouraged 
 all future rivals. The author of the Antidosis could, 
 with impunity, confide to the readers all his pride. 
 Willing or unwilling, on the rostrum he ought to have 
 imitated Demosthenes’ discretion. 
 
 The oration On the Crown is an apology; the orator 
 felt its dangers: “I will often be obliged to speak of 
 myself; I will endeavor, then, to do so with all becom- 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 249 
 
 ing modesty. Wliat I am driven to by the necessity 
 of the case will be fairly chargeable to my opponent 
 who has instituted such a prosecution.” In the ex¬ 
 amination of his government, so honorable to him, 
 he conceals himself as much as possible. “After¬ 
 ward I dispatched all the armaments by which Cher- 
 sonesus was preserved, and Byzantium, and all our 
 allies; whence to you there accrued the noblest re¬ 
 sults,— praises, eulogies, honors, crowns, thanks from 
 those you succored.” Demosthenes desired to be 
 crowned at the theater in the interests of Athens: “ Is 
 not the proclamation at the theater made for the 
 benefit of those who confer the crown ? For the 
 hearers are all encouraged to render service to the 
 state, and praise the parties who show their gratitude 
 more than the party crowned.” In proportion as the 
 orator advances in the justification of his ministry, 
 and wins the sympathy of his audience, he dares to 
 become less reserved; but still what circumspection? 
 “What then! will they say, have you such a superi¬ 
 ority of force and courage that you alone suffice to 
 do all? I do not say this; but, in my eyes, so great 
 was the danger of the republic, that it seemed to be 
 my duty to disregard all consideration of personal 
 safety, and, as a citizen, to provide for all without 
 neglecting any. * * * Therefore I placed myself at 
 every post.” At the moment when the judges are 
 about to pronounce sentence, the orator wishes them 
 to forget the emotions of his fierceness, legitimate, if 
 you please, but which perhaps had escaped him, and 
 he only desires to profit by his reputation of a “good 
 citizen.” 
 
 Harrow minds incline to envy: all things appear 
 great to them. The Athenians were high-minded: 
 
250 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 jealousy had no access to them through this channel; 
 it was born among them from a lively feeling of 
 equality. Allied to emulation, envy could be easily 
 produced in a city in which all had the same rights, 
 'the same ambitions, and where no one was so high 
 or so low as not to he susceptible of awakening jealous 
 sentiments. The citizen accused of envy by the 
 splendor of a singular glory had but one means to 
 obtain pardon from his compatriots: this was to as¬ 
 sociate with them. The orator of the oration On the 
 Crown used this artifice and was acquitted.* 
 
 The orator’s task at Athens was a difficult one: all 
 had their liberty of speech except the sincere coun¬ 
 sellor. “ Franchise is a common right in our city, 
 to that degree that you extend it to foreigners and 
 slaves. We see that the slave here has more liberty 
 of speech than the citizen in some other common¬ 
 wealths; but you have completely banished this liberty 
 from the tribune.” Eupliræus revealed the Mace¬ 
 donian’s manœuvers to the Oritians. Philip’s hire¬ 
 lings threw Eupliræus into prison, as a disturber of 
 the public peace. The people, instead of whipping 
 them to death ( â-oTufj.-œA<rai ), insulted their victim and 
 “dragged him in the dust.” The year had scarcely 
 passed when Philip appeared at the foot of their 
 ramparts, and proscription and murder decimated the 
 enslaved city. Eupliræus’ predictions were justified. 
 The fate of Eupliræus did not discourage Demos- 
 
 * Certain orators accused Pericles of ruining tlic commonwealth 
 with his monuments. “ Do you find,” said he to the assembled 
 people, “that I have spent too much?—Yes, and much too much. 
 Very well; these expenses shall he charged to me; hut, in return, 
 my name alone shall figure in the inscriptions of the edifices.” 
 At these words all the people cried out that he could take from the 
 treasure enough to cover the expenses without sparing anything. 
 
DE3I0STIIENES— THE ORATOR. 
 
 251 
 
 tlienes; lie left to others those harangues which en¬ 
 rich their authors and destroy the state. Demagogues 
 humble themselves before the people, the dispensa- 
 tors of favors, in order to master and delight them. 
 “What do you desire? what decree shall we pro¬ 
 pose ? what can we do to please you ? ” * Demos¬ 
 thenes, like a true friend, reprimands instead of 
 flattering them. The people of Athens, “formerly 
 the guardian of our common liberty,” have fallen 
 very low. At the mercy of their own weakness, they 
 judge of their power by their corpulence, of the 
 strength of the state by the abundance of its mar¬ 
 kets. These places abound in provisions of all kinds; 
 everything that flatters the senses has here a rendez¬ 
 vous from all points of Greece; but for essential pro¬ 
 visions, the finances of the state, devotion of the 
 allies, disinterestedness in public burdens, courage in 
 war; of all these “there is a want worthy of laughter.” 
 
 “Well, sir, this looks bad, but tilings at home are better. 
 What proof can be adduced? — the parapets that are white¬ 
 washed?— the roads that are repaired? — fountains and fool¬ 
 eries? Look at the men of whose statesmanship these are 
 the fruits. They have risen from beggary to opulence, or 
 from obscurity to honor. Some have made their private 
 houses more splendid than the public buildings, and in pro¬ 
 portion as the state has declined their fortunes have been 
 exalted. What has produced these results? How is it that 
 all went prosperously then, and now goes wrong? Because 
 anciently the people, having the courage to be soldiers, con¬ 
 trolled the statesmen and disposed of all emoluments. Any 
 of the rest was happy to receive from the people his share of 
 honor, office or advantage. Now, on the contrary, the states¬ 
 men dispose of emoluments. Through them everything is 
 
 * Cf. Aristotle, Politics , vi, 5; viii, 9. 
 
252 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 done. You, the people, enervated, stripped of treasure and 
 allies, are become as underlings * and hangers-on, happy if 
 these persons dole you out show-money or send you paltry 
 beeves; and, the unmanliest part of all, you are grateful for 
 receiving your own. They, cooping you in the city, lead you 
 to your pleasures and make you tame and submissive to their 
 hands. It is impossible, I say, to have a high and noble 
 spirit while you are engaged in petty and mean employments. 
 Whatever be the pursuits of men, their characters must be 
 similar.” 
 
 The same thoughts were already expressed by the 
 poet of the Knights with a still bolder figure. Com¬ 
 edy always enjoyed the privilege of whipping while 
 laughing. The general Demosthenes announces to the 
 pudding merchant Agoracritus the oracle which calls 
 him to supplant Cleon in the favor of the people. 
 
 “ Demosthenes: To-day you have nothing, to-morrow you 
 will have all, chief of happy Athens,— felicity, wealth and 
 power. Agoracritus : Why don't you let me wash my tripe 
 and sell my pudding, instead of making a fool of me? Bern.: 
 What a moon-calf ! Your tripe! Don’t you see these benches 
 loaded with people? Ag.: Yes. Bern.: You will become their 
 master,— master of them all, master of the market, of the 
 harbors, of the Pnyx. You will be able to trample on the 
 senate, to dismiss the generals, to load them with chains, to 
 put them in prison, to have a jollification in the Prytaneum. 
 Ag.: I? Bern.: You. But you don’t see all yet. Mount 
 your basket and look at all the islands that surround Athens. 
 Ag.: I see them. Well? Bern.: These warehouses, these 
 merchantmen? Ag.: Yes, no doubt. Bern.: Is any mortal 
 happier than } r ou? Turn your right eye to Caria, and your 
 left toward Chalcedonia. Ag.: Is it considered fortunate to 
 
 * This is the passage, no doubt, but corrected, in which Æscliines 
 mentions the intolerable “ monsters ” of expression. 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 253 
 
 squint? Bern.: No: but you will become a dealer in all 
 that.” 
 
 Aristophanes returns to the charge in the Wasps 
 against the spongers of the good people who become 
 their victims. 
 
 “ These fellows extort from the allies hundreds of talents 
 by menace and intimidation; and you,— you are contented 
 if you receive a trifle of your own power. * * * In return 
 for so many toils on land and sea, you are not even given as 
 much as a clove of garlic to eat with your small fish, and yet 
 you are their master.” 
 
 The comparison of Demosthenes and Aristophanes 
 is commendable to the orator. Demosthenes opens 
 the people’s eyes upon the fraudulent administration 
 and corrupt proceedings of their rulers. His aim is 
 to bereave them of all credit, to reestablish order in 
 the administration, and civic virtues in their hearts. 
 Aristophanes arouses the mob against the usurpers 
 of their power, without suggesting any improvement. 
 He wishes to disgorge the peculators and intriguers 
 who feed upon the interests and finances of the state, 
 and for the sole purpose of gorging the people in their 
 turn. Did he ask to see the public wealth employed 
 for the prosperity of Athens? Ho, but for universal 
 enjoyment. 
 
 “ If they wished to assure the well-being of the people, 
 nothing would be easier for them. We have now a thou¬ 
 sand tributary cities. Let them order each one of these to 
 support twenty Athenians, and our twenty thousand citizens 
 will eat nothing but hares, will drink nothing but pure milk, 
 and always crowned with garlands, in the midst of perfumes 
 as sweet as the exemption from military service. They will 
 enjoy the delights to which the great name of their country 
 and the trophies of Marathon entitle them.” (Wasps.) 
 
254 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 But Demosthenes does not thus understand the pub¬ 
 lic censor’s rôle. Free from party passion, he does 
 not scourge any category of citizens for the benefit of 
 another. lie brings the whole city to trial. He does 
 not arouse ignoble lusts, but generous sentiments. 
 The audacities of Aristophanes were not dangerous, 
 lie pierced the demagogues with his arrows, shielding 
 
 himself behind the envious avidity of the multitude. 
 
 «/ 
 
 Later his language strengthened the credit of Philip’s 
 friends. Preserve peace at all hazards ! Demos¬ 
 thenes braved the resentment of the Athenians; he 
 exposed himself to their blows when he wounded them 
 in order to heal them. 
 
 The Athenian people were a good prince. We know 
 the cliivalric manner in which Cleon one day dis¬ 
 charged the people: “To-morrow our affairs, citizens; 
 a sacrifice awaits me at home; I have guests to enter¬ 
 tain.” Stratocles announces a victory and invites the 
 Athenians to celebrate it with a thanksgiving. After 
 the feast, the people learn that the victory has been a 
 defeat; they become angry: “Well, of what do you 
 complain ? Have I not given you enjoyment for three 
 days ?” The people are more patient than kings. This 
 democracy, ridiculed by Aristophanes, had, however, 
 something good: it suffered reprimands under the rudest 
 form. “ Strike, but hear,” said Themistocles to Eury- 
 biades; the Athenians hear without striking. A people 
 who are affable sovereigns do not invoke the principle 
 of authority with which kings crown themselves. They 
 allow the authority of courageous reason to prevail; 
 the severest counsels do not injure their majesty. La 
 Fontaine advises him who frequents the cœur du lion 
 to be 
 
 “ Ni fade adulateur ni parleur trop sincère," 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 255 
 
 and to answer sometimes equivocally. "With the popu¬ 
 lar lion Demosthenes, in an emergency, disdained shifts; 
 he had nothing of the courtier. We dare not speak 
 the truth to our kings,—sometimes they do not deserve 
 it. Good citizens speak it to their people, but do they 
 always profit by it ? 
 
 VI. Æschines exalted the ancestors, in order that he 
 
 might the better vilify Demosthenes. Demosthenes 
 
 extolled the Athens of Themistocles and Miltiades in 
 
 order to elevate the Athens of his own century to their 
 
 «/ 
 
 height. This parallel is, says he, full of instruction. 
 These great national remembrances, if they do not re¬ 
 main sterile, would suffice to awaken the fortune of the 
 city. Demosthenes always has them present in his 
 mind; for “every harangue addressed to an illustrious 
 commonwealth ought to appear higher than the orator, 
 and to be estimated, not according to the importance of 
 a single citizen, but according to the majesty of Ath¬ 
 ens.” Faithful to his maxim, Demosthenes always 
 supported the cause of his country’s honor. The ad¬ 
 versary of political “false coiners,” whose counsel 
 tended to alter the national character, he labored to 
 preserve its purity, from the oration Against Leptines 
 (355) even to the day of Cliæronea, when “the sun of 
 Greece was extinguished.” ITe did not speak to Scyth¬ 
 ians, to Siphnians, or to people of that kind, but to a 
 nation whose glory awakened them to high pretensions 
 and manly designs. What ! yield to Philip, when the 
 dignity of their ancestors rises before the eyes of the 
 Athenians, inciting them to rival their virtues! Rather 
 die than give such advice. 
 
 “ Prepare yourselves, and make every effort first, then sum¬ 
 mon, gather, instruct the rest of the Greeks. That is the 
 
256 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 duty of a state possessing a dignity such as yours. If you 
 imagine that Chalcidians or Me^arians will save Greece, while 
 you run away from the contest, you imagine wrong. Well 
 for any of those people if they are safe themselves. This 
 work belongs to you ; this privilege your ancestors bequeathed 
 to you, the prize of many perilous exertions.” * 
 
 The whole world, said Pericles* is the tomb of our 
 braves. Their memory, engraved on columns, is in¬ 
 trusted to a more durable monument,— the admiration 
 of future generations. u Be emulators of these heroes; 
 consider that happiness is in liberty, liberty in courage, 
 and do not recoil before the dangers of war.” f De¬ 
 mosthenes, the political heir of Pericles, used the same 
 language before the Athenians, but with greater au¬ 
 thority. It was no longer a question of dispute as to 
 who should have the hegemony in rival Greek cities, 
 but how to save the liberty of the Hellenes against a 
 foreigner. The high opinion which a people entertain 
 of themselves is one of the elements of their power. 
 Demosthenes inspired these proud sentiments in the 
 hearts of his contemporaries. He wished to maintain 
 them at their proper level by elevating them above 
 other men. Formerly they were worthy to command; 
 let them prove themselves to-day unworthy of being 
 enslaved. 
 
 The magnanimous man has a passion for honor; “ he 
 seeks what is beautiful and without fruit, rather than 
 what is useful and fruitful.” This grandeur of soul 
 was peculiar to Athens. W r itli all her orators, and some 
 of her poets, Demosthenes rendered conspicuous the 
 hereditary generosity which, since (Edipus and the 
 Heraclidæ, made the city of Minerva a refuge for the 
 oppressed, while Thebes voted for the destruction of 
 
 * Third Philippic , § 73. f Funeral Oration, Thucydides, ii, 43. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 257 
 
 Athens under the hands of Lysander. Lacedæmon 
 without pity destroyed the vanquished city (405), as 
 she had formerly sacked Platæa (427). Athens, after 
 Leuctra, prevented the Thebans from annihilating her 
 secular enemy Sparta. This magnanimous rôle, always 
 proudly sustained, made the Median wars the most 
 beautiful page of her golden book. In the midst of 
 almost universal egotism,* Athens remained faithful to 
 Hellenic interests. In this respect she had those who 
 envied her, but no rivals. A century and a half later 
 it was a 44 shameful and pitiful sight” f to see Greece 
 soliciting the bribes of a Macedonian prince whom she 
 could have made a client, and the cities jealously dis¬ 
 puting the favor of a monarch who oppressed them. It 
 was not in Demosthenes to save Greece from this shame, 
 but it was due to him that his city at least was saved 
 from it. Notwithstanding the decay of ancient virtues, 
 he knew how to make this city worthy of herself, and 
 he himself did not degenerate, nor was he inferior to 
 those ancestors whom he extolled. Plutarch attributes 
 this singular judgment to Theophrastus. 44 Demosthe¬ 
 nes is on a level with his city, Demades is above it.” 
 Demades, whom Antipater said was naught but tongue 
 and stomach,— a venal tongue, an insatiate stomach, 
 whose greediness the Macedonian complained he could 
 not satisfy. If Plutarch exactly reported Theophras¬ 
 tus’ words, such a judgment, even when restricted to 
 the eloquence of the two persons, justly surprises us 
 when coming from the lips of a philosopher who ought 
 to understand characters. 
 
 Athens counted more than one citizen who was 
 struck with the imperfections of her constitution, and 
 disposed to praise that of Sparta to the detriment of 
 
 * Plato, Laws , iii. f Justin, viii, 4. 
 
 11 * 
 
258 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Athens. A common prejudice : everyone is wounded 
 by the defects of his own government; everyone per¬ 
 ceives but the good qualities of his neighboring gov¬ 
 ernments. Leptines, hostile to immunities, alleged 
 that Lacedaemon gave no similar recompense. Here 
 Demosthenes had an opportunity for judicious reflec¬ 
 tions on the imitation of foreign customs. In fact, 
 each people have their genius, consequently their man¬ 
 ners and their laws. Each political system has its 
 advantages, providing that all regulations in it concur 
 and are inspired by the same spirit. A law which is 
 good in one country becomes bad in another, if, instead 
 of finding laws allied to and sympathetic with itself, it 
 finds that it is expatriated, as it were, among strangers. 
 At Sparta the recompense for merit was the participa¬ 
 tion in the power of the senate. At Athens it was a 
 crown, exemption from public duties, and the hospi¬ 
 tality of the Prytancum. “Things are well arranged 
 both here and there.” For, in an aristocratic state, 
 the distribution of authority is a pledge of harmony 
 among the nobles (up'.GTot) who are called to govern the 
 city. Where the people rule, the recompenses which 
 they decree ought to entertain the emulatioji of virtues, 
 without interfering with the principles of popular sov¬ 
 ereignty. 
 
 “ In general, it seems to me that before praising the laws 
 and customs of other cities, and censuring your own, you 
 ought to prove that they are better than yours. But since, 
 thanks to the Gods, public affairs, concord and everything is 
 better at home, why will you disdain your own usages and 
 run after those of others?” 
 
 Hot so much imitators of their neighbors as their 
 neighbors were of them, the Athenians were proud of 
 the originality of their constitution, which was like the 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 259 
 
 THE ORATOR. 
 
 originality of their genius. And they were wise in 
 maintaining between their genius and their laws a har¬ 
 mony which facilitated their execution and guaranteed 
 their duration. We do well and faithfully only what 
 we do in accordance with our natural character.* 
 
 Demosthenes did not close his eyes upon the defects 
 of the democratic constitution, but he did not wish that 
 abuse should be invoked in order to proscribe usage. 
 What human institution does not give access to abuse ? 
 It is easy to deceive the people (Against Leptines). 
 Is it right to declare them incapable? Let the geome¬ 
 ter choose the geometer, the pilot select the pilot. 
 Such was one of Plato’s favorite maxims, insinuating 
 that philosophers alone were fit to govern men. Aris¬ 
 totle did not approve this opinion. If individuals, 
 when isolated, are not equal to a learned specialist, 
 when united they will be better, or at least equal to him. 
 (Ho person ever had more esprit than Voltaire, if it 
 be not the whole world); and then, in many cases, the 
 artist is not the best appreciator of his work. The 
 architect will be content with the house which he has 
 built. The father of a family who dwells in it will 
 perhaps be less satisfied. u The best judge of a feast 
 is not the cook, but the guest. ”f Let us therefore 
 acknowledge the competence of majorities, u if they 
 are not composed of the degraded mob.” One of the 
 incontestable advantages of the power of the greatest 
 
 * Thucydides, ii, 34. 
 
 f Politics, ili, G. The multitude is, iu general, better than the indi¬ 
 viduals. “A feast of contribution (sjoavuç) is always more splendid 
 than one of which the expenses are defrayed by a single person. The 
 larger the body of water, the less corruptible.” In the Nicomachean 
 Ethics , x, 10, Aristotle declares the mass incapable of right and vir¬ 
 tue. He stamps them with forfeiture. The politician has invalidated 
 the unjust sentence of the moralist. 
 
260 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GBEECE. 
 
 number is that it will never act against its own inter¬ 
 ests. On the contrary, the interests of a monarch and 
 the interests of his subjects are different. (Second 
 Olynthiac.) 
 
 Æscliines encouraged Philip to enslave Athens by 
 showing him the weak points in that democracy; more¬ 
 over, the orator who delivered the keys of the place to 
 the invader was the same man who, in reference to the 
 unbridled desires of Timarchus, saw the height of crime 
 in an attempt upon the liberty of the cities. u Here 
 are passions which filled the haunts of brigands, made 
 the pirates mount their swift ships, attempted to slaugh¬ 
 ter citizens, to serve tyrants, and to destroy democ¬ 
 racy,” which, according to Herodotus, is “the most 
 iniquitous and criminal action that can be committed 
 among men.” In doing homage to liberty, the Greeks 
 paid it a debt of acknowledgment; for their greatness, 
 since the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ, was its work. 
 They were further indebted to it for having repulsed 
 the barbarians; they were proclaimed worthy, and born 
 to command u those slaves by nature.”* In the eyes 
 of the Hellenes, the empire was the legitimate lot of 
 the best, and Athens pretended to rule over the rest of 
 Greece, an ambition which other great cities by an 
 equal right shared, and which was a source of incurable 
 evils for the whole nation. 
 
 In this respect Demosthenes did not judge his fellow- 
 citizens with impartiality. 
 
 “ Your good nature hinders you from increasing your do¬ 
 minion and usurping power ; but you also prevent every other 
 state from seizing power. If any state surprises a garrison, 
 you take it back. In short, you are zealous to put obstacles 
 
 * Aristotle, Politics , i, 1 ; Herodotus, v, 78, 92. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 261 
 
 in the way of all who are ambitious for empire, and to arouse 
 all people to liberty.” 
 
 Athens summoned people to liberty because slie 
 invigorated herself by making popular governments for 
 her allies. But did she never abuse her hegemony, 
 and was not the very cruelty of her authority one of 
 the causes of her defeat by Lysander ? It was not the 
 arts of Athens, nor even her pleasures, that ruined her 
 in the struggle with Sparta, but the burden of tyran¬ 
 ny, intolerable to her allies, and her haughty preten¬ 
 sions which her political wisdom or virtues did not 
 then justify. Athens ruled over Greece during a 
 period of seventy-three years, Lacedæmon during 
 twenty-nine. Thebes, after Leuctra, received this in¬ 
 heritance. None of the three cities knew how to pre¬ 
 serve it. The Thebans made themselves insupportable 
 by their pride and arrogance. Master of the Acropolis 
 at Athens, Lysander, dressed like a priest, the minister 
 of divine vengeance, immolated with his own hand the 
 Athenian general Philocles, a signal for the slaughter 
 of three thousand prisoners. Athens was more humane 
 in respecting the rights of war, but with what crimes 
 she can be reproached ! By decimating themselves in 
 turn, the preponderating cities had prepared the way 
 for-the Macedonian. Under the pretext of watching 
 with jealous care Hellenic equilibrium, they sacrificed 
 harmony, that is to say, national power, for the passion 
 of equality. 
 
 No one ever suffered, said Demosthenes, the city 
 invested with the hegemony to abuse its power, and 
 to-day all allow Philip to mutilate and pillage Greece 
 at his will. 
 
 “And you must be sensible that whatever wrong the 
 Greeks sustained from Lacedaemonians, or from us, was at 
 
262 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE, 
 
 least indicted by genuine people of Greece; and it might be 
 felt in the same manner as if a lawful son, born to a lar^e 
 fortune, committed some fault or error in the management 
 of it. On that ground one would consider him open to censure 
 and reproach, yet it could not be said that he was an alien, 
 and not heir to the property which he so dealt with. But 
 if a slave or a spurious child wasted and spoiled what he 
 had no interest in,— heavens, how much more heinous and 
 hateful would all have pronounced it! And yet, in regard 
 to Philip and his conduct they feel not this, although he is 
 not only no Greek and no way akin to Greeks, but not 
 even a barbarian of a place honorable to mention; in fact, 
 a vile fellow of Macedon, from which a respectable slave 
 could not be purchased formerly.” * 
 
 Yes, Macedonia was disdained before Philip. Philip 
 was feeble and small in the beginning, but he became 
 great on account of the divisions into which the Hel¬ 
 lenic family splintered their forces, and this was due 
 to the defiant f hostilities of cities which were op¬ 
 pressed longer and more imperiously by Athens than 
 by any other state. The yoke of Philip, the cunning 
 politician, did not frighten cities that were wearied 
 of tyrannical rule. This rule was insupportable, 
 because their common origin and equality of rights 
 excited a most irritated jealousy in the hearts of the 
 subjects. Demosthenes was indignant at seeing a 
 barbarian use with impunity a license which had 
 been refused in Greece to Greeks. lie could not en¬ 
 dure the idea that Athens, after a long and glorious 
 suzerainty, should abdicate the protectorship of the 
 Hellenes. We can understand these sentiments of 
 
 * Third Philippic , § 30. 
 
 t The Athenians sent Proxenus to aicl Phocis. The Phocidians 
 rejected their savior; they suspected that lie wished to seize their 
 cities, which were shortly afterward destroyed by Philip. 
 
DEMOSTHENES-THE ORATOR. 
 
 263 
 
 the patriot; but should he be astonished at the ap¬ 
 parent indifference of states which witnessed a con¬ 
 flict between two masters, the most dreaded of whom 
 was not the stranger? During the grandest epochs 
 of Grecian history, national sentiment was not unani¬ 
 mous. What must it have been after more than 
 a century of internal struggles, reciprocal defeats, 
 moral weakness and decay ? Athens saved Greece 
 from the barbarians: she was rewarded by the con¬ 
 sented royalty of the Hellenic world; but she abused 
 her power, and when she confronted Philip she found 
 herself alone. Her heroism in the present, her des¬ 
 potism in the past, concurred to make a void around 
 her. At the last hour Thebes extended her hands to 
 her, but it was too late. The rest of Greece was either 
 forced to submit to Macedonian law, or silently ac¬ 
 cepted it. Harely do nations have a different lot 
 from that which they deserve, and, in spite of fatality 
 which is an easy excuse, they are like individuals, 
 the first artisans of their own fortune. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ORATORICAL CONTESTS IN POLITICAL DEBATES AT 
 
 ATHENS. 
 
 “ ’Ayœvaç fiy jwvov r â%uuç xdt Xôyœv /.oil yvœ/j.7]ç, y. at rœv aXXcuv 
 ïpywv âizdvTwv, xàï tootujv àOXa ply tara.: Athens instituted con- 
 tests not only of agility and strength, hut also of eloquence and 
 learning, and of all other accomplishments; the prizes for these 
 were magnificent.” (Isocrates, Panegyric.) 
 
 T HE individual changes manners and tastes accord¬ 
 ing to the age; the universal man, who represents 
 humanity, changes inclinations and knowledge accord¬ 
 ing to countries and centuries. To note the physiog¬ 
 nomy peculiar to each race, and to replace the works 
 of different ages in the period which gave them birth, 
 is the principle of historical criticism. Neglected by 
 the ancients, and their scrupulous imitators of the 
 seventeenth century, this principle has been imposed 
 since the eighteenth century upon all careful criticism 
 of justice and truth. Beyond this we can “trifle,” 
 according to Pope’s expression, but never criticise. 
 Faithful to this method, let us seek in the artistic 
 spirit and in certain moral dispositions of the Greeks 
 an exact understanding of their eloquence. 
 
 In the orations On the Embassy and On the Crown, 
 Demosthenes’ contest against Æschincs is, in certain 
 respects, confounded with his contest against Philip. 
 Here the orator endeavors to unmask the prevaricat¬ 
 ing ambassador; then, conquered by Philip and his 
 allies in the Agora, subject to public hatred as the 
 
 2C4 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS, 
 
 265 
 
 author of irreparable disasters, he glories in having 
 been the soul of the struggle in which his country 
 succumbed; and while his adversary, apparently justi¬ 
 fied by Chæronea, wishes to humiliate and defeat his 
 rival, Demosthenes, confounding his cause with that 
 of the city, establishes between the minister of Athens, 
 Athens herself, and the gods, a joint and several lia¬ 
 bility, which forces the Athenians to choose between 
 the justification of Demosthenes and the condemna¬ 
 tion of the heroes of Marathon. Demosthenes so 
 well pleads his cause and the nation’s honor, that 
 » the people proclaim, to the confusion of Æschines, 
 that the inspirer of Chæronea lias well served his 
 country. Never was there a more imposing spectacle 
 than to see a people avenging themselves upon their 
 conquerors by a magnificent protestation of right 
 against power, of duty against interest. Never did 
 a finer work of oratory honor the political tribune. 
 Such is the great contest between Demosthenes and 
 yEschines, and the two great orations in which the 
 struggle manifested itself with the greatest splendor; 
 but, without exposing ourselves to the reproach of 
 weakening such works and diminishing such intel¬ 
 lectual giants, let us consider them under different 
 aspects. Demosthenes was not merely a public coun¬ 
 sellor, animated against Æscliines by a patriotic 
 hatred; he was also his rival in eloquence. In him 
 the artist is united with the citizen, and in this grave 
 and generous figure, passions and certain individual 
 traits enable us to recognize in the minister of state 
 the man and the Athenian. Still more clearly do we 
 see the rival and artist appear in yEschines, who was 
 
 always an orator rather than a citizen. 
 
 «/ 
 
 Demosthenes’ hearers were artists charmed with elo- 
 12 
 
266 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 quent language. They esteemed it so highly that Æs- 
 cliines, in order to induce them to surrender to Philip, 
 did not forget to praise the Macedonian’s eloquence. 
 They listened to their orators as virtuosos; they as¬ 
 sisted in the debates at the tribune like assistants at a 
 concert,— a spectacle that was intended to charm the 
 mind and ear equally. Panegyrical orations, says Isoc¬ 
 rates, in which the interests of the cities or of entire 
 Greece are discussed, have, as all know, a great anal¬ 
 ogy to rhythmical and musical compositions, and afford 
 the same pleasure to the hearer.* The people, said 
 Cicero, are very sensitive to harmony. “If the poet 
 wrongly uses a long or short syllable in a verse, the 
 whole theater will cry out.” In the forum, on the 
 contrary, the assembly loudly applauded a happy con¬ 
 clusion of a clichoreus.\ The city of Minerva was even 
 more delicate in this respect. The Athenians turned 
 their attention from the most important reasoning to 
 ridicule, an unusual formula of oath, or a mistake in 
 the pronouncing of accents. An ungraceful movement 
 of the shoulders, a gesture abrupt or ill suited to the 
 words, an unaccustomed expression, excited the up¬ 
 roar of the Pnyx. This was sufficient to draw the 
 ridicule of the comic poets. On the tribune, and even 
 before a modest tribunal, the Athenian orator was like 
 an actor on the stage. lie had to satisfy in every 
 point the artistic exigencies of his audience. Virtue 
 is more pleasing when enhanced by the beauty of the 
 body. On the same ground, physical imperfections 
 at Athens depreciated eloquence and compromised its 
 success. Pclisson is said to have abused the permis- 
 
 * Antidosis , §§ 4G, 47. 
 
 t Patris dictum sapiens, temeritas filii cômprobüvit. ( Orat 50, 
 51,G3.) 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 267 
 
 sion accorded to men of being ugly. Paris was more 
 indulgent than Athens. Socrates was, perhaps, the 
 only Hellene whose ugliness the Athenians overlooked; 
 and it is possible that he might have escaped the hem¬ 
 lock if he had had the beauty of Alcibiades. 
 
 The suitors of Demosthenes’ civil cases were often 
 wanting in these seducing advantages, which were lav¬ 
 ished on this favorite of the Athenians. They excused 
 themselves for it as best they could. If their exterior 
 leaves much to be desired, they are, nevertheless, 
 brave people. “ My figure,” said Apollodorus, “is 
 not agreeable, my walk precipitated, my voice hoarse. 
 I know it, Athenians. I am not one of those whom 
 nature has favored. These defects which are offensive 
 have many a time done me harm, but ” * * * All 
 that did not prevent him from being superior to his 
 adversary Stephanus, and from being in the right 
 against him. Nicobulus asked Pantœnetus for a sum 
 of money which he had loaned him. The debtor es¬ 
 sayed to pay him in abuse. He gave him the title of 
 a great trotter ( ~a/b /?«ôc'!V'), as if justice were measured 
 by the length of the strides. 
 
 “As to my gait, to my manner of speaking, judges, I will 
 frankly speak of it. I know myself, I know my defects. * * * 
 The only profit they bring me is to displease some citizens. 
 Is this not unfortunate for me? But what am I to do? 
 When I loan money, is this a reason that it should not be 
 given back to me., and that I should even be made to pay a 
 fine? Assuredly not! * * * It seems to me that each person 
 is as nature made him. To destroy her works is impossible. 
 If this were not so we should all resemble one another.” 
 
 My opposing party is ugly, therefore he is wrong. 
 My creditor stammers, then we are acquitted. These 
 abusive deductions were feared by plaintiffs who were 
 
268 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 deformed by nature, and forced them to offer candid 
 excuses. 
 
 Among the sj^ectacles which made Athens an en¬ 
 chanted abode there was none more popular than ora¬ 
 torical contests,— real feasts of intellect, in which the 
 sentiment of art too easily effaced that of justice. The 
 Athenians, like tine connoisseurs, delighted in this recre¬ 
 ation without caring much about the cause itself. Æsclii- 
 nes regretted the good old times which his father Atro- 
 metus, an old man of ninety-five years, praised, when 
 judges were more attentive to their business. u Nothing 
 is so ridiculous, on the contrary, as that which is prac¬ 
 ticed in our days. The clerk reads the decree of the 
 accused; the judges, inattentive and distracted, listen to 
 the reading as if it were a foreign detail or a song 
 (ê-wrLjv).” * Formerly the heliasts demanded that the 
 laws and decrees which determined their decisions 
 should be read and re-read before them, as in archi¬ 
 tecture the plummet is used to determine whether a 
 wall is perpendicular. The hearers of Æschines and 
 Demosthenes were especially fond of eloquence which 
 would hold them spell-bound. As for the subject of 
 the trial, it was often left in the shade. The accused 
 was interested in flattering this disposition of the tribu¬ 
 nal; he turned his attention from the principal point 
 and readily devoted himself to agreeable digressions. 
 The clepsydra measures the time easily, the day has 
 fled, and the meeting breaks up without having pun¬ 
 ished either of the two parties.” See how, in defiance 
 of the oath of the heliasts,— U I will pass a sentence 
 on the subject of the debate,”—the trial of the Embassy 
 was without result. 
 
 * Tlic Roman judges gave place to far greater scandals, if we can 
 give credence to a fragment of Caius Titius. 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 269 
 
 Above all things the orator was obliged to please 
 such hearers,— an obligation imposed on Demosthenes 
 more imperiously than on any other orator, for he had 
 to contend against Æscliines, a rough warrior armed 
 with all the advantages of eloquence and a noble phy¬ 
 sique, and also assisted by the weakness of the Athe¬ 
 nians. Demosthenes, therefore, could not neglect any 
 of the resources of his art in order to captivate an 
 artistic people and to triumph, by the charm of his 
 diction as much as by the solidity of his arguments, 
 over the repugnance of effeminate citizens who were 
 little disposed to the self-denial which their austere 
 duty demanded of them. Demosthenes has more than 
 once marked this necessity of charming the Athenians 
 in order to save them. What must be done to make 
 them favorably disposed? “We must not only skill¬ 
 fully display oratorical manners, but especially must we 
 move them by the invincible allurement of a beautiful 
 language.” Justly convinced of the power of words to 
 govern men, and in particular the Athenians, Demos¬ 
 thenes washed to be an accomplished orator; he had a 
 love for the art, and he was patriotic. This was the 
 salvation of the commonwealth. Therefore Demosthe¬ 
 nes’ eagerness to penetrate the hearts of his fellow- 
 citizens through this avenue, outside of which the orator 
 must necessarily go astray. Therefore the careful re¬ 
 visions of those parts which he esteemed the surest to 
 make an artistic and moral impression; therefore his 
 repetitions distasteful to our modern customs, and 
 before which ancient ingenuousness did not recoil; 
 therefore, finally, the refusal to mount the rostrum 
 without being prepared.* Moderately endowed with 
 promptitude of imagination, so necessary to an improv- 
 
 * These different points have been treated in cli. v. 
 
270 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 isatore, Demosthenes feared to trust to the accidents 
 of inspiration, and by a possible failure to compromise 
 the authority of a single word necessary to the welfare 
 of the state. Thus Demosthenes prepared himself, in 
 the studious contemplations of his closet, to be persua¬ 
 sive on the rostrum. He ascended it provided with all 
 his arms, and confident that he was master of his deli¬ 
 cate hearers, wdiom it was difficult to satisfy, but who 
 were easily led by a man capable of pleasing them with 
 generous sentiments and exhibitions of art. 
 
 Among the most desirable virtues, the Greeks place 
 the virtue of antagonism ,—a composition of stature, ve¬ 
 locity and strength. This virtue, one of the elements 
 of happiness, won the admiration of the Greeks at the 
 great national games. Pindar extolled the runners and 
 pugilists who were crowned at Olympia as the most 
 glorious of mortals. This virtue delighted the people 
 at the theater, where the comic and tragic poets offered 
 them two spectacles equally enjoyable, contests of pas¬ 
 sions and contests of intellect. Antagonistic virtue 
 even delighted the tribunals, witnesses of fencing 
 combats in which the vigor and vivacity of the mind 
 were displayed. Æschines and Demosthenes some¬ 
 times used comparisons which made their debates re¬ 
 semble gymnastic contests. Yisconti mentions two 
 statues of Lysias and Isocrates represented as athletes, 
 emblematic of the analogy between the contests in the 
 arena and those of the tribune and bar. In the ath¬ 
 letic engagements of the judicial class, the antagonists 
 could practice the definition of bodily strength given 
 by Aristotle: 
 
 “ Strength is the ability which one man has to move an¬ 
 other as he wishes; now, he can move him only by pulling, 
 or pushing, or raising, or bending, or crushing him. The 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 271 
 
 strong man, then, will be strong in consequence of all these 
 abilities or some of them.” 
 
 Æschines and Demosthenes excelled in this strength 
 which they manifested in their pleadings and in those 
 mixed orations which belong both to political eloquence 
 and to the eloquence of the bar, and which wonderful¬ 
 ly complies with flexibilities of all kinds. The idea of 
 competition, of contest was one of the essential 
 
 ideas of the Greek mind; we meet it on every page of 
 their works. Thus Demosthenes compared the war 
 between Athens and Philip to a contest in which the 
 prizes would be Chalcidia and Thrace. The ideas of 
 a people are the natural reflection of their morals. The 
 life of an Athenian was an exercise of perpetual emu¬ 
 lation. Athens had competitions in strength, activity, 
 intellect, and beauty : rewards were offered for excel- 
 lence in all these talents. 
 
 The inclination among the Greeks for antagonism had 
 its source in the spirit of emulation and a strong desire 
 for glory. Glory was their ruling passion, their only 
 desire according to Horace (prceter laudem nullius 
 avaris). After the athlete Timanthes became old, he 
 exercised in archery; for his love of glory did not grow 
 old. A voyage compelled him to suspend exercise. On 
 his return he felt that his strength was waning: he 
 erected his funeral pile and threw himself into the 
 flames. He lost his strength and his hope to vanquish; 
 he deemed himself unworthy of living. The rliapso- 
 dist Niceratus, forced to yield the palm for declamation 
 to Pratys, did not die a tragic death, but from that mo¬ 
 ment he let his hair grow and took no care of his per¬ 
 son. To receive a crown at the theater on the day of 
 the new tragedies, not from the whole people, which 
 would be too high an ambition for most men, but from 
 
272 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 3* 
 
 his deme, from his tribe, was at Athens the dream of 
 the most unpretending. Wealthy citizens sometimes 
 set their slaves free; in return, they enjoyed the pleas¬ 
 ure of having their names proclaimed by the herald in 
 the presence of all the Greeks. The generals likewise 
 envied this popular honor. Charidemus and Diotimus 
 furnished eight hundred shields for the young recruits; 
 Nausicles supported two thousand soldiers at his own 
 expense. What was to be the greatest recompense for 
 these patriotic sacrifices ? A crown at the Panathenæa. 
 The orators could not be less sensitive to public hom¬ 
 age, and the means for them to acquire it was to excel 
 in intellectual contests. 
 
 II. Their political debates were sometimes trans¬ 
 formed into oratorical jousts. Deliberative eloquence 
 was then confined to the ejpidictic class. In Demos¬ 
 thenes’ eyes, Ctesiphon’s accuser did not seriously 
 think of receiving justice for pretended misdemeanors, 
 but he merely desired to display his talent Ird- 
 
 two). In fact, in their apparently most infuriated 
 duels the Greeks sometimes aimed at a literary success 
 as well as personal vengeance. They wished to strike 
 their adversary cruelly, but with art. Æschines and 
 Demosthenes, bitterly engaged in a spirited discussion, 
 endeavored to crush each other under the weight of 
 the reprobation of the city, but they also desired, in 
 the face of all Greece, to display their oratorical supe¬ 
 riority. For this reason they took the time to deliver 
 themselves of their academical thrusts. In 344 De¬ 
 mosthenes gave a presentiment of Æschines’ accusa¬ 
 tion, but the direct and formal attack was not made 
 until 342, five years after the questionable embassy. 
 Demosthenes attributed this delay fb an honorable 
 motive,— a desire not to trouble the state with unsea- 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 273 
 
 sonable debates when it was engaged in such diffi¬ 
 culties with Philip. “I have said enough to awaken 
 your remembrances. Save us, great gods, from a 
 rigorous examination of these perfidies!” JEschines, 
 in his turn, did not deliver his speech against Ctesi- 
 phon until 330. He had, it is true, from 338 until the 
 day after Chæronea, attacked the motion of Demos¬ 
 thenes’ friend, but the sjDeeches had been delayed eight 
 years.* Why this long postponement ? 
 
 This is one of Demosthenes’ favorite objections. He 
 constantly referred to it in order to edify the judges on 
 the honesty of his enemy. If I was culpable, why not 
 denounce me at the very moment of the misdemeanor, 
 and convict me, taken in the act % ‘ 4 What would you 
 
 think of a physician who, having prescribed nothing 
 for a patient during his illness, comes after his death 
 to the ceremonies of the ninth day to tell his parents 
 in detail the remedies which would have cured him ? ” 
 In the very midst of gfeat events, you would not have 
 dared to traduce me. The evidence of facts and public 
 indignation would have confounded you. To-day the 
 time seems favorable to insult me, 44 as if from the 
 summit of a rubbish-cart,” and to pay your respects to 
 Alexander. To the embarrassing reproaches of De¬ 
 mosthenes, Æschines replied with fine sentiments, and 
 especially with a recital of injuries : 
 
 “ After the battle we had no leisure to think of your pun¬ 
 ishment. While sent on the embassy we labored for the 
 safety of our country. But, not satisfied with impunity, you 
 solicited rewards; you made Athens an object of laughter to 
 
 * The judges did not press the matter more than the orators. De¬ 
 mosthenes tells us of an action brought against Midias, and pending 
 eight years. The pede Pœna claudo of Horace applies too well to the 
 lame justice of Athens. 
 
f 
 
 274 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the rest of Greece! Then I arose and accused you. * * * 
 My silence, Demosthenes, was due to the simplicity of my 
 life. Content with little, I do not desire to enrich myself by 
 dishonest means. Thus I speak, I am silent because of reflec¬ 
 tion. But you! when paid you become mute; when the gold 
 is gone, you cry out. You neither speak in your place, nor 
 in accordance with your convictions, but you are subject to 
 him who hires you.* 
 
 Besides these motives, false or sincere, there is 
 another motive, not avowed, but powerful. If the 
 adversaries defer hostilities during long years, it is in 
 order to assure themselves of greater chances of vic¬ 
 tory. Delay is not prejudicial to them. Therefore, 
 instead of denouncing the enemy when it would be 
 most useful to the state, they patiently watch for the 
 most favorable moment to humiliate a rival. The 
 affair can be carried; the opportunity becomes auxili¬ 
 ary to the artist. Demosthenes had good reasons for 
 not being mistaken, and he betrayed his adversary’s 
 secret when he said : “Æschines wished to accuse 
 me at his opportunity and at his ease.” To-day he 
 enters the lists. He imagines, it seems, that you have 
 come to assist in an oratorical contest (/fy™ pq>v àyœvct^ 
 and not to examine a minister’s conduct; to pass judg¬ 
 ment on the beauties of language, and not to weigh 
 the interests of the state. 
 
 Demosthenes himself sometimes sacrificed to ora¬ 
 torical cares. When outraged by Midias in the exer¬ 
 cise of his functions as choregus, he prepared numer¬ 
 ous memoirs against that insulter. He confessed that 
 he had written carefully the speech in which he de¬ 
 manded justice. He invoked the people against the 
 impious Midias with all the vehemence, hatred and 
 
 * Against Ctesiphon , §§ 218, 225, 227. 
 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 275 
 
 ability possible, then, when his work w T as finished, he 
 left it in his portfolio. It seems that his desire was 
 less to pronounce it than to write it. The author of 
 an oration full of bitterness and gall,— a virulent 
 pamphlet in which he swears to be inexorable,— De¬ 
 mosthenes suddenly disarms himself and sheathes his 
 sword. He subsides and Midias is spared his life. 
 This unexpected event warrants this conclusion: vio¬ 
 lated law, outraged religion and danger of the public 
 safety, were not the orator’s only cares and considera¬ 
 tions in his oration against Midias. By the side of 
 a satisfaction for damage, he placed a satisfaction of 
 self-love. lie produced this masterpiece of invective 
 through his hatred for Midias and his love for honor, 
 lie wished to inflict on his enem} T the punishment of 
 a posthumous disgrace, and to leave to posterity an 
 imperishable monument of his eloquence. 
 
 In order to carry off the palm in the contests at the 
 bar, there were no artifices which adversaries did not 
 employ. They vied with each other in the artifices 
 of court (-alaiajm duaffrypUiu'). They exchanged the 
 epithets of sophists, monkeys, foxes; that is to say, of 
 knavish and sly rogues. Demosthenes said Æschines 
 is like the finest flour (y: at-dir] pa), capable of passing 
 through the finest sieve. He turns here and there; he 
 changes every moment. Æschines was even sharper. 
 An old pettifogging knave ( Tzepirpipim àyopà':'), he slipped 
 from between the hands of his antagonist and escaped 
 the greatest embarrassments. He was u clever at all 
 things treacherous (-avoD/yuç).” * Panurge, 
 
 * Strepsiadcs, in the Clouds: “Let them (the sophists) do what 
 they please with me. I deliver my body to them. Blows, hunger, 
 thirst, heat, cold, are of little importance. Let them llay me, pro¬ 
 viding that I escape my debts,— providing that I have the reputation 
 
276 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 in Rabelais, practiced sixty-tliree methods of procuring 
 money when in need. The most honest was to steal. 
 The champions of the Greek tribune likewise left no 
 stone unturned. Dissimulations, inventions of every 
 kind, alteration of dates, facts and texts,— all arms 
 were lawful if they aided in vanquishing the enemy. 
 Truth, right, respect for one’s self and for others, were 
 of little importance. Success acquitted the orator of 
 everything. Did not grave and serious Pindar write 
 that “we must do everything in order to triumph over 
 our enemies ” ? * In his definition of power, in which 
 he makes a complete enumeration of the methods by 
 which a man can be moved, Aristotle says nothing of 
 a method proscribed at the public games, but which 
 was held in high esteem by the tribunals, namely, 
 tripping the adversary {o-offy.tXi^e^y Philip practiced 
 this against the Gréek cities. The wrestlers of the ju¬ 
 dicial and political arena had no scruples in employing 
 it: 'f' hence the agility and flexibility of their argumen¬ 
 tation and the stratagems with which they reproached 
 one another, and yet had recourse to them. 
 
 An Athenian orator’s aim was at first to have right, 
 
 of being a bold knave, a ready talker, impudent, brazen-faced, noisy,, 
 skillful to weave lies, an old stager of chicanery, a real table of laws, 
 a word-mill, a fox that passes through every hole, as supple as 
 leather, as slippery as an eel, an insincere and crimeful braggart, a 
 cheat with a hundred faces, crafty and unbearable, fond of good 
 dishes. Such are the names with which I wish to be saluted. On 
 this condition let them treat me as they please; and, if they wislq 
 by Ceres ! let them make a pudding of me and serve me up to the 
 philosophers! ” 
 
 *Àprj ôè rrâv epdovr à /j.au pour ai rov èyOpôv. {Third Isthmiac, 81.) 
 
 f Plato compares the rhetoricians playing with the quibbles of 
 sophistry to “those who place their foot before you in order to make 
 you fall, or who remove your chair when you are about to sit down, 
 and then laugh heartily when they see you on the ground.” 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 277 
 
 or the appearance of right, clothed in good language, 
 then to delight his hearers with eloquent words as often 
 and as long as possible. With Demosthenes, said 
 Æschines, it is difficult to find place to say a word; 
 Æschines, replied Demosthenes, is not a man who 
 yields to anyone: u He would give his blood sooner 
 than any of his oration.” This was an allusion to 
 the clepsydra that measured the orator’s time.* The 
 rivalry of the two adversaries often bordered on jeal¬ 
 ousy; that of Demosthenes appeared “hyperbolical ” to 
 Æschines. Perhaps he was not exempt from it. At one 
 time he paints his adversary as an incomparable ora¬ 
 tor, a prodigious statesman, carrying his head high 
 and cheered by the assembly, then descending from 
 the rostrum with “great majesty” (jxâka a z;jytbq). At 
 another time he makes malicious allusions to the 
 physical advantages, and to certain superiorities of 
 his rival. Demosthenes refused to improvise: Æs¬ 
 chines was always ready. Demosthenes never let 
 his lamp go out,— slowly, laboriously he prepared his 
 way. Æschines seemed to ignore the work of the file 
 
 * On August 3, 1789, a member of the National Assembly pro¬ 
 posed that the president have a Jive minute hour-glass on his desk, 
 in order that when the five minutes were passed the orator might 
 be invited to sit down. An ecclesiastic immediately asked that the 
 president’s watch supply the place of the proposed hour-glass for 
 the time being. An orator observed that, as the motion had not yet 
 been adopted, they could not conform to it. The discussion began: 
 the hour-glass succumbed to it. The fear of going beyond the pre¬ 
 scribed limit might trouble the orator and thereby render him 
 “unintelligible.” “ History presents to us but one epoch in which 
 the hour-glass has been the measure of eloquence. * * * To enslave 
 to a pendulum, and to measure the right of the representatives of 
 an active and intellectual nation,” and that “ after two hundred 
 years of despotism ” and obligatory silence, was an unacceptable 
 proposition, etc. The Assembly rejected “ the tyranny of the dial.” 
 
POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 and was eloquent by nature. Demosthenes intention¬ 
 ally exaggerated this enviable facility, and compared 
 it to a river which rolls in torrents.* Demosthenes 
 congratulated Æschines on his excellent memory; he 
 himself often saw his weakness in this respect. Æs¬ 
 chines could pronounce long tirades in “a single 
 breath”; his pronunciation was clear, his voice har¬ 
 monious and sonorous. Both were faulty in Demos¬ 
 thenes. Several times Demosthenes extolled these 
 qualities of Æschines. That admirable declamation 
 recalled to his mind his own long and painful efforts 
 to correct an interrupted respiration and his faulty 
 pronunciation; therefore his eulogies were ironical 
 and impregnated with envy. Æschines is well adapted 
 to tragedy; he knows how to assume dignity and 
 to acquit himself like Solon. He is a “fine statue,” 
 and what lungs! Never had a public crier stronger 
 lungs. His two brothers were also loud-talkers 
 ( ;j.tyaX<)<pio'M)t)\ it is a family characteristic. 
 
 A powerful voice was an advantage particularly 
 admired by the ancients. Cicero appreciated its value, 
 if we can judge from this remark: “What voice, what 
 lungs, what vigor could describe this outrage!” Iron 
 lungs ( ferrea vox) were indispensable auxiliaries be¬ 
 fore the tumultuous multitudes of the forum and the 
 Pnyx. When Æschines harangued the Ten-Thousand 
 in Arcadia, he discovered the advantage of his. Even 
 in the halls of our modern assemblies, a weak voice 
 must compromise the orator’s victory, if the meet¬ 
 ing is a stormy one. The orator needs a voice capa¬ 
 ble of mastering the tumult and the audience. Mira¬ 
 beau had a voice that was pleasing in the diapason 
 of seduction, and “ terriblv resonant in the accents 
 
 * ''Avid Tzora/j-wv ol Xôyoi kppurjaav. (On the Embassy.) 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 279 
 
 of fury.” Could he have been master of the assembly 
 as well without this formidable thunder ? 
 
 “ In public exercises whoever possesses these three ad¬ 
 vantages,— a powerful voice, harmony and rhythm,— carries 
 off the prize. At the theaters to-day, the comedians carry 
 off the palm from poets; likewise in oratorical contests 
 (-oÀcTizouç àfcùvaç), the orator gifted with graceful gestures 
 is the favorite.” * 
 
 A melodious voice, the essential element of action, 
 must have exercised a strong influence over the musical 
 and artistic organization of the Athenians, that Demos¬ 
 thenes should ridicule Æscliines’ voice with such sar¬ 
 casm. lie sneered at it on every occasion, — we might 
 say that he refuted it, so much did it seem to be an 
 argument in favor of his rival and a natural instrument 
 of victory. AEschines said that Demosthenes’ voice 
 was shrill and sharp (o’çciav); that he was obliged to 
 modify it with great labor. Æscliines had a voice like 
 a “siren,” and the orator of the Embassy pleaded 
 against it as against a formidable adversary. 
 
 “ If you keep watch upon him thus, he will have nothing 
 to say, but will raise his voice here and have exercised him¬ 
 self in spouting all to no purpose. About his voice, too, it 
 may be necessary to say something; for I hear that upon this, 
 also, he very confidently relies, as if he can overpower you by 
 his acting. I think, however, you would be committing a 
 gross absurdity if, when he played the miseries of Thyestes 
 and the men of Troy, you drove and hissed him off* the boards, 
 and nearly stoned him to death, so that at last he desisted 
 from his playing of third-rate parts; yet now that, not upon 
 the stage, but in public and most important affairs of state, 
 he has wrought infinity of evil, you should pay regard to 
 him as a fine speaker. Heaven forbid! Do not you be guilty 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric , iii, 1. 
 
280 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 of any folly, but consider: if you are making trial of a herald, 
 you should see that he has a good voice, but if of an am¬ 
 bassador and undertaker of public duties, that he is honest, 
 that he demeans himself with spirit as your representative 
 like a fellow citizen toward you. * * * Further, when you 
 see eloquence or a fine voice or any other such accomplish¬ 
 ment in a man of probity and honorable ambition, you should 
 all rejoice at it and encourage its display, for it is a common 
 advantage to you all; but when you see the like in a corrupt 
 and base man, who yields to every temptation of gain, you 
 should discourage and hear him with enmity and aversion; as 
 knavery, getting from you the reputation of power, is an 
 engine against the state. You see what mighty troubles have 
 fallen upon the state from what the defendant has got renown 
 by.” * 
 
 The ill-concealed spite which these qualities of Æs- 
 cliines inspired in Demosthenes was probably aug¬ 
 mented by a circumstance which must have been hu¬ 
 miliating to our orator. Demosthenes’ spirit of emu¬ 
 lation often involved him in indirect contests with 
 orators whom he honored by seeming jealous of their 
 success. In the oration written in the name of Andro- 
 cles against Lacritus, Isocrates’ pupil, we find a feeling 
 of sorrow expressed which the young Demosthenes felt 
 because he was unable to pay that famous master for 
 lessons which were held at too high a price. “As for 
 me, by Jupiter and all thé gods, I never was jealous of 
 sophists, nor did I blame any one for giving money to 
 Isocrates. It would be folly on my part to be disturbed 
 by such cares.” He did, however, trouble himself to 
 vilify an art which, according to him, did not recognize 
 its debts, and paid its creditors with falsehoods. If 
 such seems to be the vivacity of Demosthenes’ feelings 
 
 * Embassy , § 337. 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 281 
 
 as regards obscure rivals, what must have been his 
 chagrin when a solemn oratorical contest appeared to 
 confuse him in the presence of the Macedonian king ! 
 Æschines painted this scene, and his malevolence is 
 evident; nevertheless the truth can be determined. 
 The deputies were deliberating on the language that 
 they should use before the king. Demosthenes prom¬ 
 ised that he would “open sources of never-failing elo¬ 
 quence, and that he would sew up the mouth ” of the 
 Macedonian king. Audience was given. Demosthe¬ 
 nes, the youngest of the ambassadors (as he says), was 
 invited to speak last. 
 
 “All were attentive, and relied upon words of irresistible 
 weight, for his magnificent promises had even reached the 
 cars of Philip and his courtiers, as was learned later. 
 When all his hearers were thus disposed, the lion of the 
 tribune, terrified nearly to death, muttered a dismal exor¬ 
 dium, said a few words on his subject, then suddenly ceased, 
 became disconcerted, and finally could not say one word. 
 Philip seeing his embarrassment, encouraged him, and in¬ 
 formed him that he ought not to imagine that he had suffered 
 the disgrace of an actor at the theater. He invited him to 
 meditate, and, after recalling his memory, to continue. But 
 when once disturbed and the thread of his written oration 
 lost, he could not recover himself, and further efforts were of 
 no avail. When nothing more was to be said the introducer 
 asked us to retire. Philip’s officers called us back. When 
 we returned and were seated, the king began to respond 
 briefly and in order to each of our orations. He commented 
 especially on mine, and justly, since, as I knew, I had not 
 emitted anything that ought to be said, and several times he 
 pronounced my name. As for Demosthenes, whose rôle had 
 been so ridiculous, he did not address to him one word, as I 
 remember. Thus this man was choked with anger.” * 
 
 12* 
 
 * Embassy , § 34. 
 
282 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Demosthenes could not rest under this defeat. A 
 second trial gave him some hope of revenge; this time 
 he asked to speak first, but without much more success, 
 according to Æschines. This fruitful and able orator 
 forgot all important points. He said what he ought to 
 have passed over in silence, and omitted what he ought 
 to have said. Fortunately JEschines was there; he 
 filled up the gaps in Demosthenes’ flat and ridiculous- 
 harangue and screened his impertinences. 
 
 ! . . . ‘ • 4 '* - * » v ; • i 
 
 III. And so, even in the presence of the invader^ 
 the ministers of Athens, invested with her powers, 
 responsible for her salvation, remembered their ora¬ 
 torical rivalries. They persisted in their little passions 
 of rivalry, and did so in the finest language. 
 
 It is astonishing to find them rival artists in their 
 private debates ? They were almost as attentive in 
 their appreciation of words as of actions. At one time 
 Demosthenes praises yEscliines’ brevity; more often he 
 criticises his long speeches; or he even offers an appro¬ 
 bation, an involuntary homage, to a talent which “ has 
 charmed every Athenian.” Æschines turns Demos¬ 
 thenes’ vehement action into ridicule. He counter¬ 
 feits his attitude when about to begin his speech; he 
 rubs his head (rpi^aq xrp he ridicules some of 
 
 his gestures, “as if the safety of Greece depended on 
 a word and the motion of his hand.” He censures an 
 expression, a metaphor. He amuses himself by play¬ 
 ing the rhetorician, in the oration On the Grown , in 
 the midst of a discussion which was the most impor¬ 
 tant ever tried before the people whose honor was at 
 stake in the suit. What does he mean by saying to 
 “extort” the alliance of peace, instead of using the 
 word “separate”? Is this not a term as displeasing 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 283 
 
 as the man who permits it ? Demosthenes boasts of 
 having fortified “our city with walls of brass and 
 steel.”* What pride and what presuming language! 
 Is it in good taste to say: “The Pythian priestess 
 pliilippizes ? ” This disrespectful manner of speaking 
 is characteristic of an ignoramus. Æschines, in his 
 turn : He uses large words, emphatic apostrophes, 
 which smack of the stage. “O earth, O heavens, O 
 virtue! ” He remembers, it is true, his profession as 
 tragedian, but, when Æschines is summoned, he exer¬ 
 cises it with the majestic tone of a Phadamantlius. 
 What impertinence! Elsewhere, Demosthenes writes 
 a page of literary criticism, artistic and even theatri¬ 
 cal, on the iambi of Euripides’ Phœnix , and on a statue 
 of Solon. At times the oration On the Embassy turns 
 to criticise poetical erudition. Æschines declaimed 
 some verses from Solon, and attempted to draw from 
 them some arguments against Demosthenes. Demos¬ 
 thenes returned the blow, and cited Solon on the love 
 of gold and of venality. To a fragment from Euripides 
 he replied with a fragment from Sophocles. Against 
 every scholar he placed two. Æschines wished to de¬ 
 stroy, in advance, the effect of a citation from Homer, 
 to which the general, the defender of Timarchus, ought 
 to have recourse : 
 
 “ You ought to speak of Achilles, Patroclus and Homer, 
 as if our judges were ignorant. You are very important. 
 You affect a vain erudition which tends to humiliate the peo¬ 
 ple. Let us show that we, also, are not ignorant of litera¬ 
 ture and learning. Since they quote the wise, and have 
 recourse to sentences expressed in their verses, cast your eyes 
 
 * Demosthenes (Pro Corona ) has substituted stone and brick for 
 steel and brass. He corrects the terms, but he emphasizes the 
 thought. 
 
284 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 with me, Athenians, on the philosophical poets who, as all 
 confess, unite genius and virtue. See how they distinguish a 
 modest and well selected affection from the intemperance of 
 an injurious libertinism.”* 
 
 And AEschines had the clerk read (this time sure to 
 be heard), then he himself commented on the extracts 
 of the Iliad and of Euripides, u a very moral poet.” 
 
 The Athenian orators used an acknowledged right 
 when they invoked the testimony of poets. The an¬ 
 cient poets of Greece had been both theologians and 
 moral teachers. Solon united the statesman, the poet 
 and the philosopher. ITomer and Hesiod were sacred 
 books among the Athenians. AEscliines appealed to 
 Fame to establish the unworthiness of Timarclius. How 
 was her testimony, which the verses of Hesiod had 
 consecrated, to be repudiated % Demosthenes referred 
 to Orpheus, representing Justice standing near Jupiter’s 
 throne with eyes open to the actions of mortals. 
 Among the preambles in his decree on the alliance with 
 Thebes, he cited reminiscences from Œdipus and the 
 Heraclidæ. Æschines appealed to Theseus and his 
 sons to establish, before Philip, the fact that Amplii- 
 polis was, from its origin, an Athenian land. Under 
 Tiberius, the Ephesians endeavored to prove before the 
 senate that Ephesus and not Delos witnessed the birth 
 of Diana and Apollo.f The legends of the Greeks 
 formed a part of their archives; the orators deduced 
 arguments from them and quoted the poets with more 
 authority than Cicero in his works of philosophy. The 
 Latin writers especially drew ornaments from them; 
 the Athenian orators found in them official documents 
 intended to convince and to delight. 
 
 The accuser of Timarclius and of Demosthenes was a 
 
 * Embassy, § 141. Tacitus, Annales , iii, 60. 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 285 
 
 scholar who conveniently transformed his address into 
 a work of art which was elegantly polished. Cicero, 
 the most brilliant and faithful imitator of the Greek 
 orators, also made use of his art against Terres, a 
 famous collector, probably one of Lord Elgin’s an¬ 
 cestors. While declaring that he was not a connoisseur 
 nor interested in trifles, the orator of De Signis wrote 
 an oration in which certain parts resemble a mixture of 
 political pamphlets and a review on the Musée des An¬ 
 tiques or on Le Salon. When we hear such abuse lav¬ 
 ished on an enemy {in Pisonem ) as monster, beast, 
 fury, ass, hog, eunuch, etc., * * * it would seem that 
 Cicero was eager to tear him into pieces. Tot at all; 
 his hatred was more refined. U I have never desired 
 thy blood.” What then did he desire ? His dishonor. 
 “If you and Gabinius were crucified, would I derive 
 more pleasure from seeing your bodies lacerated than 
 from seeing your reputations mutilated ? ” There is 
 something more dreadful than to be crucified; it is to 
 be placed in the pillory of history after one’s death; 
 and, during life, to be disgraced and humiliated. Piso 
 did not escape this punishment. “Piso dishonored, 
 despised, condemned to fears, to the anxieties of the 
 guilty and trembling; such is what I long wished to 
 see, and I have seen it.”* The torments of the infer¬ 
 nal regions, furies, flames, burning torches that harass 
 the wicked, are suited to the theater. True punishment 
 is the folly of the criminals, the delirium of Orestes 
 and Athanas; this is the horror which they inspire in 
 others and in themselves. In connection with this de¬ 
 velopment, which recalls Æschines and Lucretius,f I 
 discover another on the calmness of the sage in the 
 midst of the most frightful tortures. Inclosed in Plial- 
 
 * Yidere te volui, vidi. In Pisonem , 41. f De jRerum Ncdura, iii, 991. 
 
286 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 aris’ bull, lie says that u it is pleasant,” and that u lie is 
 not moved by it, so trifling is it.” * In reference to this 
 epicurean conception, worthy of the strongest para¬ 
 doxes of the stoics, the author disserts upon the true 
 character of the doctrine of Epicurus, upon the exact 
 meaning of the maxim for pleasure; and, singular 
 enough, the philosophical criticism of the orator in 
 his oration In Pisonem surpasses in justice and sin¬ 
 cerity that of the philosopher of the De Finibus , where 
 Cicero refutes epicureanism in a manner unworthy of 
 an advocate. Elsewhere there are poetical reminis¬ 
 cences, verses from Ennius or imprecations from Thy- 
 estes. Cicero forgets Piso in order to produce a work 
 worthy of a scholar and philosopher. He informs 
 us that he owes his eloquence more to his w~alks in the 
 Academy than to the laboratories of rhetoricians; the 
 invective against Piso has, in fact, philosophical pre¬ 
 tensions, a sententious and moral tone. But his phi¬ 
 losophy and morals, we must confess, are not always 
 found in good company. It would have been better 
 for the author of this work had he been less of a moral¬ 
 ist and more of a man, had he been possessed of less 
 jihilosopliical or poetical erudition and more delicacy. 
 Cicero followed the Greek custom of blending the 
 pamphlet with literary preoccupations. Therefore a 
 sensible incongruity of the coarse insults and the cul¬ 
 ture of the writer’s mind. The care that he takes to 
 turn from his wrath in order to improve his reasoning 
 indicates to us that he is not, at the bottom of his heart, 
 as hateful as he professes to be. 
 
 The artistic cares which are so abundant in the 
 Greek orators do not harmonize with the cries of 
 death resounding in all their invectives. They cruelly 
 
 * In Pisonem , 18, 20. 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 287 
 
 demand their adversary’s head. Do not take them at 
 their word. They practice diatribes which they in¬ 
 herit from iambic poetry. The iambic poet bites, the 
 pamphleteer lacerates. 
 
 One is not as melancholy, the other is not as cruel, 
 as might be imagined. The last is not at all sangui¬ 
 nary. He is from Athens, the most humane city, which 
 excluded from her frontiers iron, stone and wood that 
 was guilty of unconscious homicide, and punished an 
 Areopagite for killing a sparrow that took refuge in 
 his bosom.* The hearers were likewise too artistic 
 to be impartial judges. The oration On the Embassy 
 did not receive a decision or penalty. The two adver¬ 
 saries were painfully wounded. The Athenians con¬ 
 sidered them acquitted. The judges, delighted with 
 their invectives and the charming beauties of their 
 eloquence, retired satisfied, without thinking of pun¬ 
 ishment. The issue of the trial of the Grown was 
 very similar. Demosthenes efideavored to exaggerate, 
 Æscliines to weaken, the consequences of a condem¬ 
 nation for Ctesiphon’s friend. “Fear nothing for De¬ 
 mosthenes. If he is deprived of a crown, the reward 
 for his heroic virtues, this magnanimous Ajax will not 
 die of despair.” We do not know why Demosthenes 
 should have been repudiated by the Athenians. When 
 FEschines was disowned by them, he did not think of 
 hanging himself. Defeated in an oratorical contest in 
 which his eloquence was at stake rather than his char¬ 
 acter, he modestly took his departure after his over¬ 
 throw and retired to Rhodes, yielding to his rival. 
 At the age of forty-eight, says a writer of the seven¬ 
 teenth century, Mme. de Montbazon was still so beau- 
 
 * The Areopagus in its turn killed a child who had put out the 
 e} r es of a bird. 
 
288 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 tiful that she eclipsed Mme. de Poquelaure, the most 
 beautiful lady of the court, and only twenty-two years 
 of age. One day the two found themselves together 
 in an assembly. Mme. de Poquelaure was obliged to 
 retire. The great ladies of the century of Louis XIY 
 submitted to the empire of beauty. The empire of 
 intellectual beauty was likewise recognized and re¬ 
 spected by the adversary of Demosthenes. When 
 Milo was condemned and was enjoying his exile, eat¬ 
 ing figs in Provincia and fish at Massilia, he enter¬ 
 tained cruel resentments and nourished projects for 
 vengeance. LEscliines had no such thoughts. He 
 did not corrode his heart in digesting a bloody affront. 
 Undoubtedly the high-minded orator was stung by his 
 defeat; but the object of his culture, his eloquence, 
 did not desert him. He became a voluntary exile, 
 and without paying the thousand drachmas to which 
 the law condemned him, he continued to live in the 
 enjoyment of his art. * He opened, we are told, a 
 school, where he, more agreeably, perhaps, than ever, 
 tasted the delicacies of beautiful language by teaching 
 it. He delighted his pupils and himself by reading 
 his harangues, even the one which succumbed under 
 Demosthenes’ nobler effort. After hearing kEschines’ 
 accusation the audience cried out: “All ! how could 
 you fail to triumph with such a speech?” “ Listen,” 
 responded the teacher, and he read to them Demos¬ 
 thenes’ reply. The admiration of his hearers was un¬ 
 bounded. u Ah ! What if you had heard the lion 
 himself? ” * 
 
 Instead of blushing at Demosthenes’ overwhelming 
 refutation, he recited it publicly, and even praised it 
 
 * rt ôè , et aoroü rod Orjpiou àxTjxôsire. Cicero (De Oratore , iii r 
 56) weakens the text in translating. Si audissetis ipsum. 
 
ORATORICAL CONTESTS. 
 
 289 
 
 with a light heart. He himself, an artist of the high¬ 
 est order, found in Demosthenes’ mhsteiqoiece the real¬ 
 ization of a perfect art. He appreciated it as if he 
 were a disinterested reader. •Clesides was renowned 
 for an unfavorable picture which he painted of Queen 
 Stratonice. Because that princess did not tender him 
 an honorable reception he painted her rolling ( volutan- 
 terri) with a fisherman, with whom she was said to be 
 too intimate. He exposed his picture in the harbor of 
 Ephesus, and then fled with full sail. The queen for¬ 
 bade the picture to be removed “because of the ex¬ 
 treme resemblances of the portraits.”* The indif¬ 
 ference of the artistic queen reminds us of HCschines 
 rolled in the dust by Demosthenes and applauding 
 him. This gallant manner of extolling a work which 
 branded him inspired Laharpe with profound astonish¬ 
 ment. 
 
 “ I do not understand, I confess, how he had the courage 
 to read Demosthenes 1 harangue before his pupils. One can 
 without any crime be less eloquent than another; but how 
 can he confess without blushing that he has been so evidently 
 convicted as a calumniator and a bad citizen? 1 
 
 One of the advantages of historical criticism is to 
 prevent or to diminish this kind of surprise. We 
 are not astonished, however, when we consider in the 
 works of the two rivals their political and private en¬ 
 mity, the influence of artistic preoccupations, and the 
 character of an oratorical contest. 
 
 * Pliny the Elder , xxxv, ch. 40, § 15. 
 
 13 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 “ (Pixrei 7zâ(nv à'sOpcônoiç VTzdpyet rœv Xoidopimv y. at rib's y.aryj- 
 yopiœv àxoùetv rjôéojç. * * * Aeôœ/.are , è’Oet rt'A <paùX(p } -oXlrps 
 èÇouatav ras fioulop.ivcp ffuxotpayreîV) rrjç èîc't ra'tq Aotôoptaiq 
 ijdovyç. xat ydptroç ro rijÇ tz dÀetoç <rup.<pépov œsrr/.araXlarôp.vsoi: 
 It is natural for all men to willingly listen to invectives and accusa¬ 
 tions. * * * By a pernicious custom you grant all license to calum¬ 
 niators, and you prefer to hear personal injuries discussed, rather 
 than the interests of the state.” (Oration On the Crown.) 
 
 T HE ancients were unacquainted with the free¬ 
 dom of the press, but they enjoyed the freedom 
 of insults. As for the orators, their saturnalia and 
 freedom of speech lasted during the whole year. The 
 freedom of the Greek tribune equaled that of the 
 comic theater; it even continued a longer time. The 
 legislator required comedy to moderate its boldness 
 {Ad Plsones , 281 ); that of eloquence was never 
 checked. The dissoluteness of ancient comedy well 
 deserved to he suppressed by law. Never did the 
 Iambics of Archilochus contain more malice and anger 
 than Aristophanes’ pamphlets against Hyperbolus and 
 Cleon; they are outrages, floods of insults, torrents 
 of wrath. The Knights frequently present a spec¬ 
 tacle, perhaps less pleasing to us than to the Athe¬ 
 nian people, of repeated affronts, which remind us of 
 the licentiousness of the festivals of Priapus and 
 Bacchus. TheSpis’ tumbrel covers the public and 
 private life of the character represented with filthy 
 rubbish, which bears no resemblance to Atticism. 
 
 290 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 291 
 
 Even at the Pnyx and before the tribunal the orators 
 
 V 
 
 assailed one another with calumny and outrage, with¬ 
 out limit or measure. On both sides there was the 
 same animosity, the same violence. It was like the 
 whip-lash constantly whipping the top; like boiling 
 water when it causes the kettle, unable to contain it, 
 to grumble. 
 
 “ Chorus: Our man [Cleon] is boiling. Enough, enough! he 
 overflows; withdraw some of the wood and skim of his threats.” 
 
 Instead of calming the furious dispute, the chorus 
 excites it; it enrages Cleon and Agoracritus against 
 each other like two cocks. 
 
 “ Chorus: Bite, lacerate your enemy, pick off his crest, do 
 not return until you have devoured him. * * * Strike, strike 
 the villain who has thrown confusion among the knights,— 
 strike the public thief, the gulf of plunder, the devouring 
 charybdis, the rascal, the rascal! I cannot repeat this name 
 enough, for he is a rascal a thousand times a day. Come, 
 strike, push, overthrow, crush, hate him as we hate him; 
 stun him with your blows and cries. * * * Strike him with 
 all your might, punish him with the lash, chastise him in 
 every manner, — Oh, vigorous contest ! Oh, intrepid heart, you 
 are the deliverer of the city and of us all! Have you pun¬ 
 ished him sufficiently in this crushing assault? How can we 
 express our joy and praise you worthily?” 
 
 Aristophanes is here a very cruel commentator on 
 Athenian eloquence. Agoracritus and Cleon some¬ 
 times recall to our mind Demosthenes and Æscliines, 
 which must be regretted for the sake of the Greek 
 tribune. This assimilation is justified by the study of 
 their speeches, considered as pamphlets. Let us first 
 cite the causes which have rendered their resemblance 
 possible. 
 
 The first is the inferiority of moral delicacy among 
 
292 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the ancients. The orators of Athens and Rome were 
 little inspired with Plato’s love for justice. u Let the 
 people scorn you, if they think best, and, by Jupiter, 
 even suffer them to strike you in that ignominious 
 manner which you have mentioned [on the cheek]; 
 for such an injury is nothing, if you are really an 
 honorable man and practice virtue.” ( Gorgias .) The 
 ancients generally preferred revenge to the forgiveness 
 of injuries, a virtue recommended even by heathens,* 
 and at all times difficult. U I know how to love a 
 friend, but also to return hatred for hatred. I will 
 come upon my enemy unexpectedly by following the 
 windings of secret bypaths.” Aristotle, in the anal¬ 
 ysis of those passions which nourish eloquence, does 
 not forget wrath, and the pleasure experienced in 
 yielding to it. Wrath, said he, implies a resolution to 
 revenge, a hope to succeed in it, and the joy of antici¬ 
 pating the revenge; u and then we enjoy in our imagi¬ 
 nation a delightful satisfaction similar to that of a 
 dream. ”f Cicero declared that he had often been 
 angry with Piso. The immortal gods crowned his 
 desires. Piso’s humiliation delighted him. u What 
 satisfaction, what pleasure, what joy it brought to 
 me! ” He did much good for his friends g much evil 
 to his enemies. Such was the most honorable epitaph 
 of great personages, such was the envied eulogy of 
 cities. Pericles decreed it in favor of the ancestors of 
 those warriors whose funeral oration he pronounced. 
 
 In the Roman republic, where for many years aris¬ 
 tocracy was predominant, satirical freedom was moder¬ 
 ated by the fear of perishing under blows of the staff. £ 
 
 * De Officiis, i, 11, 25. f Rhetoric, i, 11, 12. 
 
 t Formidine fustis (Horace, Epistles , ii, 2.) The law of the Twelve 
 Tables was formal in this respect : “ Si qui pipulo oçcentasit carmenve. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 293 
 
 0 
 
 Dabunt Metelli malum Nævio Poetæ. 
 
 The Metelli will ajpply the rod to Mævius , the poet. 
 This same rod at Paris, in later days, while waiting in 
 the shade of the Bastile, fell upon the shoulders of 
 another poet, Arouet, from the hands not of Metellus, 
 chevalier de Bohan, but from the hands of his ser¬ 
 vants. This was an indication of fear to apply the rod 
 in person. Homer’s heroes did not hesitate to ex¬ 
 change gross insults. When Achilles was deprived 
 of his captive he treated Agamemnon as an impudent 
 iog. He was about to draw ‘ ‘ his great sword ” from 
 its scabbard; blue-eyed Minerva checked him. Do 
 not offer violence, but insult him with abusive lan¬ 
 guage to your heart’s content. Achilles, in accordance 
 with the injunction of the wise goddess, reprimanded 
 him unsparingly. u Drunkard, who hast the effrontery 
 of a dog and the heart of a hind, base king and de- 
 vourer of thy people!”* These familiarities were 
 permitted among kings. But when a villain, The^ 
 sites, dared to tell these same plain truths, vigorous 
 blows of the scepter (the heroic rod) applied upon his 
 shoulders until his blood flowed freely, made the inso¬ 
 lent babbler respectful to his superiors. Scepter and 
 rod were unknown to the democracy of Athens. Di¬ 
 ogenes, with all grace, asked Alexander to stand out 
 of his light. Perhaps he would have been less re¬ 
 served if he had not been a philosopher. 
 
 coudidit quod infame faxit flagitiumque alteri, fuste ferito.” “ That 
 law which best detected the design of the Decemvirs was the capital 
 punishment pronounced against the authors of libels and poets. This 
 was but the spirit of the republic, in which the people loved to see 
 the great humiliated. But people who wished to destroy liberty 
 feared writings which could recall the spirit of liberty.” (Esprit des 
 Lois, vi, 15.) 
 
 * ôy/iufiopoq. (Iliad, i, 231 ; ii, 212.) 
 
294 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 The orators at Athens were less philosophers than 
 cynics in their invectives; the right of defamation was 
 unlimited. A law of Solon protected the dead from 
 scandal, but not the living. To hold one’s tongue 
 when insult was offered would have been derogatory 
 to one of the prerogatives of the democratic constitu¬ 
 tion. The author of the Funeral Eulogy , which was 
 attributed to Demosthenes, praises, in democratic 
 states, the advantage of favoring what we call parlia¬ 
 mentary inquiries. Oligarchies, and especially despot¬ 
 isms, do not tolerate them, or at least render them use¬ 
 less. The guilty settle their difficulties with their 
 rulers and their crimes remain unknown to the people, 
 or unpunished. 
 
 “ But in a democracy, one of the greatest privileges which 
 the wise ought to support is the liberty of publishing the 
 truth with frankness and without opposition. The author of 
 a shameful deed cannot seduce an entire people; they are 
 jpimiliated by him who reveals the ignominious truth,— 
 humiliated by the pleasure which witnesses experience in 
 hearing the accuser.” 
 
 This privilege of popular government is praised in 
 the oration Against Androtion. 
 
 “ Solon knew,— yes, he knew well,— that the government 
 most hostile to dangerous citizens was that in which one man 
 was permitted to reproach another for his infamous acts. 
 What government was that? The democratic, * * * for in 
 an oligarchy it was forbidden to speak disparagingly of the 
 chiefs, even if their lives surpassed Androtion’s in turpitude.” 
 
 If the feudal Greek of Homer’s time had, in this 
 respect, experienced the democratic liberty of Athens, 
 we would have a different character in Agamemnon. 
 With pride and boasting, the king of kings carried off 
 Briseis. Among the high and low no one was found 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 295 
 
 who objected to it. An Acliæan publicly censured 
 sucli violence,— and who was the defender of right 
 against force ? Thersites. Before the full assembly be 
 attacked Agamemnon, whereupon Ulysses termed him 
 an insolent babbler, and made him weep under bis 
 blows. The Greeks applauded Ulysses’ exploit, which 
 in their eyes was a manly act; and at the sight of Ther¬ 
 sites’ wounds and tears ‘‘they were delighted and 
 laughed heartily.” The army did not foresee the evils 
 which the wrath of Thetis’ son was about to bring 
 upon them, anft which the triumph of the accuser Ther¬ 
 sites would have spared them. 
 
 Athens would have thanked Agamemnon’s adversary 
 for an invective which was useful to the commonwealth. 
 Her orators, however, were wrong to insult in order to 
 please, when it would have sufficed for the defense of 
 the city to use reason. But we must remember that 
 the law of progress is imposed and social morals are 
 perfected with time. Many errors of democratic liberty 
 which were tolerated at Borne and Athens are con¬ 
 demned by law and public conscience in modern re- ' 
 publics, less democratic than the ancient-, but more 
 civil. 
 
 Nausicaa accused the Phæcians of loving “bitter scan¬ 
 dal ” and “insolent insinuations.” * The Athenian, who 
 was from his birth malicious and backbiting, deserved 
 the same reproach. The sight of a contest of invective 
 pleased him as much as a quail-fight; especially if 
 scandal seasoned it. Young and old were present at 
 Timarchus’ trial, just as a certain class of our people 
 
 * Odyssey, vi, 273. Nicknames were fashionable at Athens. De¬ 
 mosthenes received those of Argos and Batlalus; Æschines’ mother, 
 that of Empussa; Aristoplion, that of Arclettus; Ilegesippus, that of 
 Crobylus. 
 
296 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 to-clay are anxious to hear the private afïairs of litigants 
 with closed doors. The Athenian people preferred in¬ 
 vective, even injurious, to a friend. Demosthenes was 
 very much devoted to the people, and yet he permitted 
 JEschines to insult them; while Philip, as our orator 
 informs us, did not permit Demosthenes to insult Æs- 
 cliines in his presence. The tragic poets did not forget 
 to satisfy this taste of the Athenian people. Sophocles’ 
 Ajax closes with a long dispute ( 'éptdôq nç often 
 
 insulting. In it Teucer addresses Menqiaus with “ in¬ 
 sane ” and “robber of votes ” (y.Xe-zr^ yo- ( nûç). Aga¬ 
 memnon coming on, the scene is prolonged and embit¬ 
 tered. Teucer, stung by the appellation of “big ox,” 
 “slave,” and “ barbarian,” humbles Agamemnon by 
 reminding him of his family history. Thy father Atreus 
 served his brother Thyestes the abominable feast in 
 which he ate his own children; thy mother, a Cretan, 
 was caught in the act of adultery, and thrown into the 
 sea like food to dumb fish, etc. * * * Before Ulysses, 
 who finally has come to settle the quarrel, Agamemnon 
 excuses himself for having at first refused burial to 
 Ajax. “It is not easy for a king to be just.” He 
 does not think of excusing his violent language. The 
 spectators, far from being surprised, were pleased with 
 the whole. 
 
 To these general causes we will add some others 
 that were peculiar to the modes of eloquence and 
 judicial organization at Athens. In transforming their 
 harangues into pamphlets, the Athenian orators made 
 diversions which were useful to their cause. They 
 turned the attention of the judge from the principal 
 point, sometimes difficult to establish,* and at the 
 
 * The Romans also used this same method of digression 
 Ttapéxfiafftç: Quintilian, iv, 3). Indignation, pity, hateful envy, 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 297 
 
 same time they procured his complaisance by flat¬ 
 tering one of his most decided inclinations. Aris¬ 
 tophanes, in the hope of branding a detested enemy, 
 cast handfuls of coarse salt on a mixed audience in 
 which all conditions, all ranks were found in one 
 theater.* His muse, sublime and ridiculous, some¬ 
 times shakes, with Iacclios, the sacred torch of the 
 initiated; sometimes, with Xanthias (Frogs), she vol¬ 
 untarily soils her wings in the mud of cross-roads. 
 Likewise, the Athenian orator, speaking before an 
 assembly, not selected but popular, sometimes forgot 
 the dignity of an art that was formerly imprinted 
 with the gravity of moral philosophy; he remembered 
 the instincts of a people inclined to raillery, jealous, 
 fond of outrage, and disposed to avenge themselves 
 by such means on superior talents and prominent 
 men. In connection with bursts of the grandest elo¬ 
 quence, he did not fear to descend to invectives that 
 were pleasing to his hearers or even impudent. 
 
 At Athens the public minister’s right of initiative 
 was extended to the entire public: any citizen could 
 enter a criminal charge against another. This dis¬ 
 position of the law, extolled as an excellent preroga¬ 
 tive of democratic government, favored accusation 
 and encouraged enmity. Sycophants, covetous and 
 hateful grumblers, hoped to obtain a part of the 
 criminal’s fortune if he was condemned. In all cases 
 they satisfied their hatred. Besides, the decision of 
 the suit was not intrusted to a few serious judges 
 who were imbued with the sanctity of their functions, 
 
 % * ' i 'i 
 
 invective (conviction), are so many means “of resting the judge” and 
 of unbending him. Sometimes invective is the very foundation of 
 the oration ; for example, the Oratio in Pisonem. 
 
 * Rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto. (Ad Pisones , 213.) 
 
298 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 nor to a limited and cliosen jury; but to a multitude 
 (sometimes fifteen hundred persons) ignorant of the 
 laws and subject to all popular passions; a partial 
 and blind mob who sat day after day for tlieir three 
 oboles, and consoled themselves for the miseries of 
 their humble condition by striking those of whom 
 they were jealous, or imagined they had a right to 
 hate. This class of judges, irritable and malicious,* 
 was armed with smarting darts, always ready to 
 pierce. And how the accused caressed this dreaded 
 master! The greatest prostrated themselves before 
 him, “brushed the flies from him, took the sponge 
 from the pot and blacked his boots ” (Wa ps). The 
 most powerful purchased his clemency, and woe be 
 to him who had formerly wounded him! 
 
 Imagine a tax-collector falling into this wasp’s nest ! 
 What revenge such a mob would take on him ! This 
 was the lot dreaded by poor Euxitlieus. And yet 
 he was a very modest person. His mother, a little 
 haberdasher, had to serve as nurse, and he himself sold 
 ribbons at the market. But he had been demarclius, 
 and an honest demarclius; he exacted payments from 
 the tenants of sacred groves; he forced the plunderers 
 of the public treasure to restitution. When accused 
 he had everything to fear. Androtion’s case was still 
 worse,— he had been a careful tax-collector, and his 
 accuser was Demosthenes.* Androtion, taking cowardly 
 advantage of their precarious position, molested two 
 
 * To endeavor to moderate them was like trying to “ cook a stone.” 
 (Aristophanes, Wasps, passim.) The Athenian people were dissatis¬ 
 fied if a promised accusation was abandoned; it was taking away 
 their prey. They felt ungrateful to Timotheus and Demosthenes for 
 failing to keep their promise to accuse Iphicrates and Midias. (Cf. 
 Antiphon, Oratores Atlici, §§ G9, 70.) A judicial error delivered the 
 Hellenotamœ to punishment. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 299 
 
 courtesans, Sinope and Plianostrate. He seized tlieir 
 furniture. Was his aim to take vengeance upon them 
 for the outrages of the libertines, who, instead of pay¬ 
 ing him for his kindness, beat him ? Androtion, a 
 pitiless persecutor, forced the poor to hide themselves 
 under their beds, or seek shelter in their neighbor’s 
 house. A more oj3pressive tyrant than ever were the 
 Thirty. He broke open the houses of citizens or changed 
 them into prisons ! Even under the eyes of the sover¬ 
 eign people we see this unworthy magistrate eager to 
 persecute the innocent, when his infamous acts declare 
 him unfit for public office; for he is known “to be 
 guilty of the most revolting excesses. He is impudent, 
 audacious, haughty, dishonest, fitted for anything ex¬ 
 cept to exercise an official function in the democracy.” * 
 W e will pass these crimes, and even worse than these. 
 Judge if, with an indigent f and revengeful monarch of 
 the suburbs, such an invective was well received and 
 the defamation efficacious. 
 
 The Athenian law required every citizen to defend 
 himself in person before the court. Often the com¬ 
 plainant, unskilled in eloquence, asked his barrister for 
 a written speech; but both were very careful to dissim¬ 
 ulate this strange recourse. The author of the speech 
 stamped it with his client’s spirit and passion; the cli¬ 
 ent pronounced it with the sincere emphasis of his own 
 resentment, and demanded vengeance with the earnest¬ 
 ness of an outraged man. In modern times, neither 
 the plaintiff nor the defendant address the audience. 
 
 * Against Androtion, § 47. 
 
 f He relied upon the triobole to purchase his dinner. ( Wasps, 
 verse 300.) The confiscations from which he hoped to receive his 
 part increased his covetousness. (Lysias, Against Epicrates , Oratores 
 Attici, § 1). 
 
300 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 Even if he should desire it, he has not the leisure to 
 inveigh against the magistrate, the author of the ad- 
 di •ess. The Greek pleader and defendant endeavored 
 to justify themselves by attacking the adverse party or 
 the accuser. If the logograplier substituted himself 
 in place of the client, appeared at the bar and attacked 
 the adversary directly, he was bound to prove by the 
 animosity of his attack that he prosecuted him as a 
 private enemy. The more violent his oration, the less 
 would be the belief that he had undertaken the defense 
 of another for money. Modern advocates declare their 
 disinterested impartiality; the logograplier, his personal 
 enmity or sometimes contrary feelings. Hyperides 
 thought it advantageous to declare before the Areopa¬ 
 gus that he was the lover of Pliryne, his client. For 
 a stronger reason the plaintiff did not hesitate to ex¬ 
 press his own affections. 
 
 The logograplier reviewed his adversary’s entire life 
 and abused him without mercy. Such outrages are 
 the exception with our advocates. The Greeks in¬ 
 sulted merely to insult. They wished to dishonor 
 their enemy, to brand him with public contempt in 
 order to more certainly produce the legal dishonor 
 ( àrt/j.îa ) pronounced by the judge, and that in a spirit 
 of revenge and enmity which was either real or feigned, 
 but in any case earnestly professed. The logograplier 
 had little shame, as his oration was generally deliv¬ 
 ered by another. Perhaps he would have recoiled be¬ 
 fore certain articulated calumnies if their author was 
 known. Anonymous insults ignore all modesty. 
 
 The Athenian tribunals took no pride in establish¬ 
 ing their sentences on right. Yery often they were 
 ignorant of the law, and if TEschines is to be believed, 
 who in his experience as clerk often witnessed the in- 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 301 
 
 different inattention of the judges, they took but little 
 care to learn it. The orators on their side appealed as 
 much to passion as to law.* In order to be success¬ 
 ful they inspired the judges with favorable or hostile 
 prejudices. To this end the advocate did not give 
 way sometimes before real infamies; for example, that 
 of a son publicly outraging his mother’s honor in the 
 hope of destroying the testimony of a brother whom 
 he thought necessary to prove a bastard, f Such 
 suitors did not scruple to use invective, therefore they 
 employed it unsparingly. For want of argument they 
 used insult, and often succeeded by this means. Hy- 
 perides, Dinarchus and Stratocles, Demosthenes’ ac¬ 
 cusers in the case of Harpalus, prosecuted “the pa¬ 
 tient” on charges and outrages of every character; 
 but precise facts and conclusive proofs were ignored. 
 They dispensed with all that should carry conviction. 
 It seemed that the accused was convicted before trial. 
 What was most necessary to carry the decision of a 
 popular tribunal ? Passionate reasoning, whose pathos 
 concealed the weakness or the absence of proofs. Rig¬ 
 orous demonstrations were not more necessary to the 
 Athenian orators than to Swift, when he wished to 
 arouse the Irish against Mr. Wood and his money 
 scheme in a pamphlet which w^as based, not upon rea¬ 
 son, but upon passion and skill, and which triumphed 
 over virtue and right. ^ 
 
 The Athenian logographers made a careful distinc¬ 
 tion between conviction {eXsyyoq) and invective (Xotdopia). 
 This was only in theory. In practice they confounded 
 
 * '0pyi^ea0e\ {Against Leptines, % 119.) Icpôdpa xpij opyiÇeffdai. 
 {Against Eratosthenes , passim.) 
 
 f Against Stephanus , i, § 83. 
 
 % Taine, English Literature. 
 
302 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 them. Sometimes invective seemed to be forced upon 
 the orator when he had to establish the unworthiness 
 of a proposer of a bill or law. A law of Solon forbade 
 citizens of infamous character and spendthrifts the use 
 of the tribune. Androtion proposed an illegal decree. 
 Diodorus attacked him. In his eyes Androtion was 
 twice culpable: first, for having made a motion con¬ 
 trary to the laws; second, for having made it at a 
 time when the unworthiness of his life legally forbade 
 him to submit to the people even a regular proposi¬ 
 tion. Androtion reproached his accuser for deceiving 
 the tribunal (who was engaged in another suit than 
 that of Diodorus) with imputations destitute of all 
 proof. Demosthenes, the author of Diodorus’ speech, 
 replied that he did not depart from the question, and 
 that his so-called insults were proofs. A modern tri¬ 
 bunal would see a manoeuvre foreign to the case in 
 the defamation of the accused. In certain cases at 
 Athens abuse was argument. The pamphlet was a 
 demonstration which disarmed the adversary by de¬ 
 grading him when his character prevented him from 
 being right. The law on unworthiness was therefore 
 very favorable to invective. It was always easy in a 
 city of lax morals to attack the private life of a po¬ 
 litical adversary. It is a common self-love to declare 
 worthless any man whose acts wound our feelings or 
 interests. 
 
 Modern men consider the validity of a motion, not 
 the character of the proposer. They consider rather 
 what it is than whence it comes. The Greeks some¬ 
 times refused to distinguish between the political per¬ 
 sonage and the private man, as if a citizen of question¬ 
 able character could not offer useful advice. Socrates 
 declared that a man unable to govern his house well 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 303 
 
 was unable to govern the state well (. Memorabilia , 
 iii, 4). “The affairs of a private individual are not as 
 numerous as public affairs; herein lies all the differ¬ 
 ence.” This Socratic prejudice seems to be an echo of 
 Solon’s law, which Æschines comments upon in these 
 terms against Timarclius : 
 
 “ In the legislator's opinion, he who has badly adminis¬ 
 tered his domestic affairs will not manage public charges 
 better. It is impossible for the same man to be a vicious 
 citizen and a good magistrate, and it is not proper to permit 
 an orator who is more careful to arrange the order of his 
 orations than the course of his life, to speak from the trib- 
 une. * 
 
 Therefore, to attack one’s private life is not only a 
 right, but a duty. It is a disagreeable proof salutary 
 to the city. From this it happens that “personal 
 enmities are turned to the welfare of the government,” 
 according to the Athenian proverb. Unfortunately 
 the orators, by abusing the law of unworthiness, weak¬ 
 ened its beneficial qualities. Too often pamphlet elo¬ 
 quence and private resentments profited more by it 
 than the commonwealth.t 
 
 * Against Timarclius , § 30. 
 
 f Invective sometimes formed a part of the oration. Sometimes it 
 pervaded the entire speech. Demosthenes’ speech Against Timocrates , 
 and Æschines’ harangue Against Ctesiylion , are composed of a judi¬ 
 cial discussion and a pamphlet. In Demosthenes’ harangue On the 
 Embassy hatred occupies as much space as demonstration ; but the 
 oration Against Timarclius is from beginning to end an invective. 
 Sometimes invective, in the same cause between two orators, seems 
 to have been reserved to one of them. Thus Demosthenes’ oration 
 Against Androtion is a deuterology in which invective predominates. 
 This is equally true of the oration Against Aristogiton. Lycurgus, 
 before the author of this second pleading, has especially treated the 
 question of right. 
 
304 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 II. In purely civil cases invective always preserved 
 something of the moderation of the Attic style. De¬ 
 mosthenes, in his oration Against Phormio , paints 
 Apollodorus in all hut flattering colors. But his re¬ 
 proaches are mild compared with the outrages that are 
 lavished in public and criminal cases. Private and 
 public life were equally a prey to the accuser. Ho 
 wall, no respect for decency, protected them. Abuse 
 from the rostrum seemed to be one of the forms of 
 political life, as it was one of the forms of eloquence. 
 The violent and wise employed it equally.* Plutarch 
 declares that these excesses are unworthy of a states¬ 
 man, and more injurious to the insulter than to the 
 insulted. It seemed to be difficult for ancient democ¬ 
 racies to prevent this abuse of liberty, and the great 
 men of Athens even preferred transitory humiliation 
 and insult to ostracism. Such insults in our day would 
 provoke bloody conflicts. At Athens they were en¬ 
 dured with philosophical resignation. Moreover, the 
 blows received were never mortal, and the injured 
 person was somewhat comforted by the hope of return¬ 
 ing them on some occasion. Insulting, insulted, out¬ 
 raging, outraged; such was the common condition, 
 relieved, of course, by the prospect of revenge and 
 the thought of equality. 
 
 Glaucetes, Menalopus, Androtion, and Timocrates, 
 were perhaps less moved than modern readers by the 
 insults which Demosthenes puts in the mouth of his 
 client Diodorus (.Against Timocrates ). Aristogiton, who 
 
 * Antiphon, invective against Alcibiades ; Lysias, against Eratos¬ 
 thenes and the Thirty; Dinarchus, against Demosthenes (trial of Har- 
 palus); Lycurgus, against Leocrates, a fugitive merchant after Chæ- 
 ronea, and against Lysicles; Hyperides, against Demades, and even 
 against Demosthenes, his friend. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 305 
 
 never blushed, could receive bis accuser’s assault with* 
 out much commotion. We must conclude that either 
 Aristogiton committed the crimes imputed to him, and 
 in that case the author of such acts was able to endure 
 a just representation of them, or that he was innocent, 
 and therefore his enemy’s odious exaggeration de¬ 
 stroyed its own force, and fell upon his incredulous 
 audience without effect. Aristogiton left his father in 
 prison; the old man died. His excellent son refused 
 to bury him, and even brought suit against those who 
 discharged his duty at tlieir own expense. He struck 
 his mother; he sold his sister for exportation.* Zobia, 
 a woman, received him kindly at her house. He 
 dragged her before the magistrates, and endeavored to 
 sell his benefactress. Thrown into prison, he stole 
 from a fellow-prisoner a bill of exchange, and besides, 
 he cut off his nose. 
 
 From the private man judge the citizen. 
 
 “ No man in Athens is stained with greater and more 
 numerous vices. Why, then, should we save him? He is the 
 people’s dog, they say; yes, but one of those curs which, in¬ 
 stead of biting what we call wolves, devour the sheep whose 
 guardians they pretend to be. What orator has he summoned 
 
 * 1 Etz èçayœyÀ àxédoTo. Timocrates was also reproached for 
 disposing of his parents in this manner. “A deputy who was a 
 guest of Timocrates and an inhabitant of Corcyra, a city hostile to 
 Athens, wished to have his sister (we omit his motive). How much 
 for her? So much. Take her. * * * And now she is in Corcyra.” 
 (Didot.) Satyrus declared to Philip that he would not derive any 
 profit ( /.epdavà) oùôév) from the daughters of his friend Apolloplia- 
 nes, when he besought that prince to give them to him (Embassy). 
 Aristophanes represents a Magarian as less particular. He sold his 
 two young daughters for a little garlic and a measure of salt. “ Oh, 
 Mercury, god of commerce, would that I could sell my mother and 
 wife at the same price!” With such men Philip could easily come 
 to an agreement. 
 
 13 * 
 
306 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 to justice since his reappearance on the rostrum? None but 
 private individuals.* It has been said that when a dog has 
 once tasted mutton he should be killed. Therefore kill 
 Aristogiton as soon as possible. He renders you, Athenians, 
 none of the services of which he boasts; his designs are alto¬ 
 gether criminal and impudent. * * * He advances on the 
 public place like a viper or scorpion, with poisonous sting; 
 he darts from side to side spying his unfortunate victim in 
 order to pierce him with his calumnies, or afflict him with 
 some evil, or intimidate him and then impose upon him. * * * 
 A savage, a vagabond, an enemy to all good society, he is igno¬ 
 rant of the blessing of civility, friendship and all the inclina¬ 
 tions of honest people. He prowls about, escorted by mon¬ 
 sters with whom painters surround the impious in Hades,— 
 Imprecation, Calumny, Envy, Sedition, and Discord. Such is 
 the wretch whom the infernal gods, far from pitying, would 
 consign to the ranks of the impious; and you, not satisfied 
 with pardoning this criminal who has been delivered to your 
 justice, would accord to him not only impunity, but favors 
 which have been refused to benefactors of the commonwealth. 
 
 “If a cancer, a gnawing ulcer, or any other malady, has 
 triumphed over remedies, the physicians burn them out or 
 cut them out with the knife. In like manner banish, expel 
 from Athens, this incorrigible beast; exterminate him from 
 the city before he wounds you. None of you, perhaps, have 
 ever been bitten by a viper or a tarantula, and I hope you 
 never will be. Nevertheless as soon as you see one of these 
 animals, you readily kill it. In like manner, Athenians, as 
 soon as you see the reptile called sycophant, full of gall and 
 poison, do not await until he bites some one of you, but let 
 the one who is first threatened always strike him.” f 
 
 * “ Quid immerentes hospites vexas, canis 
 
 Ignavus adversum lupos?” (Horace, Epochs , 6.) 
 
 f Didot. The comparison of orators with vipers seemed established 
 at Athens. (Cf. Oratores Attici , § 84.) 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 307 
 
 Æscliines treated Timarchus no better; and yet he 
 declared that he used the greatest moderation toward 
 him. He could have ex}30sed his childhood to oppro¬ 
 brium. He generously declined to do so. He was 
 willing to forget it, like the acts of the Thirty, previous 
 to the archonship of Euclides. But with what rapture 
 he compensated himself on the youth and manhood of 
 the accused! We will not cite any of the prosecutor’s 
 address. Its impudence equaled that of his own life. 
 The speech Against Midias is more approachable. It 
 presents the special character of a tribunitial pamphlet, 
 and recalls the harangues of the plebeians, arousing 
 popular indignation against the insolence of the Appii. 
 Cicero taught his pupil to excite the passion of envy, 
 “the most penetrating of all.” Livy’s orators never 
 employed this device with more art than did the author 
 of In Midi am. 
 
 “ Must I tell you, Athenians, that between the rich and 
 us, the mass of the people, there exists neither equality nor 
 common right? No, neither of these exists. The wealthy 
 are granted all the delay they desire before appearing, and 
 their crimes are superannuated and cold when they are dis¬ 
 cussed before the tribunal. But among us the perpetrator of 
 
 They have wit¬ 
 nesses ready to come forward and prostitute themselves 
 (< pOsîpîfjOai ) at their call, and all the slanderers fly to them 
 to accuse us; and in my case you see how citizens have even 
 refused me a testimony of veracity. Consider why you are 
 assembled here together. Isolated, you are too weak to com¬ 
 pete with citizens who are proud of their friends, their 
 riches, and a thousand resources, but from your union you 
 derive a force superior to each of them, and you check their 
 insolence. 
 
 “ Where, then, is his magnificence? Where are his bur¬ 
 densome magistracies? I do not see, unless we consider his 
 
 a trivial offense is condemned immediately 
 
308 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 palace at Eleusis, which obscures all homes in the neighbor¬ 
 hood. Where are his great liberalities? The two white 
 horses from Sicyon, with which he conducts his wife to the 
 mysteries of Ceres, or wherever her whims may direct; the 
 three or four slaves who always attend him when strutting 
 about in public places; when speaking of his precious cups, 
 his vases and his rich flagons, in a tone loud enough to be 
 heard by the passers by.* What advantages, citizens, do you 
 derive from Midias’ opulence and from his pompous luxury? 
 I do not know, but I see the outrages which he, proud of his 
 gold, has perpetrated On the multitude and on the first whom 
 he encounters. * * * 
 
 “Wealthy and eloquent, this enemy of the Gods sees in 
 others only impure beings, beggars and worthless people 
 (robç oùdév). What will this proud contemner not do if he is 
 acquitted! As soon as the first sentence condemns him, 
 Midias declaims, inveighs and protests. If the question is an 
 election, Midias of Anagyrontes advances to the front. He is 
 Plutarch’s man of affairs. He is involved in secrets. Athens 
 cannot hold him. Now, in all these motives he evidently 
 has no other object than to show that the sentence of the 
 people has not reached him. He does not fear it. He does 
 not dread the consequence. To think that he would degrade 
 himself if he should seem to fear you, to boast of braving 
 you,— does not this, Athenians, deserve death ten times? Yes, 
 
 * Midias displays liis riches. He therefore insults the poor peo¬ 
 ple. If he was simple in his mode of life, and reserved in his man¬ 
 ners, would he escape slander? Not at all. Stephanus has an austere 
 figure. He walks along the walls. He means to pass for an humble 
 man, and is only an avaricious egotist, whose sole thought is the pro¬ 
 tection of his purse. A frowning look, a cold exterior, will serve 
 him as a barrier against solicitors and beggars (Didot). It is difficult 
 to satisfy all and the Athenian sycophant. Nicias was brave in w-ar. 
 He lived at Athens, and his heart was always sad at the thought of 
 informers. He seldom went out. He walked very discreetly on the 
 public ways, and always had money in his hand for the needy. (Plu¬ 
 tarch, Life of Nicias.) 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 309 
 
 he imagines that you will be unable to pronounce on his fate. 
 Wealthy, audacious, haughty in his notions, haughty in his 
 language, violent, bold, when will you seize him if he escapes 
 you to-day? 
 
 “If he were innocent in other respects, the orations with 
 which he addresses you, the circumstances under which he 
 pronounces them, would, in my opinion, deserve the severest 
 punishment. You know that when news favorable to our 
 country, and delightful to us all, has been announced, Midias 
 has never been seen among the number of those who con¬ 
 gratulated the people and shared their joy. But if one of 
 those reverses, which we would all have wished to avert, 
 happens, he is the first to rise; he immediately mounts the 
 tribune, he adds insults to the misfortune of the times, and, 
 triumphing in consequence of the silence to which sadness 
 and misfortune have reduced you, he exclaims: ‘Indeed, 
 Athenians, you are strange people; you do not go to the 
 war, you refuse to contribute to it, and then you are sur¬ 
 prised at your want of success! Do you imagine that I will 
 contribute for you, and that you will enjo} 7- my liberality? 
 Do you believe that I am disposed to equip vessels in which 
 you will not embark?’ Behold how he insults you, and on 
 every occasion he unveils that bitterness and malevolence 
 which his heart secretly nourishes against the people. Well, 
 then, Athenians, when he will employ his lamentations, his 
 tears and his prayers to abuse and mislead you, answer him 
 in your turn: “ Indeed, Midias, you are a strange man. You 
 are lavish in your insults; you refuse to suppress violence 
 with your hands, and then you are surprised to find your¬ 
 self the victim of wickedness! Do you imagine that we will 
 bow under your blows, and that you will strike us with im¬ 
 punity? that our suffrages will pardon you, and that you 
 will persist in your violence? ” 
 
 Demosthenes attributed to Midias words which had 
 more than once honored our orator, but he clothed 
 
310 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 them in accents of haughty contempt when applied 
 to Midias. He reproached Midias for using them, as 
 Æschines, in a later day, reproached Demosthenes 
 for the same words and to the same end — exciting 
 popular feeling against a courageous censor. Demos¬ 
 thenes in fact eulogized Midias without intending to. 
 
 “Suppose, Oh Judges, that our wishes reject this pre¬ 
 vision, and that it will not be realized; but suppose that 
 these men, with Midias and his equals, are masters of the 
 commonwealth. A private citizen arrested in the ranks of 
 the people, guilty of some offense toward one of those men, 
 but a mild offense compared with Midias’ insult toward 
 me — suppose this citizen appears before a tribunal com¬ 
 posed of such judges, do you think that he will receive 
 pardon, or the right to defend himself? Will they immedi¬ 
 ately pardon him? will they hear the prayers of a man of 
 the people? will they not rather cry out: ‘ The envious, the 
 miserable wretch! he is insolent; he ought to deem him¬ 
 self fortunate that he is permitted to live!’ Treat them, 
 Athenians, as they would treat you; be not dazzled by their 
 riches or their credit; but consider what you are. They 
 have much property, in the possession of which no one 
 troubles them; in their turn let them not trouble you in 
 the security of yours; the law assures every citizen the en¬ 
 joyment of his rights.” 
 
 In other words, be toward the wealthy what the 
 wealthy would be toward you,— pitiless and lawless. 
 This is a strange way to defend the rights of the 
 people, and to plead equality. “I ask that the ac¬ 
 quittal or condemnation shall not depend on the will 
 of such or such a one; but that the accused shall 
 receive the judgment due him according to facts 
 which protect or defeat him. Such is the spirit of 
 democracy ” (Embassy). Thus spoke Æschines’ ac- 
 
INVECTIVE IN GEEEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 311 
 
 cuser. Midias’ accuser seemed to understand the 
 laws of democracy otherwise. He created hatred 
 among citizens by the iniquity of retaliation; he added 
 fuel to the flame of spite and popular jealousy, and 
 when he saw the audience exasperated, and worked 
 up to the pitch to which his personal passion carried 
 them, he did not forget to say when sentence was 
 about to be pronounced: “ Remain firm in the opin¬ 
 ions which you hold at this moment.” So much did 
 he fear that the kindled hatred would grow cold, and 
 vengeance would escape him! 
 
 Demosthenes, the statesman, strengthened himself 
 by holding the balance of power between the different 
 parties of the city. He addressed them with an au¬ 
 thority which was justified by an impartial devotion. 
 Personal feeling inspired the private citizen with re¬ 
 criminations worthy of a seditious demagogue. What 
 wonder that the sycophants often had the best of the 
 case before a tribunal prepared in this manner? if 
 Demosthenes stooped like them to employ the basest 
 passions ? if he stirred up the poor against the rich, 
 the low against the great ? The Oratio in Midiam 
 was not pronounced. It ought never to have been 
 written. We see in it a remarkable specimen of the 
 license of Athenian eloquence and an illustrious ex¬ 
 ample of the power which custom had over minds that 
 were badly governed. It was necessary to brand an 
 adversary, and under all circumstances to render him 
 odious in order to condemn him before the people. 
 Demosthenes submitted to this usage and did not deem 
 it derogatory. The evil which he did his enemies his 
 enemies inflicted on him every day. Why should De¬ 
 mosthenes not insult Midias when Æsclnnes convoked 
 all Greece before the lieliasts to insult Demosthenes ? 
 
312 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 According to Demosthenes, Æschines raised the de¬ 
 bate On the Grown merely to have an illustrious oppor¬ 
 tunity to drag him in the mud. The pamphleteer’s 
 violence and desperation seem to justify this suspicion. 
 Æschines’ regret is that his virtuous indignation is 
 not shared by the people. ‘‘Such is your disposition 
 toward Demosthenes. Habit has hardened you on 
 the recital of his crimes. You must change, Athe¬ 
 nians; you must be indignant and punish if you would 
 save the wreck of the commonwealth.”* The orator 
 aided them to the best of his ability in inspiring proper 
 sentiments. “If there is in any part of the world any 
 kind of perversity in which I cannot prove that De¬ 
 mosthenes has excelled, I demand death.” These are 
 declarations rich with promises, and if the insulter did 
 not hold to them it was no fault of his. If he attacked 
 a man he noted his dissolute manners and his contempt 
 for all family affections. We know how he wept over 
 his daughter. Go and ask Cnosion what price he laid 
 upon his faithful wife. We are told that it costs more 
 to support one vice than two children. Demosthenes, 
 who has no (legitimate) children, labors hard to sup¬ 
 port his vices. Very soon ruined, he sells himself 
 to clients, an unfaithful logographer, a hireling and 
 deceiver of both parties. This enemy of tyrants (tf 
 A uaoTüpavvoç ) sold himself to Philip and Alexander, and 
 then insulted them in order to better conceal his game, 
 which all know. There is not a single member of his 
 body, not excepting his tongue, which he has not sold, 
 and yet he claims to be an Aristides ! Midias boxed 
 his ears in public,— a fortunate encounter! Demos- 
 
 * Didot. We here make an allusion indistinctively to the invec¬ 
 tives directed against Demosthenes in the speeches On the Embassy , 
 On the Crown , and in the pleading Against Timarchus. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 313 
 
 tlienes will cash these handy-cuffs. No money is un¬ 
 acceptable to him, not even that which lie hoped to 
 extort from his cousin, Demomeles of Peania, by in¬ 
 dicting blows upon his own head with his own hand. 
 
 As a public man, Demosthenes must have elbow 
 room, he must do things on a great scale. Formerly 
 he contented himself with the cheating of rich orphans, 
 with the defrauding of his pupils, and with the despoil¬ 
 ing of an unfortunate exile, Aristarchus. Henceforth 
 this u jmrse-cutter ” (fiaXavrcoTÔ/j.oç') will pilfer the finances 
 of the state. He will turn to his own profit the trib¬ 
 utes of our allies. He will attribute to himself the 
 liberties of foreign people. Was he not convicted of 
 the theft of sixty-six talents offered by Darius, at a 
 time when nine of those talents would have secured 
 the safety of the Thebans, whose misfortune drew so 
 many tears from him ? Did he not pilfer a whole 
 squadron of sixty-five vessels ? Such a man, returning 
 to his trade of sophistry, ill deserves to succeed in his 
 oratorical schemes. And what an insidious address he 
 has ! What perfidy in his speeches ! Does the im¬ 
 pudent, perjured debater forget that u he must change 
 his hearers or the gods?” He is a “modern Tlier- 
 sites ” as regards his insolence and cowardice. Brave 
 in words, cowardly in combat, ever ready to talk and 
 impotent to act. Stained with all vices, he affects 
 virtue. ( xdOapp.a Ç^Iotû-ouv àperrjv.') He has been im¬ 
 plicated in two assassinations.* A violator of the 
 most sacred laws, he prosecutes his friends criminally 
 
 * Greek calumnies sometimes border on the ridiculous. A dis¬ 
 ciple of Epicurus, Idomeneus of Lampsacus, accused Pericles of 
 having treacherously killed Ephialtes, his intimate friend, the con¬ 
 fidant and coadjutor of his plans. “I do not know,” says Plutarch 
 {Life of Pericles , 10), “where Idomeneus met with this calumny, 
 which he vents with great bitterness against this great man.” 
 
 14 
 
314 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 and has them condemned to death. He accuses others 
 of versatility,— “this deserter whom the scorching 
 iron has neglected to brand,” this “ brute, unworthy 
 of the name of man.” The most notorious criminals 
 of Greece, Eurybates and Phrynondas, were ordinary 
 scoundrels compared to him. What wonder if the 
 malediction connected with his impure nature and with 
 his impiety has ruined the state and provoked dis¬ 
 asters which have disturbed the world ? 
 
 This modified sketch from Æscliines 1 tablets gives 
 some idea of the violence expressed in the original, 
 and inspires us with little confidence in Æscliines’ in¬ 
 nocence. You are angry, therefore you are wrong. 
 Demosthenes touches the secret wound with the sharp 
 point of his stylet. The wounded man cries out. En¬ 
 able to justify himself, he offers insult. “You know, 
 of course, on the late occasion in the Piræus, when 
 you would not allow him to be your envoy, how he 
 shouted out that he would impeach and indict me, with 
 cries of c Shame, shame ! ’ ” Yet all that is the prelude 
 to numerous contests and arguments, whereas these 
 are simple, and perhaps but two or three words, which 
 a slave bought yesterday might have spoken. “ Athe¬ 
 nians, it is atrocious. Here is a man accusing me of 
 what he himself has been concerned in, and saying that 
 I have taken money, when he has taken it himself.” 
 Nothing of this kind did he say or utter. None of 
 you heard him, but he threatened something different. 
 Why ? Because he was conscious of guilt, and not in¬ 
 dependent enough to speak those words. His resolu¬ 
 tion never reached that point, but shrank back, for his 
 conscience checked it. No one, however, prevented 
 him from indulging in general abuse and calumny.”* 
 
 * Embassy, § 209. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 315 
 
 Even here Æscliines betrays himself. Ilis violence is 
 
 %j 
 
 turned against himself. “ I have seen men,” says he, 
 “who drew hatred on themselves by speaking too dis¬ 
 tinctly of others’ turpitudes.” It is not Æscliines’ 
 clearness or frankness that defames him in our eyes, 
 but the very excess of his rage. 
 
 Demosthenes frequently complained of Æscliines’ 
 “cruelty.” This cruelty was very apparent in the 
 bitterness and envenomed address of his invectives. 
 Never was an orator more dexterous in painting feel¬ 
 ings and actions in odious colors, and in flattering 
 the base instincts of the multitude to the detriment of 
 an enemy. The terms in which Demosthenes char¬ 
 acterizes Æscliines’ outrageous hatred are not too 
 strong. Æscliines smears him with mud ( 'r.por^laxiffp.ôç ) ; 
 he vomits upon him “old dregs” ( kwXoxpaffiav ), and the 
 frightful mixture of his corruption and iniquities.” We 
 can understand how Demosthenes, lacerated by so ven¬ 
 omous a tooth, twice believed that he ought to appeal 
 to all the immortal gods in his exordiums. It seems 
 that their united protections would not be sufficient to 
 save him. 
 
 III. Demosthenes declared that he was not “fond of 
 invective by nature” (ov <pdoXo(dopoç <pbaet), He had no 
 particular taste for insults, hut if he was not fond of 
 pamphlets, he was occasionally very competent to use 
 them. We have already mentioned the impressive 
 sensibility of Demosthenes. Æscliines compared him 
 to a woman on account of the vivacity of his passion 
 ([yuvaixsiu> à'sOnw-aj zrp opyrjv). Now, every sensitive mind 
 is naturally vindicative. Byron and Pope in their satires 
 afford striking illustrations of this. Those minds which 
 are most accessible to kind impressions are sometimes 
 
316 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 so to contrary emotions; their sensibility forces them 
 to be always profoundly touched. And so Demosthe¬ 
 nes, who had a nervous nature and was easily moved 
 to tears, seemed more capable than the phlegmatic of 
 piercing resentments. This is apparent from the smart¬ 
 ing wound which the outrages of Midias inflicted on 
 his pride. Even after long days the wound pierced 
 him. 
 
 “ It is by an eneni} r when sober, in the morning, with out¬ 
 rageous intentions and not under the influence of wine, in 
 the presence of a great number of citizens and strangers, 
 that I have been insulted. * * * It is not the blow, it is the 
 affront, that excites my wrath. A free man not only deems 
 himself unworthy to be struck, but he deems himself un¬ 
 worthy to be struck and insulted. Many circumstances 
 accompanied the blow, some of which cannot, Athenians, be 
 expressed by him who received it. The action, the look, the 
 tone of a man who strikes to insult, who strikes through 
 hatred, who strikes with clinched fist, who strikes upon the 
 cheek; this is what provokes, this is what exasperates men 
 who are not accustomed to be covered with mud.” 
 
 The affront which Æschines offered in the eyes of all 
 Greece could be no less grievous to him. Compelled to 
 defend himself, Demosthenes did not wish to abandon 
 the tribune and be worsted (e/wv eXarrov). He therefore 
 returned outrage for outrage “with a moderation as 
 great as possible,” confining himself to “strict neces¬ 
 sity.” Æschines prescribed his course. He pretended 
 to demonstrate that Demosthenes’ private fortune had 
 precipitated the ruin of public affairs. Demosthenes 
 established the fact that he was better than Æschines, 
 and born of better ancestors, and that in all respects 
 the condition of his entire life had been happier than 
 that of his accuser. The compass of the antithesis can 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 317 
 
 easily be conjectured. Æscliines’ entire life was de¬ 
 meaned, and not only Æscliines, but bis friends, bad to 
 pass under tbe orator’s lasli. This proceeding, justified 
 in tliis case by particular circumstances, was, however, 
 familiar to Greek eloquence. Parents, friends and de¬ 
 fenders of opposing parties were maltreated in like 
 manner.* They did not even always await tbe person’s 
 birth to ridicule him; they anteceded tbe cradle. Midias 
 was born, as all know, secretly, mysteriously, like a 
 certain hero of tragedy. As soon as be was born bis 
 mother wished to do him justice in advance. Like a 
 woman of good sense, she sold him; another woman 
 bought him. Foolish woman! Could she not have 
 made a better purchase at the same price ? * * * 
 The rest in the future. Aristophanes did not curse 
 his enemies as far back as the fourth generation, 
 but he unmercifully persecuted them (for example, 
 Lamachus and Cleonymes) in their infancy. Greek 
 eloquence was equally unmerciful. Æscliines, who 
 termed Demosthenes the “bastard of a sword-cutler,” 
 could not cast reflections on his father and mother as 
 he would like to do (his father was a “ freed-man, it 
 cannot be denied); he therefore went back to his grand¬ 
 mother, “ a barbarian,” and to his maternal ancestor, a 
 certain Gylon, who “was condemned to death as a 
 traitor.” Demosthenes sgid that he feared to give 
 details concerning Æscliines’ family because they would 
 be unworthy of his accuser. And yet he gave them 
 and even lavished them without much regard for his 
 own dignity. 
 
 We regret to see so finished a work as the oration 
 On the Crown disfigured by gross outrages which are 
 repugnant to modern delicacy. We could pardon De- 
 
 * Lysias, Against Eratosthenes , §§ 62, 78. 
 
318 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 mosthenes for his railleries addressed to Æschines’ 
 father, the slave Tromes (the Trembler) transforming 
 himself into Atrometus (the Fearless). But does it 
 become him to condemn Glaucothea, the common 
 courtesan Empussa, the gypsy who married every 
 day in the week ? Even Aristophanes does not ridicule, 
 to such extremes, the herb-seller who presented Athens 
 with Euripides the sophist. Æschines allows his family 
 to be traduced before the tribunal called to pass judg¬ 
 ment on the Embassy. It is also traduced in Demos¬ 
 thenes’ oration, but under the maledictions of an enemy 
 who spits in his face. What has become of the mag¬ 
 nanimous and patriotic magistrate who was inspired 
 with the majesty of Athens '( While hearing Æschines 
 and Demosthenes one would believe himself trans¬ 
 ported from the Propylæa to the midst of the market¬ 
 place. A merchant-woman recognized Theophrastus by 
 his foreign accent. The accent of the two antagonists 
 was undoubtedly Attic; but did Atticism find place in 
 invectives which were apparently borrowed from the 
 heart of the Piræus ? 
 
 We will here omit what our orator likewise ought to 
 have omitted, and we will only quote a page which is 
 worthy of him : 
 
 “ But you, the man of dignity, who spit upon others, look 
 what sort of fortune is yours compared with mine! As a 
 boy, you were reared in abject poverty, waiting with your 
 father on the school, grinding the ink, sponging the benches, 
 sweeping the room, doing the duty of a menial rather than a 
 freeman’s son. After you were grown up you attended your 
 mother’s initiations, reading her books and helping in all the 
 ceremonies. At night, wrapping the noviciates in fawn-skin, 
 swilling, purifying and scouring them with clay and bran, 
 raising them after lustrations, and bidding them say ‘Bad 1 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 319 
 
 have 'scaped, and better I have found ’ ; priding yourself that no 
 one ever bowled* so lustily, — and I believe him! for don’t 
 suppose that be who speaks so loud is not a splendid bowler! 
 In the daytime you lead your noble orgiasts, crowned with 
 fennel and poplar, through the highways, squeezing the big¬ 
 cheeked serpents, and lifting them over your head, and shout¬ 
 ing Eva Saba , and capering to the words Hyes Attes , Attes 
 Hyes , saluted by the beldames as Leader, Conductor, Chest- 
 bearer, Fan-bearer, and the like, getting as your reward 
 tarts and biscuits and rolls, for which any man might well 
 bless himself and his fortune! 
 
 “ When you were enrolled among your fellow townsmen,— 
 by what means I stop not to inquire, — when you were en¬ 
 rolled, however, you immediately selected the most honorable 
 of employments, — that of clerk and assistant to our petty 
 magistrates. From this you were removed after awhile, 
 having done yourself all that you charge others with; and 
 then, sure enough, you disgraced not your antecedents by 
 your subsequent life, but hiring yourself to those ranting 
 players, as they were called, Simylus and Socrates, you acted 
 third parts, collecting figs and grapes and olives like a fruit¬ 
 erer from other men’s farms, and getting more from them 
 than from the playing, in which the lives of your whole com¬ 
 pany were at stake; for there was an implacable and inces¬ 
 sant war between them and the audience, from whom you 
 received so many wounds that no wonder you taunt as 
 cowards people inexperienced in such encounters. 
 
 But passing over what may be imputed to poverty, I will 
 come to the direct charges against your character. You 
 espoused such a line of politics (when at last you thought of 
 taking to them) that, if your country prospered, you lived 
 the life of a hare, fearing and trembling, and ever expecting 
 to be scourged for the crimes of which your conscience ac- 
 
 * 'OXokiizai designates a sharp cry probably analogous to the 
 youyou of the Mussulmans. (Cf. Demosthenes, Embassy , § 209, ftow^ra 
 
 XCU U)0 IOU.) 
 
320 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 cused you ; though all have seen how bold you were during 
 the misfortunes of the rest. A man who took courage at the 
 death of a thousand citizens, what does he deserve at the 
 hands of the living? A great deal more that I could say 
 about him I shall omit; for it is not all I can tell of his tur¬ 
 pitude and infamy which I ought to let slip from my tongue, 
 but only what is not disgraceful to myself to mention. 
 
 “ Contrast now the circumstances of your life and mine, 
 gently and with temper, Æschines, and then ask these people 
 whose fortune they would each of them prefer. You taught 
 reading; I went to school. You performed initiations; I 
 received them. You danced in the chorus; I furnished it. 
 You were assembly-clerk; I was a speaker. You acted third 
 parts; I heard you. You broke down, and I hissed. . You 
 have worked as a statesman for the enemy; I for my country. 
 I pass by the rest; but this very day I am on my probation 
 for a crown, and am acknowledged to be innocent of all 
 offense; while you are already judged to be a pettifogger, 
 and the question is, whether you shall continue that trade, 
 or at once be silenced by not getting a fifth part of the votes. 
 A happy fortune, do you see, you have enjoyed, that you 
 should denounce mine as miserable. 
 
 “ Come, now, let me read the evidence of the jury of pub¬ 
 lic services which I have performed. And by way of compari- 
 son, do you recite me the verses which you murdered: 
 
 “ From Hades and tlie dusky realms I come.” 
 
 And 
 
 “ Ill news, believe me, I am loth to bear.” 
 
 “ Ill betide thee, say I, and may the Gods,— or at least the 
 Athenians,— confound thee for a vile citizen and a vile third- 
 rate actor! 
 
 “ Read the evidence! ” f 
 
 Demosthenes was not as disinterested in personal 
 passions as he professed to be. We can conjecture 
 
 f Pro Corona. (Cf. Embassy , passim.) 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 321 
 
 this from the very care which he took to defend him¬ 
 self against such a charge, and from his eagerness 
 to throw upon his adversary the suspicion of such 
 feelings. At the time of the Amphissian war, Demos¬ 
 thenes wished to reveal Æschines’ manœuvers with¬ 
 out delay; his mouth was closed: “Some suspected 
 me of wishing to bring against him, through personal 
 animosity, a chimerical accusation.” The mutual ani- 
 mosity of the two orators was a secret to no one at 
 Athens. The pleading Against Theocrines distinctly 
 made allusion to it. “When the case was called, a 
 man swore that the accused (Demosthenes) was ill; 
 and in the meantime Demosthenes was running about, 
 inveighing against Æschines.” Zeal for the public 
 welfare, we may suppose, was not always the sole 
 motive of Demosthenes’ fervid persecution of Æschines, 
 but at least he had the advantage of probity. One day 
 the Athenians wished to force him to accuse a citizen; 
 he refused, and when the people murmured, he said: 
 “Athenians, I will always give you my counsels, even 
 when you do not wish them; but I will never play 
 the sycophant, even when you wish it.” Demos¬ 
 thenes proved Æschines a sycophant, and with more 
 dignity than the aggressor ever manifested. 
 
 Now, that which consoles the reader for the out¬ 
 rages which Demosthenes lavished upon his enemy 
 is the thought that the interested ally of the Mace¬ 
 donians was not, upon the whole, worthy of esteem. 
 We could not pardon him for having insulted and 
 ridiculed Æschines’ humble occupations and his ne¬ 
 cessitous family, if he had not the right and cause to 
 stigmatize the citizen. Demosthenes revenged the 
 commonwealth and the people by revenging himself. 
 Therefore no one could tell, by hearing his indignant 
 
322 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 voice, wliat sentiment inspired him,—hatred for Æs- 
 cliines or love for Athens,— to such a degree was 
 his eagerness to combat him mixed with personal 
 animosity and patriotism. The constant union of 
 these two passions, which seemed to nourish each 
 other in him, gave to his invectives a generous accent, 
 which raised them above an ordinary pamphlet. 
 When he showed the prevaricating deputy running 
 after Philip to the quarry, or selling a city to which 
 he and his friends owed so much, his discourse united 
 an address embittered with private resentments to 
 one of solemn reprobation offered up by his country. 
 
 “ Five or six days after, when the Phocians had been de¬ 
 stroyed, and this man’s hire had come to an end like any¬ 
 thing else, and Dercylus had returned from Chalcis, and 
 reported to you, in assembly at the Piræus, that the Phocians 
 were destroyed; and you, men of Athens, naturally on re¬ 
 ceiving that intelligence, were smitten with compassion for 
 them and terror on your own account, and passed a vote to 
 bring in your women and children from the country, and 
 to repair the garrisons and fortify the Piræus, and offer the 
 Heraelean sacrifice within the city,— in this state of things, 
 when the commonwealth was in the midst of such confusion 
 and alarm, this clever, and powerful and loud-voiced orator, 
 without any appointment by the council or the people, went 
 off as ambassador to the author of all the mischief, taking 
 into account neither the illness on which he grounded his 
 excuse, nor the fact that another ambassador had been chosen 
 in his stead, nor that the law provides the penalty of death 
 for such conduct, nor how monstrous it was, after reporting 
 that a price had been set upon his head in Thebes, when the 
 Thebans had in addition to the lordship of all Bceotia become 
 masters also of the Phocian territory, to take a journey then 
 to the heart of Thebes and the Theban camp; so insane was 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 323 
 
 he, so intent upon his pelf and reward, that in defiance and 
 despite of all these considerations he took himself off. * * * 
 
 “He forgot that the safety of the country is our safety; 
 that in this same country his mother owed to her profession 
 of initiations and of purifications, and to the monejr accruing 
 from these practices, the means by which she reared him and 
 all his brothers; that here lived miserably his father, who 
 was a schoolmaster; furthermore, that here these brothers, 
 subaltern scribes and servants of all magistrates, made 
 money; and finally, that, after you chose these public clerks, 
 they were fed for two years in the Tholos (a home for the 
 State’s boarders), and that he himself left this same country 
 as an ambassador. He has considered none of these benefits, 
 and far from providing for the prosperous voyage of his 
 country, he has prostrated and submerged her. * * * 
 
 “And yet you open your mouth and dare to look these men 
 in the face! Do you think they don’t know you? — that they 
 are sunk all in such slumber and oblivion? He calls his 
 venality friendship, indeed; and said somewhere in his 
 speech: ‘The man who reproaches me with the friendship 
 of Alexander.’ I reproach you with friendship of Alexander! 
 Whence gotten, or how merited? Neither Philip’s friend 
 nor Alexander’s should I ever call you; I am not so mad; 
 unless we are to call reapers and other hired laborers the 
 friends of those that hire them. For upon what plea of 
 equality or justice could Æschines, son of Glaucothea, the 
 timbrel-player, be the friend or acquaintance of Philip? I 
 cannot see. No! you were hired to ruin the interests of 
 your countrymen. Philip’s hireling I called you once, and 
 Alexander’s I call you now. So do all these men. If 
 you disbelieve me, ask them; or rather I will do it for you: 
 Athenians, is Æschines, think ye, the hireling or the friend 
 of Alexander? You hear what they say.”* 
 
 Is it hatred of an enemy or devotion to his country 
 that gives Demosthenes the impetuous animation with 
 
 * Pro Corona , §§51, 284. 
 
324 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 which he crushes his adversary beneath the weight of 
 his reasoning and his wrath ? 
 
 “ His acts in the embassy having been thus disgraceful, so 
 many, nay, all of them, having been treason against you, he 
 goes about saying: ‘What name does Demosthenes deserve, 
 who accuses his colleagues? 1 Verily I accuse, whether I 
 will or no, having been so plotted against by you during the 
 whole of my absence, and having the choice of two things 
 left me, either in acts of such a description to be thought 
 your accomplice, or to accuse. I say that I have not been 
 your colleague at all in the embassy, but that you did many 
 heinous things as ambassador, and I did what was best for 
 these people. Philocrates has been your colleague, and you 
 and Phrynon his, for you all did these things and approved 
 of them. But where is the salt? Where the social boards 
 and libations? Such is the rant he goes about with, as if 
 doers of justice, and not doers of iniquity, were the betrayers 
 of these things! I know that all the presidents on every 
 occasion sacrifice in common and sup with each other and 
 pour libations together; and the good do not on this account 
 imitate the bad, but if they find any of their body commit¬ 
 ting an offense they inform the council and the people. In 
 like manner the council offer their opening sacrifice, banquet 
 together, join in libations and ceremonials. So do the gen¬ 
 erals, and I may say nearly all the magistrates; but do they 
 on such account allow impunity to their members who com¬ 
 mit crime? Far from it. Leon accused Timagoras, after 
 having been four years his co-ambassador; Eubulus accused 
 Tharrex and Smicythas, after having been their messmate. 
 The famous Conon of old accused Adimantus, after having 
 shared the command with him. Which, then, violated the 
 salt and the cup?— Æschines, the traitors, the false ambassa¬ 
 dors and acceptors of bribes, or their accusers? Assuredly 
 the men of iniquity violated, as you have done, the sanctities 
 of their whole country, not merely those of private fellow¬ 
 ship. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 325 
 
 “ What man in the commonwealth should you say was the 
 most odious blackguard, with the largest stock of impudence 
 and insolence? Not one of you, I am certain, could even by 
 mistake name any other than Philocrates. What man speaks 
 the loudest, and can utter what he likes with the clearest 
 voice?— Æschines the defendant, I am sure. Whom do these 
 men call spiritless and cowardly with the mob, while I call 
 him reserved? — Myself; for never was I intrusive in any 
 way; never have I done violence to your inclinations. Well, 
 in all the assemblies, whenever there has been a discussion 
 upon these matters, you hear me always both accusing and 
 convicting these men, and positively declaring that they 
 have taken money and sold all the interests of the state; 
 and none of them hearing my statements ever contradicted 
 them or opened his mouth or showed himself. What can be 
 the reason that the most odious blackguards in the common¬ 
 wealth and the loudest speakers are overpowered by me, who 
 am the timidest of men and speak no louder than any one 
 else? It is that truth is strong; and, on the other hand, the 
 consciousness of having sold your interests is weak. This 
 takes off from the audacity of these men; this warps their 
 tongues, closes their mouths, chokes and keeps them silent.” * 
 
 Is it not to be regretted that an orator capable of 
 such animation should have recourse to invective ? 
 What avails it to taunt an enemy when one has the 
 power to crush him ? 
 
 IV. The violence of Greek invective wounds us. 
 It touched the Athenians but lightly. The habit of 
 being witnesses or hearers of the greatest moral de¬ 
 fects in a city of reckless manners had deadened their 
 sensibility. In certain matters they were hardened 
 and astonished at nothing. Virulent pictures alone 
 were capable of moving them. The pamphleteer was 
 
 * Embassy , §§ 188, 206. 
 
-326 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 obliged to strike hard, to transform his pen into a hot 
 iron. See how Aristophanes preaches morals to his 
 fellow citizens: 
 
 The Unjust: “Young man, follow my lessons and you can 
 satisfy your passions, clance, laugh, and blush at nothing. 
 If you are caught in adultery, remind the husband of Ju¬ 
 piter’s example. Can you, a mere mortal, be stronger than 
 a god? The Just: And if they arraign your pupil, how will 
 you prove that he is not a crapulous debauchee? The Unjust: 
 And where is the harm in being crapulous? The Just: Is 
 anything worse than such a reputation? The Unjust: Well, 
 what will you say if I worst you on this point? The Just: 
 I ought to hold my tongue. The Unjust: Well, then, answer 
 me, what are our barristers? The Just: Debauchees.* The 
 Unjust: Well said; and our public orators? The Just: Deb¬ 
 auchees. The Unjust: Then you perceive that you have been 
 talking nonsense! And the spectators, what are they, for the 
 most part? Behold them! The Just: I behold them. The 
 Unjust: Well, then, what do you see? The Just: By the 
 gods! they are almost all debauchees! Look here, this one 
 I know to be such, and that one, and that other man who 
 wears long hair. The Unjust: What have you to say? The 
 Just: I am vanquished. Debauchees, in the name of the 
 gods, receive my cloak! I pass into your rank's.” 
 
 Æschines reproached Demosthenes 1 hearers for tol¬ 
 erating bold expressions. “ l r ou are iron-clad (<S 
 cTtdrjpsot) ! ” Aristophanes’ moralists proved more clear¬ 
 ly to what degree their epidermis was thick and en¬ 
 during. 
 
 As regards malicious remarks, the ancients were gen¬ 
 erally more patient than we. A citizen insulted Pho- 
 cion while speaking in public. The orator stopped, and 
 when the man had finished his abuse, imperturbable, 
 
 * 'Et; evf>u~(>(nzT(ü';. 
 
 ( Clouds , verse 1080 et scq.) 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 327 
 
 he continued: “I have already spoken to you of the 
 cavalry and heavy-armed troops; it remains for me to 
 discuss with you the light troops.” During an en¬ 
 tire day an insolent hanger-on insulted Pericles in the 
 public square without the latter responding a single 
 word or ceasing to expound the laws. In the evening 
 Pericles quietly retired to his home, still followed by 
 the insulter, with invective on his lips. Arriving at the 
 door of his house, as it was now night, he called one of 
 his slaves and said : “Take a light and conduct this man 
 home.” * When Julian the Apostate was at Antioch, a 
 city given to frivolity and raillery, he heard the people 
 ridiculing his austere manners and his long philosoph¬ 
 ical heard. Instead of an edict to revenge the imperial 
 majesty which had been publicly insulted, Julian re¬ 
 sponded with the Misopogon : It is good for the people to 
 
 * The modern orator is not so lenient; lie immediately disposes 
 of liis interrupter, and then continues his argument. “The brilliant 
 but erratic orator, the late Thomas Marshall, of Kentucky, toward 
 the close of his life, when unfortunately, his oratorical inspiration 
 was too often artificial, was making a speech to a crowded audience 
 at Buffalo, when he was interrupted by a political opponent, who, 
 pretending not to hear distinctly, tried to embarrass him by putting 
 his hand to his ear, and crying out, ‘ Louder!’ Mr. Marshall there¬ 
 upon pitched his voice several times on a higher and yet higher key, 
 but the only effect on his tormentor was to draw forth a still more 
 energetic cry of ‘Louder, please, sir, louder!’ At last, being inter¬ 
 rupted for the fourth time and in the midst of one of his most thrill¬ 
 ing appeals, Mr. Marshall, indignant at the trick, as he now dis¬ 
 covered it to be. paused for a moment, and fixing his eye first on his 
 enemy and then on the presiding officer, said : ‘ Mr. President, on the 
 last day, when the angel Gabriel shall have descended from the 
 heavens, and, placing one foot upon the sea and the other upon the 
 land, shall lift to his lips the golden trumpet, and proclaim to the 
 living and to the resurrected dead that time shall be no more, I 
 have no doubt, sir, that some infernal fool from Buffalo will start up 
 and cry out, ‘ Louder, please, sir, Louder!’” (Dr. Mathews, Oratory 
 and Orators.) 
 
328 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 have intellectual men as emperors. The Duke de Mon- 
 tausier would have sent the traducers into the river. 
 With this system the rivers of Attica would have been 
 filled very soon. The Athenians were more tolerant. 
 They saw a tribunal exercise in invective; they were 
 pleased with it as with an entertainment, and were only 
 reasonably affected by it. 
 
 Demosthenes dwelt upon the poverty of JEscliines’ 
 family. This disparagement of the mean condition of 
 individuals did not well agree with the fondness which 
 the Athenians had for democratic equality. Their law 
 ordained that any man might be prosecuted who re¬ 
 proached a citizen, man or woman, for pursuing the 
 lower branches of trade. “Never did the obscurity of 
 his rank at Athens debar a poor man from public em¬ 
 ployment. No man was reproached for the confession 
 of his poverty, but for his indolence ” (Thucydides, ii, 
 37). Aristophanes verifies the same fact in his own 
 manner when he pictures the state in the hands of 
 dealers in tow, in sheep, in leather, and in pudding. 
 When he ridicules young Æschines as a school janitor, 
 his brothers as subordinate scribes or painters of tam¬ 
 bourines, Demosthenes feels that he is coasting near 
 rocks. “In the name of Jupiter and the other gods, 
 let no man accuse me of senselessness ! I believe a man 
 is bereft of reason when he ridicules poverty and glories 
 that he has been raised in opulence.” Called time and 
 again as logographer to defend the lower classes, he 
 always took care to speak of the poor with sympathy, 
 and to establish their claim to compassion. “Poverty 
 reduces free men to low and servile professions, which 
 ought to elicit commiseration for them, and not ruin 
 them. Let not poverty be civil death, judges; it is in 
 itself a great evil.” All his oration AgainstEubulides 
 
329 
 
 INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 is a touching plea in favor of humble professions and 
 of the necessitous. Why, then, is he not inspired with 
 these sentiments in his diatribes against Æschines’ 
 parents ? First, it is because the accuser’s declamations 
 on Demosthenes’ pretended bad fortune compelled him 
 to debase that of his adversary; and then, he knew that 
 with all their love for equality, the Athenian multitude 
 did not hesitate to receive kindly, though it might be 
 at their own expense, all prejudices against wealth. 
 The people of Capua did the same thing at a later day. 
 The plebeians revolted, cursed their senators, and 
 threatened to subject them to punishment. If it is pro¬ 
 posed to supply the places of the detested nobles, the 
 crowd answers with scornful cries to the names of ple¬ 
 beians who are proposed to succeed them: This man is 
 unknown; that man’s a beggar.* Far from wishing to 
 hear them speak, they dishonor them; and finally they 
 are resigned to support the senators whom they at first 
 contemned. 
 
 Philocleon, in the Wasps, perceiving that he has inad¬ 
 vertently acquitted the accused, faints. This trait does 
 not give us a favorable idea of the clemency of Athe¬ 
 nian judges. Demosthenes, the statesman, said to his 
 hearers: “ Be formidable in combat; in the tribunals 
 be humane.” The same orator, before the court, con¬ 
 trasts the severity of his ancestors with the negligence 
 of his contemporaries in regard to the greatest crimi¬ 
 nals; he considers their humanity naïve (eùrjüeta') sim¬ 
 plicity. He turns against Æschines the words of the 
 accuser of Timarchus. 
 
 “ Will you not remember what he said on his accusation 
 of Timarchus, that there was no good in a commonwealth 
 
 * Cum lmmilitatem sordidamque inopiam objicerent. (Livy, xxiii.) 
 
 14 
 
330 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 which had no sinews to stretch against malefactors, or in a 
 government where mercy and canvassing had greater power 
 than the laws; and that you ought to have no pity either for 
 the mother of Timarchus, an old woman, or for his children 
 or any one else; but consider this, that should you abandon 
 the laws and constitution, you would find none to have pity 
 on yourselves.” * 
 
 The judges were always too compassionate in the 
 eye of an Athenian accuser. He would protect their 
 hearts with triple bands of brass against pity. “To 
 death” was the formula consecrated at Athens in crimi¬ 
 nal cases, with variations more or less eloquent. “ Seize 
 and punish this pirate whose oratorical cruises are deso¬ 
 lating the commonwealth.” (Æschines.) 
 
 The Athenians did not think the pamphleteer alto¬ 
 gether serious; and with good reason, for the pam¬ 
 phleteer himself was not deluded as to the import of 
 their cries of death and the issue of the debate. De¬ 
 mosthenes demanded Æschines’ head, a criminal head 
 (xaxij xsoaXrj). Kill him! (aTzoxTeivare) “not Once, but 
 three times.” He deserves “capital punishment.” 
 After having appealed so eagerly for blood, he becomes 
 calm at the close of his oration; he sees and says things 
 more coolly. He no longer speaks of actual punish¬ 
 ment, but of civil death, metaphorical death, which 
 merely deprived the condemned of his rights as a citi¬ 
 zen (deminutio capitis). Even his last word does not 
 prescribe any definite punishment. He simply de¬ 
 mands the chastisement of his adversary ( 'Tt/uupvjffayêvouç ). 
 These evasions can be attributed to a particular motive. 
 The trial of the Embassy was not, properly speaking, 
 
 * Demosthenes, Embassy. This passage is not found in Æschines’ 
 oration. Did the author suppress it, or did Demosthenes attribute it 
 to him gratuitously? 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 331 
 
 a formal accusation of high treason (elffayysMa), but a 
 prosecution in rendering accounts ( Ouy-rj). Now, in 
 cases of this character the penalty was not determined 
 by law, but was left to the discretion of the tribunal 
 (àyïov àr{ l u.7]roç). This, in a measure, accounts for the in¬ 
 decision of the orator in requiring punishment, and his 
 vague conclusions. But the dominant reason of the 
 contradiction into which he cunningly falls is his feel¬ 
 ing of certainty that he will not obtain the required 
 capital punishment. He knows the moral indifference 
 of his hearers, and he knows that they are more dis¬ 
 posed to relish the malicious pleasure of hearing out¬ 
 rages lavished upon Æschines, than to share the patri¬ 
 otic sentiments of the orator against him. In Æschines 
 Demosthenes prosecuted a private and public enemy. 
 What personal grievance had the Athenians against 
 him ? They did not love their country enough to hate 
 him. 
 
 Tlieocrines’ accuser observes the simulated enmities 
 of orators v T ho, after lacerating each other at the trib¬ 
 une, go and banquet in company before the audience 
 and divide the benefits of their concert. (Aristophanes 
 compares these to two men sawing a log, one of whom 
 pushes, the other pulls.) Such defenders do not hesi¬ 
 tate to whiten or blacken one’s character, according to 
 circumstances. Their client’s interest, and especially 
 their own, causes them to change their language on any 
 occasion. Among the ancients this was one of the 
 weak phases of judicial eloquence. * As a logographer 
 
 * Antony, the type of a Roman advocate, never wished to write 
 anything, for fear of consequences. He wished to be able to contra¬ 
 dict himself at his pleasure, and he thus spared himself the recanta¬ 
 tions for which Cicero, the severe censurer and panegyrist of Vatin- 
 ius, of P. Sulla, and of Piso, sought to excuse himself. (Pro Cluen- 
 tio, 50; Ad Familiares , i, 9; ii, 1G; Pro P. Sulla, 3.) 
 
332 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Demosthenes could not escape it. He exalted or pros¬ 
 trated before liis feet the same persons, according as 
 they were his adversaries or his clients. Although we 
 ought, in this respect, to consider the customs of the 
 Athenian bar and the indulgence which held them to¬ 
 gether, political eloquence never pretended to enjoy the 
 same tolerance. The orator’s contradictions are with¬ 
 out excuse when respect for public interests imposes 
 opinions really personal, and sincere convictions. If 
 Demosthenes’ eagerness to stigmatize Æscliines can, 
 under any condition, appear pardonable in our eyes, it 
 is because he is firm and sincere in his hatred. The 
 source of his wrath is always evident; Demosthenes 
 confesses it most frankly: u I abhor these men, because 
 I saw them in the embassy to be villainous and execra¬ 
 ble, and I have been deprived, too, of my personal 
 distinctions since, through the corruption of these men, 
 your displeasure has fallen on the whole embassy.” * 
 Æscliines never confessed his hatred toward Demos¬ 
 thenes, because he could not mention the motives 
 without condemning himself. He hated him with a 
 spirit of vengeance (for Demosthenes had unmasked 
 him), and in consequence of jealousy which dishonor¬ 
 able men have for those who have pursued an honor¬ 
 able course. His defamations disclosed the weakness 
 of his bad faith. He did not dare to compare that man, 
 whom he represented as a reservoir of infamies, with 
 his contemporaries; and for a good reason,—he knew 
 that he was superior to them. He was, therefore, 
 compelled to seek his rivals in the past, whose eulogy 
 never chagrined panegyrists or hearers. He discussed 
 with power and dignity the lavishness of public re- 
 
 * Embassy , § 228. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GEEEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 333 
 
 wards, an indiscreet profusion which discouraged the 
 good without correcting the bad. 
 
 “ Do you think, Athenians, that an athlete, in order to 
 win a crown at the Panathenæa or in the other games, would 
 be willing to enter a pugilistic mêlée, or any other trying 
 contest, if it were to be given not to the most worthy, but 
 to the most intriguing? Not one would be willing to do it. 
 But because the prize is rare and difficult to acquire, the 
 victory glorious and immortal, he willingly exposes his body 
 to peril and endures the severest toils. Consider yourselves, 
 then, the judges of the lists in which the contest is for civic 
 virtue. If you give rewards to a small number, to the 
 worthiest and according to the laws, many athletes will 
 contend for the prize of virtue. If you gratify the first 
 ambitious comer with it, you will pervert the best appli¬ 
 cants.* 
 
 “ That you may conceive the force of what I here advance, 
 I must explain myself still more clearly. Which, think ye , 
 was the more worthy citizen,—Themistocles, who commanded 
 your fleet when you defeated the Persian in the sea-fight 
 at Salamis, or this Demosthenes, who deserted his post? 
 Miltiades, who conquered the barbarians at Marathon, or this 
 man? The chiefs who led back the people from Phylè?f 
 Aristides, surnamed the Just, a title quite different from that 
 of Demosthenes? No; by the powers of heaven, I deem the 
 names of these heroes too noble to be mentioned in the same 
 day with that of this savage. And let Demosthenes show, 
 when he comes to his reply, if ever a decree was made for 
 granting a golden crown to them. Was then the state un¬ 
 grateful? No; but she thought highly of her own dignity. 
 And these citizens, who were not thus honored, appear to 
 
 * There was erected on the Agora a bronze statue of a political 
 ally of Æschines, Demades, the orator of the Macedonians. 
 
 f From Phylè, i.e., when Thrasybulus had expelled the thirty 
 tyrants, established by the Lacedemonians in Athens, at the con¬ 
 clusion of the Peloponnesian war. 
 
334 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE, 
 
 have been truly worthy of such a state; for they imagined 
 that they were not to be honored by public records, but by 
 the memories of those they had obliged; and their honors 
 have there remained, from that time down to this day, in 
 characters indelible and immortal. There were citizens in 
 those days, who being stationed at the river Strymon, there 
 patiently endured a long series of toils and dangers, and, 
 at length, gained a victory over the Medes. At their return, 
 they petitioned the people for a reward; and a reward was 
 conferred upon them (then deemed of great importance) by 
 erecting three Mercuries of stone in the usual portico, on 
 which, however, their names were not inscribed, lest this 
 might seem a monument erected to the honor of the com¬ 
 manders, not to that of the people. For the truth of this I 
 appeal to the inscriptions. That on the first statue was ex¬ 
 pressed thus: 
 
 “ Great souls ! who fought near Strymon’s rapid tide ; 
 
 And brav’d the invader’s arm, and quell’d his pride. 
 
 E'ion’s high tow’rs confessed the glorious deed; 
 
 . And saw dire famine waste the vanquish’d Mede. 
 
 Such was our vengeance on the barb’rous host; 
 
 And such the gen’rous toils our heroes boast. 
 
 “ This was the inscription on the second: 
 
 “This the reward which grateful Athens gives! 
 
 Here still the patriot and the hero lives! 
 
 Here, let the rising age with rapture gaze. 
 
 And emulate the glorious deeds they praise. 
 
 “ On the third was the inscription thus: 
 
 “ Menestheus, hence, led forth his chosen train, 
 xYnd pour’d the war o’er hapless Ilion’s plain. 
 
 ’Twas his (so speaks the bard’s immortal lay,) 
 
 To form th’ embody’d host in firm array. 
 
 Such were our sons — Nor yet shall Athens yield 
 The first bright honors of the sanguine field. 
 
 Still, nurse of heroes! still the praise is thine, 
 
 Of evTy glorious toil, of ev’ry act divine.” * 
 
 * Afjamst Ctesipkon , § 17? et seq. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 335 
 
 This eloquent page develops a great moral and 
 political truth,* but Æscliines makes an unjust and 
 malevolent application of it. Demosthenes was in the 
 right when he refuted it thus: 
 
 “ We have heard his encomiums on the great characters of 
 former times; and they are worthy of them. Yet it is by no 
 means just, Athenians, to take advantage of your predilection 
 to the deceased, and to draw the parallel between them and 
 me who live among you. Who knows not that all men, 
 while they yet live, must endure some share of envy, more or 
 less? But the dead are not hated even by their enemies. 
 And, if this be the usual and natural course of things, shall I 
 be tried, shall I be judged by a comparison with my prede¬ 
 cessors? No, Æschines, this would be neither just nor equita¬ 
 ble. Compare me with yourself, with any, the very best, of 
 your party, and our contemporaries. Consider, whether it 
 be nobler and better for the state to make the benefits re¬ 
 ceived from our ancestors, great and exalted as they are, 
 beyond all expression great, a pretense for treating present 
 benefactors with ingratitude and contempt; or to grant a 
 due share of honor and regard to every man who, at any 
 time, approves his attachment to the public. And yet, if I 
 may hazard the assertion, the whole tenor of my conduct 
 must appear, upon a fair inquiry, similar to that which the 
 famed characters of old times pursued; and founded on the 
 same principles; while you have as exactly imitated the ma¬ 
 licious accusers of these great men. For it is well known 
 that, in those times, men were found to malign all living 
 excellence, and to lavish their insidious praises on the dead, 
 with the same base artifice which you have practiced. You 
 
 * “ It is a general rule that great rewards in a monarchy and in a 
 republic are a sign of their decadence, because they prove that their 
 principles are corrupt; that, on the one side, the sense of honor has 
 no longer any force ; that, on the other, the quality of citizenship is 
 weakened.” (Esprit des Lois.) 
 
336 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 sajq then, that I do not in the least resemble those great 
 characters. And do you resemble them? Or your brother? 
 Do any of the present speakers? I name none among them. 
 
 I urge but this: let the living, thou man of candor, be com¬ 
 pared with the living, and with those of the same depart¬ 
 ment. Thus we judge, in every case, of poets, of dancers, of 
 wrestlers. Philamnon doth not depart from the Olympian 
 games uncrowned, because he hath not equal powers with 
 Glaucus, or Karistius, or any other wrestler of former times. 
 No; as he approves himself superior to those who enter the 
 lists with him, he receives his crown, and is proclaimed vic¬ 
 tor. So do you oppose me to the speakers of these times, to 
 yourself, to any, take your most favorite character; still I 
 assert my superiority. At that period, when the state was 
 free to choose the measures best approved, when we were all 
 invited to engage in the great contest of patriotism, then did 
 I display the superior excellence of my counsels, then were 
 affairs all conducted by my decrees, my laws, my embassies; 
 while not a man of your party ever appeared, unless to vent 
 his insolence. But when we had once experienced this un¬ 
 merited reverse of fortune; when this became the place not 
 for patriot ministers, but for the slaves of power, for those 
 who stood prepared to sell their country for a bribe, for 
 those who could descend to certain* prostituted compliments; 
 then, indeed, were you and your associates exalted; then did 
 you display your magnificence, your state, your splendor, ’ 
 your equipage, while I was depressed, I confess it; yet still 
 superior to you all, in an affectionate attachment to my 
 country .f 
 
 Indulgence is due to the pamphleteer who answers 
 the provocation of a pamphlet, especially if he is justi¬ 
 fied in appealing to the righteousness of his cause. 
 
 * He alludes to the complimentary addresses sent to Alexander, 
 which he insinuates were procured by Æscliines and his party. 
 
 f Pro Corona , § 314 et seq. 
 
INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 337 
 
 The oration On the Crown unites the dignity of a 
 national harangue with the ardor of a philippic against 
 .Æschines. Æschines’ invectives are inexcusable. He 
 calumniated Demosthenes, and, by insulting him, lie 
 forwarded a victory desired by the Macedonians.* 
 
 * It would be interesting, but foreign to our subject, to follow tlie 
 thread of invective at Rome under its diverse forms ; then the fescenine 
 poems up to Seneca’s pamphlet, the Apocolokyntosis , or metamorpho¬ 
 sis of Claudius Cæsar into a pumpkin. The iambic and satirical poets 
 would find their proper place then, and in the first line the hendeca- 
 syllabi of Catullus {Odes, 29, 42, 54, 57, 93). Cæsar replied to Cato’s 
 Anti-Cœsar by the Anti-Cato. At first, irritated by the verses of Catul¬ 
 lus (irascere iterum meis iambis), the dictator, instead of essaying to 
 reply to them in the same tone, responded to them like an intelligent 
 man, by an invitation to dinner. The Epodes of Horace are a feeble 
 echo of the hendecasyllabi. For the aqua-fortis of Catullus, the poet 
 of Tibur frequently substituted engravings on copper-plate. Fulvia, 
 the wife of Marc Antony, had one cheek much larger than the other. 
 An acquaintance of the triumvir, the rhetorician Sextus Clodius, 
 dared to comment on her deformity, which was, at least, very impo¬ 
 lite. This insulting equivocation, “ far from diminishing his favor 
 with Antony, only tended to augment it. Fulvia, more jealous of her 
 husband’s honor, pierced the tongue of the orator of the Philippic 
 with a needle, by way of retaliation. 
 
 The “delicate and gentle” Virgil (molle at que facetum) has al¬ 
 lowed invective to mingle in the pleasing pictures of his Bucolics. 
 Damætas and Menalcas {Third Bucolic ), before engaging in a poetical 
 joust, gallantly use the epithet “ robbers,” in memory of the Carmen 
 amœbeum of ancient Latium. This persistence of invective ( convicium) 
 in Latin literature justifies the words of Horace : “ Manserunt, liodieque 
 manent vestigia ruris ( Epistles , ii, 1, verse ICO; ii, 2). Roman urban¬ 
 ity alwa} r s bordered on rusticity. Cicero lavished insults scarcely 
 tolerable at the forum and before the senate, where Cincas believed he 
 had seen an assembly of kings worthy to rule the earth, and which 
 even the author of the Third Philippic calls “ the chiefs of the most 
 august council of the universe.” In the midst of these pamphlets 
 charged with symmetrical insults, but without shame, what became 
 of the Roman dignity and the minute decorum of the DeOfficiis? The 
 code of Roman manners regulated the voice, the walk, the gesture, 
 the carriage of the toga, and the least details of external life. On the 
 chapter of defamatory insults it was mute. 
 
 15 
 
CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 GREEK ELOQUENCE IN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH AND 
 
 MORALITY. 
 
 “ To xipôoç ijôb, 7.ÛV à~o (pzoôù)7 ecrj: Success is sweet, even at 
 the cost of falsehoods.” (Sophocles, cited by Plutarch.) 
 
 “Aaiv-t (Tocpia [iziqiu'j aduluq rzÀéOzi: Sincerity of'talent magni¬ 
 fies it.” (Pindar.) 
 
 ITII the law of the transformation of species sig- 
 
 * ▼ nalized by science in nature, there is another law 
 which is even more striking, that of the persistence of 
 the essential characteristics of genera and races. The 
 Gaul of our day is in many respects the Gaul of Julius 
 Oæsar’s time. Likewise the Hellenes, who were con¬ 
 temporary with Philip, had preserved the original type 
 of the Greeks of ancient Troy. The culture of centuries 
 had mollified their character, but did not efface it. One 
 of their features is the spirit of knavery and delusive 
 fiction. ‘ 4 The brave grandfather ” of Ulysses, as Homer 
 calls him, Antolycus, surpassed men in the art of rob¬ 
 bery and perjury. He owed this eminent quality, a 
 reward for his pious sacrifices, to Hermes, the god of 
 invention and eloquence. Ulysses was worthy of such 
 an ancestor. We know with what skill the Ithican king 
 wove artificial falsehoods. U I hate,” says Achilles, 
 “as I hate the gates of Hades, the man who conceals 
 one thought in his heart and expresses another.” 
 Ulysses, to whom Achilles declared this sentiment, 
 repioduced elsewhere a formula for it, with an express¬ 
 ive variation. U I hate, as I hate the gates of Hades, 
 
 338 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 339 
 
 the man 4 whom want itself can force untruths to 
 tell.’”* He did not absolutely hate disguise, but the 
 wretch who lived on fiction, as the epopee. If the 
 beggar Iros uttered an untruth for a mouthful of a goat, 
 Iros was wrong. But if the object was to preserve 
 from the covetousness of another the wealth with which 
 Ulysses was laden on his return from the country of 
 the Pheacians, falsehoods became legitimate. What 
 fertility in Ulysses’ fictions ! Very skillful would be the 
 man who could surpass him in artifices, even among 
 the immortals. Minerva rendered this homage to her 
 favorite hero, and when Ulysses (deceptive and defi¬ 
 ant) f was bent on dissimulation before her, the goddess 
 said to him: “Let us cut short these deceptions, we 
 are both perfect masters of knavery; let us not display 
 our dexterity, but let us speak frankly.” J 
 
 A hero destined, as it seems, to perpetual suffering, 
 like Hercules, but superior to the suffering, and forti¬ 
 fied by a courage which the waves of adversity can¬ 
 not submerge, the Ithican king attains epic grandeur 
 through these qualities. Lie is alone, without re¬ 
 sources, against numerous and determined adversaries. 
 His profound craft, his unique arms, find an excuse in 
 the necessity and in the legitimacy of his pursued ob¬ 
 ject,— regaining his property and revenging his out¬ 
 raged hospitality. His falsehoods are therefore nat- 
 
 * Odyssey , xiv, 15G; cf. xix, 395; Iliad , ix, 312. 
 
 f Themistocles declared to Aristides that the allies did not believe 
 him on his word, and he entreated him to assure them, in his place, 
 of the investment of the Greek fleet at Salamis. Aristides himself 
 found the majority of the Grecian generals incredulous. Later The¬ 
 mistocles spoke to the Greeks in a more sincere tone, and was then 
 believed. (Herodotus, viii, 80, 81, 110.) 
 
 % Odyssey, xiii, 291, 29G, eldoreç ap<pa) xépôsa (zépôuç, artifice 
 and gain. 
 
340 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 lirai. But Ulysses is a great artist. It is not suf¬ 
 ficient for him to deceive; he must please. With the 
 poet he amuses himself with recitations, pronounced 
 by turns to Minerva, to Eumæus, to the applicants, 
 displaying a fecundity of variations, in which appears 
 the desire to justify a high reputation and to flatter 
 the most vivacious tastes of his hearers. The lesson 
 which is drawn from the bloody catastrophe of the 
 Odyssey is solemn. It seems, then, that not only in 
 the great scenes of expiation, but also in the diverse 
 resolutions which prepare them, all ought to be grave. 
 The details ought to participate in the serious char¬ 
 acter of the catastrophe. If Homer had thus con¬ 
 ceived his work, he would have displayed a studied 
 art, a just feeling of dramatic fitness and harmony of 
 colors. In return he would have been less artless 
 and truthful. Besides the terrible drama which he 
 develops before our eyes, the poet has painted the 
 life and spirit of the Greek race true to nature. By 
 a strange contradiction in the tragic and moral gran¬ 
 deur of his argument, there is apparent, in the fictitious 
 narrations of his hero, an exuberance of imagination, 
 which proves that the rhapsodist and Ulysses, by de¬ 
 lighting in these games, obey an instinct of the race.* 
 
 In spite of time and philosophy, the Greeks always 
 preserved certain impressions of native dispositions. 
 In vain did the dislike for deceptiveness engage Plato 
 to proscribe it under its most innocent forms, and to 
 banish from his republic the art, preeminently imita¬ 
 tive, of epic and dramatic poetry. The criticism lav¬ 
 ished on the hypocrisy of Homer and JEschylus rather 
 surprised than corrected the nation, which the hyper- 
 
 * Cf., in Sophocles’ Philoctetes , the lesson on practical morality 
 given by Ulysses to Neoptolemus, verse 79 et seq. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 341 
 
 bolical Juvenal (iii, 100) afterward said was entirely 
 composed of comedians. The moralists of Greece 
 spoke like Achilles. Ulysses remained the patron of 
 the men of action. The political stratagems (man¬ 
 œuvres bordering on duplicity) to which Tliemistocles 
 had recourse, in order to protect his own and the 
 interests of Athens, are well known. Demosthenes 
 regretted that “the most illustrious man of his age” 
 could not rebuild the walls of Athens by main strength 
 
 rather than bv “deceit.”* The orators of Athens in 
 «/ 
 
 the practice of their art never shared the delicate 
 scruples of the author of the In Lejptinem. If Greece 
 ventured much in politics and history, she was no less 
 venturesome in eloquence. 
 
 Among the methods of delusion practiced by the 
 Attics, some were nearly innocent. Contrary to the 
 law which forbade them to depart from the subject ( rà 
 < l=ay(ô-;ia), they aimed to distract the judge in order to 
 arouse or baffle his attention. Paraboles, apologies, 
 stories, comic traits, jokes; nothing was neglected which 
 could amuse the judges. He who laughs is unarmed. 
 “One could no more derive advantage from an Atlie- 
 
 * Against Leptines. At Salamis lie pretended to Xerxes to have 
 deserted the Hellenic cause. He deceived the Great King by secret 
 advices, which were apparently favors, but really perfidies, and, what¬ 
 ever might happen, beneficial to him who gave them. “This lan¬ 
 guage w r as inspired in Tliemistocles by the desire to secure for him¬ 
 self the favor of the Persian, in order that, if any disgrace was to 
 await him on the part of the Athenians, he could find refuge in that 
 country, a fact which afterward happened.” Herodotus said that 
 Tliemistocles was a “ wise man and a man of good counsel.” (Hero¬ 
 dotus, viii, 109, 110, 75.) He applied, by anticipation, the Lacedae¬ 
 monian apothegms against the Spartans. “To deceive our enemies 
 is an action as just and glorious as it is pleasing and useful.” 
 (Agesilaus.) “To the skin of the lion, which is not sufficient, let us 
 sew the skin of the fox.” (Lysander.) 
 
342 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 + 
 
 nian by annoying liim, than from a Lacedaemonian by 
 amusing him.”* Sometimes they used means more 
 serious in appearance, and oracles, even in civil causes, 
 came to offer their appoint to the confirmation. Polit¬ 
 ical orators readily employed these divine arguments, 
 pious frauds which were undoubtedly often efficacious, 
 since, success alone could support their employment. 
 Herodotus (i, 60 ), in reference to the appearance of an 
 apocryphal Minerva at Athens, was astonished that the 
 Athenians, an intelligent people, should allow them¬ 
 selves to be caught in so coarse a snare. The snare of 
 oracles was often set for them. The poet Aristophanes, 
 who favored ancient prejudices, ridiculed but could not 
 eradicate the practice. 
 
 Among human practices, rhetoric taught that of mag¬ 
 nifying or diminishing objects (xsiuxriq). Such 
 
 an artifice was natural to their desires and excusable, 
 when it was merely a sophism of innocent self-love, f 
 However, it is as just to represent men and things un¬ 
 der their different aspects, as it is useful to know the 
 strong and feeble among them. Neither the absolute 
 nor the perfect are found in this world. It is the privi¬ 
 lege of rhetoric to take possession of the natural com¬ 
 plexity in the human soul and in truth, and to profit by 
 them. The poet Simonides J refused to celebrate the 
 victory of a team of mules,—it was repugnant to him 
 to take the lyre for the purpose of singing of half-asses 
 ( rj'j.io'M)uq ). Was this a scheme in order to draw a higher 
 prize for his verses ? The premium was increased; the 
 poet sang without scruples: “ Hail, offspring of noble 
 mares; hail to your feet, fleet as the tempest.” “And 
 
 * Esprit des Lois , xix, 7. fMolièrc, Misanthrope , ii, 5. 
 
 X Aristotle, Rhetoric , iii, 2 fin. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 343 
 
 yet,” remarks Aristotle, “ they were the offspring of 
 asses.” 
 
 Each, according to* circumstances, sees things from a 
 certain standpoint. The same Phoceans were severely 
 censured by JEschines, hut kindly treated by Demos¬ 
 thenes; their sacrilege became an “inequitable action;” 
 the Caucasus was transformed into a mole-hill. Inno¬ 
 cent Timarchus was greatly to be pitied. “Because a 
 citizen in the bloom of life, distinguished by his figure, 
 and not foreseeing the suspicions to which beauty w r as 
 exposed, conducted himself negligently, Æschines ac¬ 
 cused him of prostitution ! ” The author of the De 
 Oratore (ii, 72) recollects, not without a certain satis¬ 
 faction, his art of exaggerating or attenuating weak or 
 advantageous parts. AEschines and Demosthenes prac¬ 
 ticed the same method, but did not acknowledge it. 
 The three talents given to the state by Ctesiphon’s 
 friend were reduced, in his accuser’s mouth, to a hun¬ 
 dred minæ, diminished almost one-half. Demosthenes 
 was even less reserved. The faults which constituted 
 a motive for Alcibiades’ banishment w r ere peccadilloes 
 compared with the crimes of Midias. Alcibiades mu¬ 
 tilated the Hermes, an impiety deserving severe punish¬ 
 ment; but was there not a great difference between 
 such a mutilation and the inversion of all sacred things, 
 which was the manifest crime of Midias, who insulted 
 Demosthenes? Alcibiades struck Taureas in his func¬ 
 tions as choregus; “ but it was one choregus who struck 
 another.”* Among colleagues these outbursts of vi¬ 
 vacity apparently established no precedent. * * * Who 
 proves too much proves nothing; indiscreet art betrays 
 itself, and exaggeration makes the judge distrustful, as 
 
 * In Midiam , § 147. 
 
344 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the drinker distrusts mixed wines.* The Greeks ex¬ 
 celled in all kinds of counterfeiting; but here fraud is 
 transparent and denounces the falsifier. 
 
 II. Pascal believed in witnesses who suffered tor¬ 
 ture. It would not always have been prudent to believe 
 in witnesses at Athens who displayed their wounds. 
 Ulysses, disguised as a beggar, completed his travesty 
 by covering himself with “disgraceful wounds.” Pi- 
 sistratus, who was a great admirer of Homer as well 
 as of Sisyphus’ son, inflicted wounds upon himself and 
 his mules (they were unable to prevent it) and rushed 
 into the agora. He said that he had barely escaped 
 being murdered, and asked the people to give him a 
 guard ! The people were deceived and granted him 
 a strong guard. Faithful to a tradition that had be¬ 
 come classical, the Athenians, through cupidity or 
 hatred, lacerated themselves with their own hands. 
 One petitioned a physician to inflict gashes upon his 
 head, another slashed his own liead.f Such wounds 
 furnished proofs against the adversary. 
 
 Who thus disfigures his face to exact money from 
 his antagonist, or to defeat him, will not hesitate to 
 disfigure the truth. La grande Mademoiselle confessed 
 that she used her imagination when her memory failed 
 her. The Attics were as unscrupulous, and the exact 
 truth was their least care. In the Antidosis and the 
 Panathenaicus Isocrates gives two contradictory asser¬ 
 tions on the same subject. Here the Thebans refused, 
 there they accorded burial to the Argives. We would 
 imagine the rhetorician embarrassed at such a flagrant 
 mistake. 
 
 “ Do not imagine that I am unaware that I make an as- 
 
 * Rhetoric , iii, 2 ; the actor Theodoras. Cf. Odyssey , iv, 277 et seq. 
 
 t Against Bceotus and Against Ctesiphon. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 345 
 
 sertion here contrary to what I have elsewhere manifestly 
 written. I do not think that any one of those who would 
 make this comparison would be so unenlightened or so ma¬ 
 levolent as not to consider that I have given proof of wisdom 
 by speaking then in such a manner, and to-day in another. 
 I hold that what I have just said is well said and to the 
 point/’ (y.àlàjç y.cà (TupyepovTwç.)* 
 
 (When lie composed the Panathenaicus Athens and 
 Thebes, secular enemies, were united against Philip: 
 hence this retraction favorable to the useful allies.) 
 Isocrates made this confession at the age of ninety- 
 seven. What w^as he awaiting that he might be serious ? 
 If he should live three ages, the Athenian would still 
 be frivolous, and his frivolity would laugh at truth. 
 
 The hearers were even less devoted to it. Between 
 them and the orator it was always understood that art 
 and success were of prime importance, and that it was 
 proper to accept the most categorical affirmations with¬ 
 out questioning them. Falsehood was a part of the 
 right of defense. It was the natural arm of the accused. 
 
 “You are aware that, since the existence of men and 
 trials, no criminal was ever condemned on his own confes¬ 
 sion. Effrontery, denials and falsehoods are offered, pre¬ 
 texts are forged: everything is done to escape punishment.” 
 
 This naïve remark of Demosthenes does not merely 
 confirm the adage, ‘‘Every bad case is deniable.” 
 It recalls the use which Greek orators daily made of 
 all kinds of fiction. Self interest and rhetoric con¬ 
 spired to instruct them. 
 
 Although reserving the right of ethics, which admits 
 only just causes and arguments founded on truth, 
 Aristotle does not fear to enter into the details of 
 rhetorical rules for falsehoods. lie aims to teach, not 
 
 * Antidosis. 
 
346 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 how to use them, but how to refute them. The mo¬ 
 tive is laudable, and, we confess, the orator who has 
 been trained to plead the pros and cons by any means, 
 will not on that account necessarily be a dishonest 
 man. We must, said Saint-François de Sales, have 
 wealth u in our purse, not in our heart.” In this con¬ 
 dition wealth will not poison us more than the poison 
 stored in the laboratory injures the druggist. In like 
 manner the orator could preserve dangerous receipts 
 in his mind in order to baffle them when necessary 
 without admitting them to his esteem. Unfortunately 
 the rhetorician, who is so well instructed in handling 
 these forbidden arms, will be easily tempted to use 
 them. Flee falsehoods, but here is a receipt to falsify 
 incognito and with profit. Is this not exposing the 
 pupil to temptation ? Is it certain that he will distin¬ 
 guish the theory from the practice, as it is necessary 
 to distinguish in Aristotle the preceptor speaking in 
 his own name from the savant who is wholly devoted 
 to his analytical genius ? 
 
 Dispassionately the philosopher dissects the vices 
 of the human mind and soul. He shows their corrup¬ 
 tion without dreaming that he might be accused of 
 corrupting, and that the purity of his intentions closes 
 his eyes against the dangers of his work. “All is 
 good to the good.” The corollary to the proposition 
 is equally true. How, neither Aristotle’s rhetoric 
 nor his politics have ever instructed perfectly honest 
 classes. On many a page has the Stagirite expressed 
 in touching terms man’s sympathy for man and the 
 moral beauty of philanthropy.* That does not pre- 
 
 * “ Man lias all kindness toward man.” “Whoever lias made 
 extensive voyages can see liow much man is to man a sympathetic 
 being and friend.” {To Nicomachus, vii, 1; Rhetoric , i, 15; ii, 21-24.) 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 347 
 
 vent him from stating, on two occasions, as argument 
 this precept worthy of Machiavel: “Insane is he who 
 murders the father and allows the children to live.” 
 Elsewhere he gives the motives which are to be alleged 
 for praising the clog (an animal admitted to the heav¬ 
 ens in the zodiac), or the mouse (uoç, the radical of 
 mystery). Aristotle is not more of a sophist in this 
 passage than he was a depraved moralist shortly after¬ 
 ward. He indicates the instruments suited to such or 
 such a work without stopping to consider it. He 
 makes an inventory without appraising. This is an 
 object not of reproach, but of regret. Aristotle clearly 
 understood human virtue. “In general,” said he, 
 “men do wrong when they can.” The multitude, 
 according to him, is incapable of good and education. 
 Why did not the author of these sentences, which are 
 severe even to injustice, foresee the abuse which hu¬ 
 man malice could make of curious but too disinterested 
 analyses ? 
 
 The Athenian bar justified the term malice (y.azoopyov)^ 
 which Aristotle applied to judicial eloquence, and the 
 want of esteem for advocates. The profession of logog- 
 raplier was necessary at Athens. The people would 
 have been dissatisfied without it, and yet they con¬ 
 temned those who were logographers. One of the 
 insults which orators exchanged was that of logog- 
 raplier. This discredit was due to several causes: 
 distrust of a powerful art, which promised victory 
 even to bad causes; the character of venality attached 
 to an institution which was quickly transformed into 
 handicraft; the suspicious morality of their profes¬ 
 sional or oratorical proceedings. Demosthenes, when 
 speaking in his own name or in the name of his clients, 
 expressed himself very modestly on the power of his 
 
348 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 eloquence. He aimed to dissimulate it, fearing lest lie 
 might awaken the distrust of the tribunal. His adver¬ 
 sary perceived this, and unmasked his false modesty. 
 “ Beware, judges, of Demosthenes’ abilities. A con¬ 
 summate magician (y^ç), he represents things as he 
 pleases by the aid of speech. His eloquence is the 
 scandalous triumph of fascination” ( Tspazeîa ).* kEsclii- 
 nes, in his turn, in the midst of the ignominious out¬ 
 rages with which he is covered, is especially indignant 
 at hearing his voice compared to the song of the Sirens 
 (a remark more effective than any other to injure him 
 in the minds of his hearers). Is it possible that a 
 logographer, “molded of words,” and of “artificial” 
 words, should reproach another for knowing how to 
 use words ? It is evident that Demosthenes initiates 
 the youth in the fraudulent tricks of rhetoric, and 
 executes them himself with the effrontery of a charla¬ 
 tan, who laughs behind the scenes at the credulity of 
 his public. Returning to logic, let us see how the 
 skillful man, in the presence of his pupils, boasts of 
 his dexterity in juggling. (Against Timarchus.) 
 
 The Athenians voluntarily made use of hired defend¬ 
 ers, but disavowed it and pronounced it illegal. Isoc¬ 
 rates at first followed the practices of logographers. 
 Eventually, when frequently summoned to justice for 
 violating the law which forbade the use of artifices 
 before the courts, he ceased to write orations for 
 others, and confined himself to the composition of 
 rhetorical treatises, f Thus the profession of rheto¬ 
 rician was viewed with suspicion, like all smuggling, 
 
 * He is the most amusing manipulator of all our politicians, the 
 sharpest of our sophists, the most subtile and most insatiable of our 
 jugglers. He is the Bosco of the tribunal” (Timon). Oh, eternal 
 equity of political wisdom! 
 
 f Cicero, Brutus , 12, tin. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 349 
 
 and its products, too often adulterated and sophisti¬ 
 cated, were greedily sought in secret, and publicly 
 dishonored. 
 
 Poor as their soil, the Greeks became soldiers, logog- 
 raphers or pirates, mercenaries of the sword or pen. 
 Public opinion was more indulgent toward the pirates 
 of the sea than toward those of the tribunals. In the 
 same speech (.Against Aristocrates) Demosthenes par¬ 
 dons Charidemus, who was needy in his youth, for 
 having pillaged the allies of Athens on a plundering 
 expedition, and he stigmatizes rhetoricians as the 
 scourge of their country. He recalls the herald’s 
 imprecations against the orator who spread a snare 
 for the counsels of the people or for the lieliasts. 
 
 Neither human codes nor divine threats had the 
 power to suppress an evil, whose extent was measured 
 by the Draconian laws of Plato. If an advocate were 
 convicted of chicanery he suffered temporary suspen¬ 
 sion. In case of a second offense, death. If he were 
 guilty of cupidity, death. The logograplier always 
 had to defend the good cause gratuitously.* Tlieo- 
 
 * Lois , livre 11 e ; tome de la traduction de M. Cousin. The Capi¬ 
 tularies of 802 give testimony of an unequivocal distrust toward 
 advocates. One would say that Charlemagne knew Athens and her 
 logographers: “Et nemo in placito (tribunal) pro alio rationare usum 
 liabeat defensionem alterius injuste, sive pro cupiditate aliqua, minus 
 rationare valente * * * sed unusquisque pro sua causa vel censu 
 vel debito rationem reddat, nisi aliquis sit infirmus aut rationis 
 nescius: pro quibus Missi vel Priores, qui in ipso placito sunt, vel 
 judex qui causam hujus rationis sciat, rationatur complacito” (Pretz, 
 Lois, tome i, p. 92). Cf. Mémoires de V Académie des Sciences et Belles-lettres 
 de Toulouse , 1878. De la légende politique de Charlemagne au dix- 
 huitième siècle et de son influence à V époque de la Révolution française, par 
 M. A. Duméril. Napoleon I still remembered, as it seems, his illus¬ 
 trious patron. Memorial de Sainte-Hélène, Nov. 14, 1816, § 14: “I 
 would wish to establish a law that neither solicitors nor advocates 
 should be remunerated, except those who win their cases. * * * I am 
 
350 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 pompus said of Athens that she swarmed with Bacchic 
 poetasters, sailors, pick-pockets, sycophants, false 
 witnesses and lying ushers. ‘‘Favor me with your 
 testimony,” became proverbial in Greece. It was 
 necessary to undergo three condemnations as a false 
 witness before incurring infamy. Athenian justice in 
 this respect was surrounded with precautions of bad 
 augury. The accuser in a case of murder, before the 
 Areopagus, took his oath standing, adorned with the 
 sacred ribbons of a ram, a hog, and a bull, which 
 had been sacrificed according to certain rites; he pro¬ 
 nounced upon himself, his family and liis race, extra¬ 
 ordinary and terrible imprecations, in case he bore 
 false testimony. “This formidable and solemn pre¬ 
 paration,” says Demosthenes, “nevertheless was not 
 sufficient to render him credible.” From this candid 
 observation we can estimate how much confidence the 
 judges had in the ordinary oath. 
 
 “Even when perjury could have assured me the condem¬ 
 nation of my persecutors, I would not have purchased it at 
 such a price: I have too much respect for the tribunals, and 
 the protection of the Gods is more precious to me than all the 
 joys of revenge.” 
 
 This protestation was necessary; thus the oratorical 
 customs willed it, but these were very different from 
 the real customs. 
 
 A client of Demosthenes, Chrysippus, mentions 
 two testimonies of Lampis, one before the tribunal 
 and the other before an arbiter. As this last testimony 
 injures his cause, he reverses it with this distinction: 
 
 convinced that my meaning is clear.” The Emperor wished to dis¬ 
 suade advocates from supporting bad causes. It would perhaps have 
 been more effective to discover means by which he might compel 
 judges never to condemn good causes. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 351 
 
 “Judges, to render false testimony before you and before 
 an arbiter is not the same thing. In the first case, in fact, 
 great wrath and vengeance threaten the false witness; in the 
 second it is scarcely a misdemeanor,- and without danger.” 
 (Against Phormio). 
 
 Callistratus employs a strange argument in liis 
 favor: Olympiodorus denies that I am liis associ¬ 
 ate. To prove that I am his associate, I declare 
 that on a memorable occasion I favored him in a 
 trial with false testimony. And thereupon the irre¬ 
 proachable plaintiff recounted the falsehoods of Olym¬ 
 piodorus and of his witnesses. Callistratus not only 
 did not contradict it, but confirmed it all: “All that 
 was concerted between us. Then our interests were 
 evidently common; we were then associates. * * *” 
 And they were certainly worthy of each other. What 
 a singular method of pleading one’s cause, and recom¬ 
 mending oneself to the mercy of the judges! 
 
 The deliberative orations, says Aristotle, are nobler 
 (z a'/liu )-/) than those at the bar. Under these conditions 
 they were naturally superior, and yet, when they were 
 so, it was due to the elevation of subjects familiar to 
 political eloquence rather than to the purity of the 
 means which the orators employed. The tribune con¬ 
 stantly confounded itself with the bar and borrowed 
 from it its passions and its most suspicious methods of 
 discussion. If Demosthenes’ Philippics were the only 
 monument of his political eloquence, the orator’s glory 
 would not have raised him to the height to which his 
 debates with Æschines carried him. But his glory was 
 not thereby diminished. His harangues, inspired solely 
 by patriotism, are decidedly true and generous, and 
 worthy of receiving for an epigram the words by which 
 
352 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Thucydides characterized the statesman. * The rest of 
 his work (without speaking of the logographer) does 
 not offer in the same degree the alliance of artistic and 
 moral beauty. In the face of the Macedonian, Demos¬ 
 thenes stands a lasting model of an orator and a citi¬ 
 zen. In the face of his rival, .Æschines, he appears 
 the first of orators; but he betrays himself as an Athe¬ 
 nian advocate, and bears the imprint of detestable cus¬ 
 toms which had been consecrated by his city: at all 
 times it has been difficult not to howl with the wolves, 
 a fact which Voltaire felt and expressed. 
 
 III. The Athenians were too assiduous in the schools 
 of the sophists not to have contracted habits difficult 
 of eradication. It was said of them, and thev almost 
 proved it, that by oratory they could make things ap¬ 
 pear what they were not; all was conjecture, all was 
 possible: instead of convincing proofs and peremptory 
 reasonings they used plausible conjectures and specious 
 probabilities. Thus, the orator would base his argu¬ 
 ment on a public rumor really spread or forged by him¬ 
 self, and on presumptions unfavorable to his adversary. 
 Why would Aristion not be Demosthenes’ secret emis¬ 
 sary to Alexander ? Calumny is certainly a strong forte, 
 but oratory is also very powerful. It is essential to 
 render probable by skillful reasoning that which is least 
 true. Æschines wishes to prove that Demosthenes has 
 been an accomplice of Philocrates, an assertion quite 
 incredible (à-HTTÔrepoç), which fact he does not conceal; 
 but this is not in his eyes a reason to renounce it. The 
 sophists urged the acceptance of the eulogy on Busiris, 
 
 * II, 60: To know ( [yyaivat ), to explain (ippyj^euffac) state interests. 
 (r« déovra); to love his country ( (ptAÛ-ufo<; ) to he superior to wealth 
 {yprjp.dra>v xpziaciiDv}. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 353 
 
 on the dust, and on the fever. It is not more impossi¬ 
 ble to believe the paradoxical (papâduÇav) opinion that 
 the orator of the Philippics was the pensioned friend 
 of the Macedonians. Of what use is speech, if not to 
 illuminate obscure things, to obscure luminous things, 
 and to give to objects whatsoever appearance is desired ? 
 
 According to the testimony of Quintilian (ii, II), 
 Cicero boasted that in the criminal trial of Cluentius he 
 threw so much dust in the eyes of the judge that he 
 compelled him to see things only through his (Cicero’s) 
 eyes. The Athenian orators often might have been 
 equally confident. Whoever has not recoiled before the 
 task of supporting Demosthenes’ philippism, an inven¬ 
 tion bordering upon folly (èyyurdrw gaviaq), can dare all. 
 
 The Athenians, moreover, were sceptical. They had 
 their reasons for not believing in the incorruptible vir¬ 
 tue of the people. These dispositions encouraged the 
 orator to undertake all and trust to the moral indiffer¬ 
 ence and to the credulity of the people; and then the 
 audience of the Pnyx was not that of the Areopagus. 
 Before the latter Æschines saw many suitors succumb, 
 in spite of their eloquence and the authority of their 
 witnesses; others, without witnesses and in spite of un¬ 
 cultivated language, triumphed. This venerable assem¬ 
 bly did not express themselves on fine orations (Against 
 Timarchus)\ before the tribunal of the heliasts oratory 
 reigned supreme. How, when have scruples ever 
 checked the ambition to reign ? * 
 
 * “ It is often the case in deplorable debates that the man without 
 eloquence (aylwaao'/), but of valiant heart, is overcome by forgetful¬ 
 ness while the highest reward is offered to the polished falsifier 
 (aiohgj, </'c ùôec). The secret suffrages of the Greeks would give the 
 prize to Ulysses, and Ajax, deprived of his shining armor, was en¬ 
 gaged in a struggle with death.” (Pindar, Eighth Nemœcui.) 
 
 15 * 
 
354 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 The penalty of death was enacted against every citi¬ 
 zen who gained authority by a false law. In practice, 
 the judge was constrained to relax a rigor which, if faith¬ 
 fully executed, would have quickly decimated the bar 
 and the tribune. “Laws make the morals of a state.” 
 Demosthenes might have added that law r s without 
 morals avail nothing. With the Athenians they were 
 much less the expression and the fruit of character 
 than among the moderns, and even on many points 
 they harmonized badly enough with the morals. Not¬ 
 withstanding the threats of punishment, the texts of 
 laws and decrees were often falsified and even forged. 
 Æschines and Demosthenes accused each other of 
 being forgers, and both appealed to the public regis¬ 
 ters, irrefutable proofs of manifest misdemeanors. Æs¬ 
 chines particularly apostrophized them with veneration. 
 
 “ Excellent, Athenians,— excellent is the institution of the 
 public archives. Unchangeable, they do not submit to po¬ 
 litical metamorphoses, but they permit the people to scruti¬ 
 nize at their will those men who, after a criminal adminis¬ 
 tration, suddenly disguise themselves as honorable citizens.” 
 
 Is this impudent irony, or must we admit that the 
 collection of Athenian laws, charged with contradic¬ 
 tory dispositions, was an arsenal from which every 
 man could take such arms as he needed ? Even this 
 explanation would not suffice to illuminate the flagrant 
 contrarieties of several assertions of the two adver¬ 
 saries. Thus Demosthenes boasts of his integrity in 
 the same circumstance in which, according to Æs¬ 
 chines, he has been accused {i^r l Xêyydr l q) of having pil¬ 
 fered a squadron more powerful than that which van¬ 
 quished the Lacedæmonians at Naxos. The substance 
 of the offense was not, however, easily concealed. 
 Demosthenes reproached Æschines for having entered 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 355 
 
 against him the suit of Otesiplion a long time after the 
 events, although previous to that time “he had never 
 accused him, never prosecuted him.” .Æseliines re¬ 
 turned a direct contradiction, and recalled different cir¬ 
 cumstances in which he had not only accused Demos¬ 
 thenes, but had clearly convicted him (< pavspœ ç è^Uyx° ü ) 
 of sacrilege, corruption and theft.* Whom are we to 
 believe ? One of the two is certainly an unpardonable 
 falsifier. Perhaps they have both in turn been guilty 
 of falsehoods and deserve the appellation of orators of' 
 
 * Æseliines accused Demosthenes of maladministration in the 
 affairs of Euboea and of the extortion of money from the Oritians. 
 Demosthenes made no reply to these grievances. Dissen gives a 
 weak explanation for his silence. Æseliines, says he, added these 
 calumnies to his public oration. Demosthenes, therefore, was unable 
 to refute before the people objections of which he was ignorant. De¬ 
 mosthenes himself revised his orations. Wli} r did he not profit by 
 these revisions and destroy the grievances which had been stated 
 against him? Criticism on this subject is reduced to conjectural 
 appreciations; however, we know how considerations of state in 
 Greece were affected by bribes. At Artemisinin the Eubœans offered 
 Themistocles thirty talents if he would persuade the allies to remain 
 in the waters of Euboea. Themistocles in his turn bribed the com- 
 mander-in-chief, the Spartan Eurybiades, with Jive talents. Three 
 talents seduced Corinthian Adimantes. The fleet did not leave its 
 anchorage at Artemisium. “ Thus a special favor was accorded the 
 Eubœans, and Themistocles himself enjoyed great profit ” ; that is to 
 say, twenty-two talenls on thirty. (Herodotus, viii, 4, 5, 112.) By 
 holding the allies to their post, the Athenian general served Eubœa, 
 entire Greece and himself. This method of conciliating public and 
 private interests places politicians on slippery ground. Mirabeau 
 made this mistake. The political organization of Athens rendered 
 disinterestedness difficult to orators. They governed the republic 
 from without, the administration from within, and their functions 
 were not remunerated. In the negotiation of foreign affairs, when 
 individuals or cities solicited favors not prejudicial to the state, the 
 orators perhaps reserved for themselves a portion of the sums given. 
 This was the reward they took through a medium profitable to all 
 parties. 
 
356 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 bad standing [prjrwp -apdarpioq^ which the accuser of 
 Timocrates applied to the falsifiers of the laws. 
 
 The art of falsifying seems to have been earnestly 
 prosecuted by Greek orators. They invented facts, 
 and then proofs of the facts. The chain was logical. 
 It is not sufficient to edify an imposture ; it is neces¬ 
 sary to prop it up firmly. Truth is self-sustaining ; 
 insincerity never has sufficient support : 
 
 “ This man, an inimitable juggler, incapable of speaking 
 the truth, even inadvertently, has a method peculiarly origi¬ 
 nal. When an ordinary boaster offers a falsehood he is care¬ 
 ful not to express himself with clearness and precision, for 
 fear of being confused. If Demosthenes derides truth like a 
 boasting impostor, he at first falsifies under oath and under 
 terrible imprecations upon himself. Then he fearlessly an¬ 
 nounces that which he knows is never to happen, and even 
 calculates its epoch. Persons whom he has never seen he 
 cites by name. * * * If he wishes to state inventions as real, 
 he mentions the day of their occurrence. He forges the 
 name of a witness to his invention. A wonderful mimic, he 
 dupes his hearers by imitating the language of truth. He is 
 a knave doubly worthy of your intense hatred, since he slan¬ 
 ders characters of known probity.”* 
 
 * Embassy , §§ 153, 99. “If thou hast begun, finish; nunquam 
 tentabis, ut non perficias, — this maxim of Cardan was practiced by 
 the Athenian orators, and sometimes against them. One of the most 
 pathetic passages of the Pro Corona is that in which the orator ap¬ 
 peals to the Athenians on the true character of Æschines. Is he the 
 guest or the hireling of Philip? (See above.) According to a legend 
 of an Athenian savor, the orator, in pronouncing the word p.L(rOwTÔç f 
 might have intentionally changed the accent and said p.i<rOoToç. 
 Meander concerted with Demosthenes to play this comedy. He first 
 raised the question of accent by believing p.taûoj- rôç, and all the peo¬ 
 ple followed him. The grave Ulpian became the echo of this anec¬ 
 dote, which is sufficiently refuted by the gravity of Demosthenes’ 
 character, but which is valuable as a proof of the levity of the Greek 
 mind in general. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 357 
 
 What are we to think of this accusation of shameless 
 falsehoods and perjuries \ Phidias, says Æschines, 
 seems to have made the statue of Minerva to provide 
 this man with a source of perjuries and profits. On 
 the comic stage the Athenians mocked their gods ; on 
 the tribune they treated them in like manner; and 
 perhaps public levity assured the orator and the poet 
 equal impunity. Æscliines’ imputations battle the 
 critic. Ulpian reproaches Demosthenes for having 
 arranged the stories which he recounts to suit his 
 fancy ; for example, that of Glaucetes (.Against Timoc- 
 rates). In this case the orator never fails to summon 
 public notoriety to the aid of his inventions. This is a 
 method of persuading each hearer that he should be 
 ashamed to consider or to doubt what he imagines he 
 alone does not know. Demosthenes discloses this 
 artifice in the speech Against Bœotus : u That of which 
 each of you is ignorant believe not to be known by 
 your neighbor, but demand a convincing proof of the 
 alleged fact.” The observation of this advice would 
 have sometimes embarrassed the political orators, but 
 they were acquainted with the levity of their hearers, 
 and knew that with them they could be at ease. 
 
 As there are pious falsehoods, there are oratorical 
 falsehoods. The Greeks wrote treatises upon the art 
 of creating laughter (flefA ysXoioo)\ examples were not 
 wanting at Pome or Athens to compose treatises on 
 the art of perverting the truth. Cicero recommended 
 that the pleadings be sprinkled with little lies: Est men- 
 dadunculis adspergendurn. Sometimes these were 
 not little fictions for seasoning, but anecdotes de¬ 
 veloped to please. Quintilian, the instructor of the 
 Eoman advocate, surpassed his master in this respect; 
 he drew up the Code of “false narrations.” lie ex- 
 
358 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 posed the theory of “colors.” And with what solici¬ 
 tude! Do not forget, said he to his pupil, that every 
 liar should have a good memory. Above all, when 
 it is necessary to lie, do not hesitate to lie persistently. 
 By frequently repeating the same thing you will finally 
 render it credible, and perhaps in the end you will 
 be convinced yourself.”* Nevertheless Boman ur¬ 
 banity never compared with the audacity of Attic 
 asteism, and nothing in Latin eloquence, even the 
 most deliberate, equaled the romantic episode of the 
 female captive of Olynthus. 
 
 “ When Philip took Olynthus, he celebrated Olympic 
 games, and invited all kinds of artists to the sacrifice and the 
 festival. While he was feasting them and crowning the con¬ 
 querors he asked Satyrüs, our comic actor, why he alone 
 preferred no request, whether it was 1 that he had observed 
 in him any meanness or discourtesy toward himself. Satyrus, 
 they say, replied that he wanted none of the things which the 
 others asked, that what he should like to propose would be 
 very easy for Philip to oblige him with, but he was fearful 
 
 * Quintilian, iv, 2; vi, 3, imposes upon the master cf eloquence 
 a venerable probity (sanctitas docentis), which is difficult to recon¬ 
 cile with his precepts on the art of training witnesses, of defending 
 all professions, even that of worthy Mercury (leno) ii, 4; the author 
 of the formula vir bonus makes a poor defense for this contradiction 
 (xii, 1). (Cf. De Oratore , 25, 52, 72, 79, 81 ; 59, 54.) To aid his theories 
 Quintilian cites different passages of Cicero: Pro Roscio , 21 (Chryso- 
 gonus to the audience) ; Pro Cluentio , 21 (story of Cepasius and of 
 Fabricius): “In all this there is only one thing true, that is that 
 Fabricius quitted the tribunal ” (Cf. De Officiis ii, 14). “ It is some¬ 
 times the duty of the defender to support the plausible even against 
 truth. I would not dare speak thus, especially in a philosophical 
 work, if such were not the sentiment of Panætius, a stoic of consider¬ 
 able reputation.” See {De Iîepublica, iii, 4) the apology for injustice, 
 by Philus. Carneades played this game without considering it 
 dangerous; Cato thought differently. The Greeks were, above all, 
 men of intellect; the Romans were, before all, men of government. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 359 
 
 of being refused. Philip bade him speak out, assuring him 
 in handsome terms that there was nothing he would not 
 do. Upon which, they say, he declared that Apollophanes, of 
 Pydna, was his friend; that after he had been assassinated 
 his relations in alarm secretly removed his daughters, then 
 little children, to Olynthus. “ They,” said he, “ now that the 
 city is taken, have become prisoners, and are in your hands: 
 they are of marriageable age. Give me them, I pray and 
 beseech you. Yet I wish you to hear and understand 
 what sort of a present you will give me, if you do give it. I 
 myself shall derive no profit from the grant; for I shall give 
 them in marriage with portions, and not suffer them to be 
 treated in any manner unworthy of myself or their father.” 
 When the company heard this, there was a clapping of hands 
 and shouts of applause from all sides, so that Philip was 
 touched, and gave him the girls. Yet this Apollophanes was 
 one of the persons who killed Philip’s brother, Alexander. 
 
 “ Now let us contrast with this banquet of Satyrus an¬ 
 other banquet, which these men held in Macedonia; and see 
 if it has any likeness or resemblance. 
 
 “These men were invited to the house of Xenophron, the 
 son of Pliædimus, one of the Thirty, and off they went. I 
 did not go. When they came to the drinking he introduced a 
 certain Olynthian woman, good-looking, and well-born also, 
 and modest, as the case proved. At first, I believe, they only 
 made her drink quietly and eat dessert; so Iatrocles told 
 me the next day; but as it went on, and they became heated, 
 they ordered her to sit down and sing a song. The woman 
 was in a sad way; she neither would do it, nor could; where¬ 
 upon the defendant and Phrynon said it was an insult, and 
 not to be tolerated, that a captive woman, one of the accursed 
 and pestilent Olynthians, should give herself airs; and — 
 “ Call the boy ”; and —“A lash here.” A servant came with 
 a whip; and as they were in liquor I imagine it took but 
 little to exasperate them. Upon her saying something or 
 other, and bursting into tears, the servant rips off her tunic 
 
360 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 and gives lier several cuts on the hack. The woman, mad¬ 
 dened by the pain and the whole treatment, jumps up, 
 throws herself on the knees of latrocles and overturns the 
 table; and had he not snatched her away, she would have 
 perished by drunken violence; for the drunkenness of this 
 scoundrel is terrible. There was a talk about this female 
 in Arcadia before the Ten Thousand; and Diophantus made a 
 report to you, which I will compel him now to give evidence 
 of; and there was much talk in Thessaly and everywhere.” * 
 
 This is a pathetic recital, and all its details are ex¬ 
 pressive. Satyrus had the glory of obtaining from 
 Philip the pardon of those daughters whose father had 
 murdered Philip’s brother. The deputies are going to 
 feast at the house of one of the Thirty, the detested 
 oppressors of the city. AEschines and Phrynon (this 
 Phrynon is well known) play the principal rôles in this 
 odious orgy. On the next day an honorable man, a 
 friend of Demosthenes, gives him an account of it. 
 This scandal was known through all Greece. But above 
 all, what are we to think of an Athenian ambassador 
 capable of dishonoring his country by such violences, 
 and of applauding the ruin of the Olynthians at a time 
 when dignity, devotion to friendship and hospitality, 
 and most noble and manly generosity, are found in a 
 comedian ? Is not the parallel overwhelming to AEsclii- 
 nes ? “Notwithstanding his guilty conscience, this 
 polluted wretch will dare to look you in the face, will 
 raise his voice presently and talk about the life he has 
 led. Ah me, this chokes me! ” 
 
 What is astonishing here is the boldness of the nar¬ 
 rator. Between art and falsehood the interval is slight, f 
 
 * Embassy , § 192. 
 
 f Breve confinium artis et falsi (Tacitus). This contrast is ma¬ 
 lignant ( 'xaxôrjOsç rbriOsrov) and taise (<peudo/x£vo<;). Hermogenes, 
 lisp] [xsOodou, 15 L, Spengel, vol. ii, p. 439 ; cf. ibidem 19, p. 442. 
 
TRUTH AjNTD MORALITY. 
 
 361 
 
 Tlie allurement of an injurious contrast forced De¬ 
 mosthenes to calumny. Æscliines’ oration gives an 
 entirely different version of a portion of this recital. 
 Names ot persons and facts are changed. 
 
 “ You undoubtedly recall these abominable rhetorical arti¬ 
 fices which Demosthenes promised to teach his young pupils, 
 and which he has used to-day against me. You have seen him 
 shed tears, moan over Greece, praise the comedian Satyrus for 
 having, at a banquet, demanded of Philip some of his f riends 
 who ivere prisoners , and ivlio tv ere employed to cultivate the 
 vineyards of the prince. Continuing his remarks, and raising 
 his sharp and criminal voice with a great effort, he presented 
 this revolting opposition: A man who plays the part of Carion 
 and Xanthias appears so generous and magnanimous, and I, 
 counsellor of a great commonwealth ! I, who gave counsel 
 to the Ten Thousand in Arcadia, I have not been able to sup¬ 
 press my insolence. Excited with wine at a feast which was 
 given by Xenodochus , one of Philip’s courtiers, I dragged a 
 female captive by her hair, and armed with a lash I whipped 
 her severely. If, then, you had believed him, or if Aristopha¬ 
 nes had confirmed his falsehoods, I would have succumbed, 
 although innocent, under a disgraceful accusation.” 
 
 Consummate art is that which is hidden. In the first 
 version Demosthenes had underlined the contrast, in the 
 second he let the reader do it. In order to strengthen 
 the recital and render it agreeable, he embellished it 
 with new colors. Instead of the laborers in Philip’s 
 vineyards he substituted the young daughters of Satyrus’ 
 friend. These marriageable ladies were introduced here 
 in order to play the counterpart of the Olynthian female 
 captive who was so indignantly maltreated by Æscliines. 
 
 Demosthenes, attaching a great value to his banquet 
 invention, according to Æscliines, essayed to conse- 
 16 
 
362 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 crate it by tlie false testimony of a supposed relative 
 of the imaginary Olynthian. 
 
 “ See how he prepared this accusation long beforehand. 
 One of the foreigners residing at Athens is the Olynthian 
 Aristophanes. He was recommended to Demosthenes, whose 
 eloquence he had heard extolled. By kind attentions and 
 seductions Demosthenes intended to engage him to render 
 false testimony against me. If he consented to appear before 
 the judges, and to arouse their indignation by declaring that 
 I had been drunk, and outraged a captive who was his rela¬ 
 tive, Demosthenes promised him five hundred drachmas im¬ 
 mediately. He would receive five hundred others after the 
 evidence. Aristophanes replies (we have his own word for 
 it) that his exile and his actual destitution had suggested to 
 Demosthenes the idea of a well-planned speculation; but he 
 is grossly mistaken as to his character. He would do nothing 
 of the kind. To establish the truth of what I advance, I am 
 going to produce Aristophanes himself as a witness. Call 
 Aristophanes of Olynthus to me and read his evidence. Also 
 summon Dercylus, the son of Autocles of Agnontes, and 
 Aristides, the son of Euphiletus of Cephisia. They heard the 
 facts from his own lips, and reported them to me.” 
 
 Here we see Demostlienes confounded in liis turn. 
 But are these evidences reliable ? Is it certain that 
 the attempt at seduction ascribed to our orator, and 
 his inclination to perjury, are not real inventions of 
 AEschines ? With such oratorical morals, every sup¬ 
 position is admissible, every affirmation is disputable. 
 The embarrassment to which these solemn contradic¬ 
 tions, these judicial protestations, subject the reader 
 is precisely the object of these skillful orators. Where 
 is the deceiver ? The judge does not know. He hesi¬ 
 tates. His conscience is troubled. He pardons, or 
 he refuses to punish. When he has reached this point 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 363 
 
 all is consummated. Athenian eloquence is applauded 
 for having accomplished its work. 
 
 In this case, however, Demosthenes seems to have 
 missed his object by overreaching it. He strained the 
 springs of his art. The instrument was broken in his 
 hands. 
 
 “ On myself, said Æschines, the effect of the accusation 
 which I have just heard created the liveliest fear, the strong¬ 
 est indignation, then the greatest joy that I ever experienced. 
 In fact, I trembled, and this thought troubles me still, that 
 some among you may be fascinated by insidious and per¬ 
 fidious contrasts and may not requite me. I was excited and 
 beside myself while Demosthenes was accusing me of out¬ 
 rages committed, under the influence of wine, upon a freed 
 woman, an Olynthian; but I rejoiced when you rebuked him 
 for this wrong. I believe that at this moment I have re¬ 
 ceived the recompense of a modest and pure life.” 
 
 The adage Se non è vero , è ben trovato always acquits 
 the poet. The Athenian orator often benefited by 
 this favor before a people who were more anxious to 
 be pleased or flattered than instructed. But it be¬ 
 hooves all to keep within the bounds of moderation. 
 According to Ulpian, Eubulus, at this passage of De¬ 
 mosthenes’ oration, cried out to the Athenians: 44 What! 
 will you permit him to use such language!” The 
 judges then arose and left the orator. This last act 
 seems very doubtful. The Athenians would have 
 given a remarkable proof of their moral delicacy if 
 they had actually left the scene. But the thing is not 
 probable. Day after day they heard falsehoods equally 
 strong, and not as well told. The accuser’s recital 
 could betray 44 the detestable sycophant,” according to 
 Æschines’ expression, but did not the same Æschines 
 tremble when the vividness and agreeableness of this 
 
364 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 picture enchanted (<f>u/ay'ioyi)0évTeç) and delighted the 
 hearers almost to conviction? Undoubtedly they were 
 contented to receive it with an incredulous smile, and 
 without being so strongly indignant. We know they 
 were very delicate and sensitive, but not to things of 
 pure morality.* They hissed a mistake in pronuncia¬ 
 tion. They rose up against a solecism, but in their 
 conduct they tolerated stranger solecisms. Their moral 
 sense emanated from their aesthetic sense. They ad¬ 
 mired, in the good, one of the manifestations of the 
 beautiful (zadoxayaOict). When they were virtuous, it 
 was because they were preeminently artists. Demos¬ 
 thenes knew well his city, and what it could support. 
 But what was tolerable to the common public ought 
 not to have been so to Demosthenes. 
 
 An Athenian ventured an oratorical falsehood to 
 delude the multitude, as Aristophanes risked a popular 
 joke to amuse the multitude. But a studied calumny, 
 circumstantiated and coldly reproduced in a written 
 oration, after careful revisions and deliberate embel¬ 
 lishments,— and that, too, when it had been disavowed 
 by the incredulous attitude of the tribunal,— this con¬ 
 tempt for truth passes all license. Demosthenes had 
 some scruples. He suppressed one detail that was too 
 revolting ,—dragged by her hair. Tie no longer put the 
 whip in Æschines’ hands, but in the hands of the slave ; 
 but he preserved and envenomed the rest. He should 
 have known that his fable would have no more effect 
 upon his reader than it made on his hearers, and yet 
 he made a fair copy of it. He persisted in his fiction, 
 without any denial, through exclusive love for the 
 art. This boldness approaches candor. Demosthenes 
 
 * Graïs ingenium, Gra'is (ledit ore rotundo 
 Musa loqui (Ad Phones); 
 
 A eulogy very true in itself and in the restrictive sense. 
 
TRUTH AKD MORALITY. 
 
 365 
 
 effaced from liis harangues certain metaphors of line 
 taste upon which we, less Attic than Æscliines, would 
 perhaps have passed condemnation, and he polished 
 and repolislied calumnies which dishonor their author. 
 
 IV. In Fenelon’s thirty-third Dialogue des morts 
 Demosthenes makes an apology, in company with 
 Cicero : 
 
 “ Eloquence is very good in itself. It is only its use that 
 can be turned to evil, such as flattering the passions of the 
 people and gratifying our own. And what else do we do in 
 our bitter declamations against our enemies, — I against 
 Midias or Æschines, you against Piso, Vatinius or Antonius? 
 How often have our passions and our interests made us offend 
 truth and justice! The true use of eloquence is to place 
 truth in its proper light, and to persuade others in what is 
 truly useful to them; that is to say, justice and the other 
 virtues. This is the use which Plato made of it, but we 
 have imitated neither the one nor the other.” 
 
 Plato crowned Homer with flowers, and excluded 
 him from his republic. He was more rigorous toward 
 orators. lie expelled them without crowns. Their 
 art was so debased at Athens that he refused to grant 
 it even the name of art. In his eyes it was a skillful¬ 
 ness, the fruit of practice and experience (s/« zet/na). 
 Eloquence ought to be allied to dialectics, and teach 
 truths. It pursues the probable. Its task ought to be 
 to correct minds, to fortify them by legislation and 
 justice. Instead of offering to them “gymnastics” 
 and salutary “medicines,” it corrupts them by the 
 “toilet” of sophism, skillfully disguised; by the 
 “kitchen”* of flattery ( Gorgias ). 
 
 This deceiving and poisonous eloquence deserves the 
 
 * Agoracritus : “ I can speak and cook, xapuxoicoistv ” (Knights). 
 
366 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 contemptuous censure of the philosopher, and the in¬ 
 sulting ridicule of the comic poets. Does not the art 
 of the sophists, thus understood, actually seem to pro¬ 
 vide criminals for the tribunals rather than to honor 
 them ? Fortunate would it be for sophism if it con¬ 
 tented itself to measure how many times a flea leaps 
 the width of its foot, and to investigate the little insect.* 
 It has higher aims ; it purposes to confound the good 
 and the bad, mine and thine . It teaches us not to pay 
 our debts and to pilfer the goods of another. There¬ 
 fore the poet of the Clouds , and the orators themselves, 
 good judges in their own cause, treated it with no more 
 respect. They were the first to defame one another by 
 inserting in their speeches mutual maledictions ; they 
 whispered to the client, whose anonymous advocates 
 they were, the blemishes of their art and the revelation 
 of their dishonest practices. The spectacle of the abuses 
 
 * Sophism bears the same relation to learning that a pedagogue 
 does to a scholar. The former is narrow in every sense of the word, 
 and is absorbed in trifles; his incapacious mind must grapple wdtli 
 small subjects, and from his inability to comprehend or appreciate 
 great themes he becomes an egotistical literary manikin. The 
 sophism which measures the leap of the flea recalls an illiterate 
 country pedagogue, whose learning was confined to the rules of 
 arithmetic, reading and writing, and to the absurd “ methods ” of his 
 imagination, which was otherwise remarkably barren. Uncouth as he 
 was unscrupulous, ungenllemanly as he was uncultured, ungrateful 
 as he was ungodly, he habitually delivered himself of “ lectures,” to 
 the mortification of his suffering constituents, on the great questions 
 of long and short division, and on the “ methods ” which he applied 
 in educating ( ! ) the unfortunate urchins who frequented his bar¬ 
 barian castle of ignorance. Owing to his minute knowledge of the 
 rules for forming the letters of the alphabet, which he made one of 
 the profound studies of his life, and his ignorance of everything 
 that was ennobling, he measured all things, human and divine, by the 
 slopes and slants of the letter A. But as civilization advances, this 
 kind of sophism recedes. Fortunately the world to-day is not afflicted 
 with many such relics of the Dark Ages. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 367 
 
 of the art which Isocrates himself taught is perhaps not 
 foreign to his logic: “We owe our safety to the The¬ 
 bans as they owe theirs to us. * * * If we understand 
 our interests, we will pay each other reciprocally for 
 holding assemblies, because that people which holds an 
 assembly the oftenest works the most for the advan¬ 
 tages of the other.” Isocrates is wrong in rendering 
 the institution of popular assemblies responsible for 
 the misdeeds of speech. It is not the reunion of the 
 nation in council that compromises her safety, but the 
 disloyalty of the orators who, appointed to instruct 
 her, deceive her. Eloquence ennobles or degrades the 
 orator; it strengthens or weakens the state according to 
 its application. Every defensive arm can be turned 
 into a deadly instrument in unfaithful hands. 
 
 Æscliines stigmatized Timarchus with an authorita¬ 
 tive emphasis which is not a skillful counterfeiting. In 
 this cause he certainly had an advantage over his rival: 
 he accused an infamous man whom circumstances forced 
 Demosthenes to defend. The selection of Timarchus 
 as a future accuser of Æschines was imprudent. Æs- 
 cliines wisely profited by this mistake when he stated 
 the prejudicial question of the unworthiness of the 
 man. The friendships of orators during the Macedo¬ 
 nian epoch were often more politic than sincere.* The 
 author of the Great Moral (ii, 13) thought of this union 
 of interests when he permitted the honorable man to 
 be the friend of the base man. “The base man, if 
 agreeable, is a friend so far as he is agreeable: if he is 
 useful, he is equally a friend so far as he is useful.” In 
 
 * “Hate as if you were some time to love; love as if you could 
 hate.” (Against Aristocrates.) Hyperides loved in this manner. De¬ 
 mosthenes detected him, long before their rupture, preparing memoirs 
 against the friend whom he was afterward destined to accuse in the 
 case of Harpalus. 
 
368 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 spite of these distinctions, there are classes whom it is 
 best to love under no condition. Demosthenes ought 
 to have been more circumspect and should not have 
 committed himself with Timarchus. In still another 
 respect he erred. Athenian orators too often deserved 
 the suspicion of statements similar to that of Celsus: 
 44 The advocate’s reward is not a good conscience, but 
 victory.”* These failings, common to orators contem¬ 
 porary with Demosthenes, are especially lamentable and 
 conspicuous in him. Genius rules. In Demosthenes 
 the man and the polemic are therefore much inferior to 
 the orator of the Philippics and to the citizen. If he 
 dared to compromise himself in this respect, without 
 considering that the future would not have the com¬ 
 plaisant indulgence of Athens, what liberties ought the 
 generality of harangues to take ? Demosthenes was 
 the most honorable orator of his time except Phocion. 
 According to this, what are we to think of the others ? 
 
 Quintilian (xii, 1), defending Cato’s maxim, 44 the 
 orator is an honest man, skillful in speech,” wishes to 
 answer this “unanimous objection of the public”: 
 
 “ What then? Was not Demosthenes an orator? And yet 
 he is reputed to have been a dishonest man. I feel that my 
 answer will create an outcry, and demands oratorical pre¬ 
 cautions. I will therefore say at first that Demosthenes does 
 not appear to me so reprehensible in his behavior that it is 
 necessary to believe all that his enemies have accumulated 
 against him, especially if I consider his noble political con¬ 
 duct and his memorable end.” 
 
 Justice here commands us to separate the private 
 from the public man and to imitate the state, which 
 considers services not virtues. 
 
 * “Non bona conscientia, sed victoria litigantis est præmium.” 
 (Quintilian.) 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 369 
 
 “ As to an examination of his dignity, I will add without 
 hesitation: a state and a private individual ought not to 
 judge alike, for the points of view are different. As a pri¬ 
 vate individual, each of us considers what man is w r orthy of 
 his alliance and of his relations. Certain laws and opinions 
 determine this. But a city and a people reward whoever 
 serves and protects them. They decide upon this not by 
 birth and reputation, but by facts. What ! In distress we 
 will allow ourselves to be benefited by whoever offers him¬ 
 self, and when the service is received we will question our 
 benefactor as to his standing. Such an inquiry would not 
 be just.” * 
 
 Honest Plutarch, remarks that if tlie people had 
 killed Miltiades when he was tyrannizing over Cherso- 
 nesus, summoned Cimon to justice for incest, ban¬ 
 ished Themistocles from Athens on account of his 
 licentious life, they would have thereby lost the vic¬ 
 tors of Marathon, of Eurymedon, and of Artemisium, 
 where the Athenians laid the foundation of Hellenic 
 independence. Plutarch here wishes to establish that 
 God and men are praiseworthy for deferring the pun¬ 
 ishment of the guilty. The political philosophers of 
 the lyceum would have drawn another conclusion 
 from these lines. Bad acts are absolutely blamable, 
 but the good which a citizen does his state ought to 
 eclipse the moral evil which the unvirtuous man does 
 against himself. “ In the perfect republic,” says Aris¬ 
 totle, u civic virtue ought to appertain to all, since it 
 is the indispensable condition of the perfection of the 
 
 * Against Leptines. (Cf. Thucydides, ii, 42.) “ If any among you 
 at any time deserves reproach, it is just above all things to place his 
 bravery on the battle-field and his service to the state in clear light. 
 The good in him has effaced the evil, and his public virtue has 
 served Athens more than his individual weaknesses have injured 
 her.” (Funeral Oration.) 
 
370 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 state. But it is not possible that all in the state possess 
 the virtue of a private man.” The unity of virtue is 
 as impossible as the unity of employment in choruses, 
 where it is very necessary that there should be fig¬ 
 urants, and not exclusively coryphei. When civic 
 and private virtue can be found united in the same 
 person, we have a magistrate both able and virtuous. 
 But if they are not united, it is fitting to esteem that one 
 which is more advantageous to state interests; for the 
 qualities and experience of a commander are preferable 
 to probity, because probity is more easily found than 
 military talent. It would be fitting to choose other¬ 
 wise if the object were to select a guardian of the pub¬ 
 lic treasury. u The most important object is (we have 
 frequently repeated it) to support those citizens who 
 wish to preserve the government against those who 
 wish its downfall.” “The state can and ought to em¬ 
 ploy, and even esteem, a bad man if he is useful.” A 
 good knife is one that cuts well. 
 
 Demosthenes was less honorable than Phocion: who 
 will dare to say Phocion was a better citizen than 
 Demosthenes ? Demosthenes served Athens and the 
 sacred cause of national dignity better than lie.* Af¬ 
 fected by the contagion of his time, he bears its 
 lamentable traces. But before the foreigner he is 
 always mindful of himself. He is ever high and pure 
 in the accomplishment of civic duty, and in the sacred 
 struggle against the invader. Up)on the whole, this 
 Demosthenes is the true Demosthenes whom posterity 
 
 * A success of the Athenian army was announced to Phocion : 
 “When then will we cease to conquer?” His maxim was, “Be the 
 strongest or the friend of the strongest.” Phocion could not tight at 
 Chæronea. He was at that time commanding the fleet at the Helles¬ 
 pont,— a lamentable mishap. 
 
TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 371 
 
 especially knows and justly admires. Preeminent 
 virtue and justice consist in accomplishing good for 
 our fellow-men: 
 
 “ Many classes can be virtuous in that which regards 
 themselves individually, who are incapable of virtue in that 
 which concerns others. * * * The man nearest perfection 
 is not that man who uses his virtue for himself, but that one 
 who uses it for another, which is always a difficult task.” * 
 
 Much will be pardoned in Demosthenes because he 
 passionately loved his country, f Before the triumph 
 of Antony and Octavius caused Brutus, another martyr 
 of liberty, to doubt virtue, he had placed the bust of 
 Demosthenes among the statues of his ancestors. X 
 
 * Nicomachean Ethics , v, 1, § 15. 
 
 f Virtue, in a republic, is a very simple thing: it is love for the 
 republic. * * * This virtue can be defined : love for the laws and for 
 the country. This love, demanding a continual preference of public 
 to private interest, gives all the individual virtues; they constitute 
 this preference. This love is singularly affected in democracies. * * * 
 I have not said this to diminish in the least degree the infinite dis¬ 
 tance which there is between vices and virtues; God forbid it. I 
 have only wished to have it understood that all political vices are not 
 moral vices, and all moral vices are not political vices (Esprit des 
 Lois , v, 2; iv, 5; xix, 11). 
 
 % Cicero, Be Claris Oratoribus, 31. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 I. DEMOSTHENES AS A MORALIST. II. RELATIONS OF 
 JUSTICE AND POLITICS. III. RELIGIOUS SENTI¬ 
 MENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 
 
 I. DEMOSTHENES AS A MORALIST. 
 
 u ( Pavrj( 7 £TO.L raùra oiïrtuç où (j.ôvov èv roiç vo/j.{/j.otç , àXXà /.ai g 
 (füGtq 0.0X7] rocç àypd<poiç v 6 fj.otç xàï toJç avOptoTzCot^ rjOsoc 
 ôiœp'x.z: These maxims are not only in laws; they are in the number 
 of unwritten laws which nature has engraved upon the heart of 
 man.” (Oration on the Crown.) 
 
 S EVERAL ancient testimonies, of very questionable 
 validity make Demosthenes a disciple of Plato. 
 This tradition of the Platonic education of our orator 
 appears to have been born in the schools of phi¬ 
 losophy which were desirous of claiming such a dis¬ 
 ciple. Hine cities contended for Homer’s birth: it 
 is not astonishing to find philosophy and rhetoric 
 contending for the glory of having inspired the author 
 of the apostrophe to the heroes of Marathon. Accord¬ 
 ing to Cicero, Demosthenes was an u assiduous hearer” 
 of the chief of the Academy.* Cicero believed that 
 he had found the proof of this in his letters. It is 
 true, the letters attributed to Demosthenes, and sup¬ 
 posed to have been written (except the fifth) during 
 his exile, express noble and generous thoughts; as a 
 whole, they do not appear unworthy of a pupil of 
 Plato. But any one of these pages contains passages 
 
 * Brutus, 31; Orator , 4; Dialogue of the Orators , 32; Plutarch, Life 
 of Demosthenes , 5. 
 
 372 
 
 f 
 
DEMOSTHENES AS A MORALIST. 
 
 373 
 
 which, in the mouth of Demosthenes, would furnish 
 his own condemnation. The author exhorts, in one 
 of his letters, ITeracleodorus to lend his aid to the 
 accused Epitimus, instead of prosecuting him with 
 animosity: 
 
 “ I know that you have been trained in a school which 
 is decidedly foreign to cupidity, and to the dishonest practices 
 of evil passions, and producing all for the common good and 
 for supreme justice. * * * A student of Plato, I call the 
 gods to witness, who would dare to lie and prove himself 
 dishonorable toward a single man, would be very culpable.” 
 
 The philosopher of the Gorgias would not have dis¬ 
 owned the orator of the Philippics or even the orator 
 of the oration On the Crown ; but he would un¬ 
 doubtedly have sent back to the laboratories of the 
 sophists the polemic and logographer. If Demos¬ 
 thenes was the disciple of Plato, it was only under 
 certain circumstances, as Voltaire was the student of 
 the Jesuit fathers. 
 
 If Demosthenes did not follow the lessons of the 
 Academy, he profited by the reading of Plato’s dia¬ 
 logues. This is evident (we quote from Cicero) in the 
 majesty of his style (j grandidate verborum). Quintil¬ 
 ian (xii, 10), refuting indiscreet orators, in whose eyes 
 coldness and dryness are claims to the reputation of 
 Attic, asserts, with good reason, that neither Lysias nor 
 Andocides instructed Demosthenes in the pathetic sub¬ 
 limity of his harangues. Demosthenes, the disciple of 
 Isæus, surpasses his master, and draws his inspirations 
 from a warmer and deeper source. Pericles received 
 his best-tempered arms from the hands of philosophy. 
 In like manner Demosthenes is indebted to the study 
 of Plato’s works for a general culture which has left 
 its manifest imprint on the dutiful orator. In this 
 
374 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 measure we can imagine him a disciple of Plato. To 
 go beyond this would be an exaggeration, which would 
 very soon be refuted by several of his orations. 45 ' The 
 political philosophers of the new Academy and of the 
 Lyceum,—these, in general, were his masters, and he 
 heard them most often, f Cicero ascribes the credit of 
 much of his eloquence to philosophy, but to what phi¬ 
 losophy ? To the sceptical Academy, the volatile mis¬ 
 tress^; of contradictory controversies. Is this what 
 makes a true philosopher ? Demosthenes gave no 
 more attention to philosophy than did Cicero, but, like 
 Cicero, lie gained much from his perusal of philosoph¬ 
 ical writings. 
 
 The assiduous study of Thucydides, the traditional 
 customs of Greek eloquence, the gravity of the circum¬ 
 stances, and that of Demosthenes’ character, contrib¬ 
 uted, as much as the lessons of philosophy, to imprint 
 a moral gravity of powerful effect on his eloquence. 
 
 “ Why, Leptines, do you not think of the future? It is, 
 
 * “ There was need of a Plato to mould Demosthenes, in order that 
 the greatest of orators might do homage with all his reputation to the 
 greatest of philosophers.” (Daguesseau.) This judgment is a shock¬ 
 ing exaggeration. ( Histoire de Dêmosthène , par M. A. Boullée.) 
 
 f “ If you desire to follow the traces of ancient Pericles or of De¬ 
 mosthenes, * * * if your heart is stirred at the sight of this splendid 
 model, of this sublime image of the orator, you must embrace, in all 
 its extensiveness, the doctrine of Carneades and of Aristotle. * * * 
 If a man is found who can, according to the method of Aristotle 
 sustain the pros and cons on all kinds of subjects; if he is able, after 
 the manner of Arcesilaus and of Carneades, to combat all kinds of 
 propositions; and if to this method he joins the knowledge of ora¬ 
 torical art, the customs and exercise of language, there then is a true, 
 a perfect, a finished orator.” [De Oratore, iii, 18, 19, 21.) 
 
 X Orator, 3; Ad Atticum , iii, 25: “ O Academian volaticam * * * 
 modo hue, modo illuc.” All philosophical schools are not equally 
 adapted to form an orator: Orator , xix, 4; De Oratore , iii, 17; Ad At- 
 ticum , ii, IG; De Finibus , iv, 3. 
 
DEMOSTHENES AS A MORALIST. 
 
 375 
 
 by Jupiter, because we are far from the prevision of such sad 
 conjunctures! Would that we could always be far from them, 
 Athenians! Still, we are men; let us beware of words and 
 laws which might awaken Nemesis. Let us hope for happi¬ 
 ness. Let us demand it of the immortal Gods; but let us also 
 reflect on the common law of humanity. Lacedaemon never 
 expected to see herself in her present condition (her defeat at 
 Leuctra laid her at the feet of Thebes); and Syracuse, that 
 ancient democracy which submitted Carthage to tribute, 
 which ruled over all the neighboring people, which van¬ 
 quished the fleets of Athens,— she did not foresee that a 
 single scribe,—a valet, it is said,—would impose a yoke of tyr¬ 
 anny (Dionysius the elder) upon her. Did the Dionysius of 
 our day imagine that with one bark and a handful of soldiers 
 Dion would rout the master of so many triremes, so many 
 foreigners and cities ? Yes, truly the future is screened from 
 all men; little causes effect great revolutions. We must, 
 therefore, govern ourselves’in prosperity, and provide against 
 the future.” 
 
 The result was to confirm the moral affections of the 
 young orator, and even far surpass them. Could he, in 
 355, foresee that a man from Pella would destroy Hel¬ 
 lenic independence, that a Macedonian youth, in less 
 than eight years, would subjugate the entire Orient ? 
 
 Later, when Demosthenes witnessed the reverses 
 which gradually prepared the ruin of the city of Mi¬ 
 nerva, he armed himself against the public decay by 
 means of the very disasters which caused it. He ex¬ 
 horted Athens to derive her safety from her adversary. 
 
 “You have received a faithful report, Athenians, but you 
 ought not to be thrown into consternation by the misfortune. 
 Consider that discouragement is neither advantageous to the 
 present crisis nor worthy of you; but it is worthy of your 
 glory to consider that your duty is to repair the evil. If the 
 noble conception which you have of Athens is not a delusion, 
 
376 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 you ought to show yourselves superior to other men in the 
 midst of reverses. My sincerest wish would have been that this 
 fate would not have befallen our city, and that fortune would 
 have spared it all disgrace. But if this crisis was to be,— if 
 destiny had resolved upon it,— I esteem it advantageous that 
 things have been accomplished as they are. Indeed, For¬ 
 tune has sudden changes. It easily passes from one field to 
 another. Defeats, the result of cowardice, are only constant 
 in their stability. Believe me, even your conquerors are not 
 ignorant that, if it is your wish,— if this check arouses 
 you,— it is not yet possible to decide whether the present 
 event is fortunate or unfortunate for them. If they are 
 elated over their success, their victory can very soon be 
 turned to your advantage; for the more confident their con¬ 
 tempt, the more rapid their fall. * * * PerhajDS none of 
 you, Athenians, have inquired why adversity is a better 
 counsellor than prosperity. The sole reason is that the for¬ 
 tunate man fears nothing. He does not believe that he is 
 threatened by those evils which are reported to him. On 
 the contrary, misfortune places before our eyes the faults of 
 which it is the fruit, and makes us wise and circumspect for 
 the future.”* 
 
 In tlie trial of the Crown JEschines shortens the 
 debate; Demosthenes constantly enlarges it. He does 
 not speak under the inspiration of disavowed personal 
 passions, but in the name of moral dignity. The stoic 
 Panætius congratulated him because he established the 
 greater part of his harangues on this principle, that 
 u the beautiful alone is eligible ” and preferable in 
 itself. In fact, Demosthenes always dared to present 
 the image of an austere and laborious virtue to the 
 Athenians. ITe exacted of them that they should pre¬ 
 fer the honorable , although difficult and even unsuc- 
 
 * Exordia, 39 and 43; Didot, pp. 7G2, 764. This thought is .devel¬ 
 oped by Bossuet: Oraison funèbre de la Reine d'Angleterre. 
 
DEMOSTHENES AS A MORALIST. 
 
 377 
 
 cessful, to the useful , although agreeable, but dishon¬ 
 orable. A good cause should be supported, though 
 it be condemned to perish. The most imperious ne¬ 
 cessity is that of honor. 
 
 “ Suppose some god would be your surety,— for certainly 
 no mortal could guarantee such an event,— that, notwith¬ 
 standing jmu kept quiet and abandoned everything, Philip 
 would not attack you at last; yet, by Jupiter and all the 
 gods, it were disagreeable and unworthy of yourselves, of 
 the character of Athens and the deeds of your ancestors, for 
 the sake of selfish ease, to abandon the rest of Greece to 
 servitude. For my own part, I would rather die than have 
 given such counsel; though, if another man advises it and 
 you are satisfied, well and good. Make no resistance; aban¬ 
 don all. If, however, no man hold this opinion; if, on the 
 contrary, we all foresee that the more we let Philip conquer, 
 the more ruthless and powerful an enemy we shall find him, 
 what subterfuge remains? what excuse for delay? Or when, 
 0 Athenians, shall we be willing to perform our duty? Per- 
 adventure when there is some necessity. But what may be 
 called the necessity of freemen is not only come, but past 
 long ago, and surely you must deprecate that of slaves. 
 What is the difference? To a freeman, the greatest neces¬ 
 sity is shame for his % proceedings. I know not what greater 
 you can suggest. To a slave, stripes and bodily chastise¬ 
 ment. Abominable things! Too shocking to mention !” * 
 
 “ Raise your hearts!” was the cry of the patriot 
 and the motto of the orator. 
 
 Like Aristotle, Demosthenes knew the weaknesses of 
 the Athenian multitude ; but, while the philosopher 
 condemned them without appeal, the orator labored 
 and contended with them. 
 
 “ As the mob lives solely on passions, it pursues only 
 pleasures which are agreeable to it, and the means to procure 
 
 * On the Chersonesus, § 49 ; cf. § 10. 
 
 16 * 
 
378 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 them. It is anxious to shun all pains and displeasures. But 
 of the beautiful, of true pleasure, it forms not even an idea, 
 because it has never tasted them. What orations, I ask, 
 what reasoning, could correct these gross natures? It is not 
 possible, or at least it is not easy , to change by the sole power 
 of speech those habits which have so long been sanctioned by 
 the passions.”* 
 
 Toward the end of his career Demosthenes is said to 
 have experienced the discouragement which the rigor¬ 
 ous sentence of the moralist was calculated to inspire. 
 But this discouragement his entire political life had 
 previously disavowed. The difficult work of which 
 Aristotle speaks Demosthenes accomplished. By con¬ 
 stantly speaking to the degenerate Athenians of their 
 honor, he made them regain it. By pushing his fellow- 
 citizens into the rough paths of duty, he sowed briers 
 along his own pathway, and approached an almost 
 certain precipice. The man affronting public affairs, 
 in the hope of correcting his fellow-men, throws him¬ 
 self as food to u wild beasts.” u He will perish before 
 doing any service for the commonwealth, useless to 
 others and to himself.Demosthenes braved Plato’s 
 prophecy, and almost belied it. If he perished at the 
 task, Athens owed to him the safety of her honor. 
 This devotion was the constant inspiration of his whole 
 life. In this respect he never flinched nor varied. 
 On other points his sentiments did not always have 
 the same firmness. In him the politician was some¬ 
 times substituted for the moralist and effaced it. 
 
 * Nicomacliean Ethics , x, 10, § 4. 
 
 f Plato, Republic , vi. 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 379 
 
 II.-RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 
 
 “'// dt‘/.cuo<ruv7j * * * ovO' ïtr-epoç ouO ” itooq ootw Oaupaaroq : 
 Justice * * * neither the evening star nor the morning star is so 
 admirable.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , v, i.) 
 
 “ w E<ttc ôè 7 zoXiTizàv àyaOô v to dixatov , toutu d'itrr] to y.ovÆ 
 aup.<pipov\ The good in politics is justice, and justice is general util, 
 ity.” 
 
 One of the arguments which Demosthenes developed 
 with the greatest force against Philip was the insta¬ 
 bility of all power founded on injustice. An interpre¬ 
 ter of human conscience, the orator of the Second 
 Olynthiac , by declaring the edifice of iniquitous power 
 ruinous, affirms what ought to be as a consolation for 
 what is. After the consecration of the honorable, the 
 only basis of lasting success, he demanded the union 
 of the honorable and the useful. The Socratic doc¬ 
 trine, so pure of intention, in this case inclines to a 
 dangerous exaggeration. In Socrates’ eyes, a thing is 
 not good when it is good for nothing. Aristiyopus : 
 “Is a basket for rubbish, then, a beautiful object?” 
 Socrates: “Yes, by Jupiter! and a golden shield is 
 ugly, if the one is conveniently adapted to its use and 
 the other is not.”* This sentiment has at least the 
 merit of purity and frankness, a quality which is want¬ 
 ing in the following Stoic paradox, The honorable is 
 always useful , and alone useful , a theory founded on 
 an equivocation in which moral utility and practical 
 utility are confounded. Both parties are somewhat 
 mistaken. Socrates, in the Portico, exaggerated the 
 truth. Demosthenes adopts a just medium when he 
 
 * See above, p. 32, the text ami the note. The utilitarian aesthetics 
 of Socrates leads to the utilitarian morality of the Epicureans and of 
 the Sceptics. 
 
380 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 says: “We must always aim at justice, and practice 
 it, but in tlie meantime we must seek measures to 
 identify it with our interests.”* The politician guards 
 against ideal speculations, and considers only the reali¬ 
 ty of things. He pursues the honorable and the useful 
 at the same time. What more can we ask of him ? 
 
 The political motto of Hobbes was the saying of 
 Plautus: “Man to man is a wolf”;f the state of 
 nature is brigandage. Since men are inclined by in¬ 
 stinct to destroy one another, they need a powerful 
 despot capable of establishing order in society. Aris¬ 
 totle did not .view human nature in the same light. 
 Man, said he, is a social being (-oXtrudv justice 
 
 is u that which is useful to the greatest number,” and 
 when thus understood it constitutes the best politics. 
 The thought of Demosthenes is not less generous than 
 that of the Stagirite. Justice, in his eyes, is the de¬ 
 fense of the oppressed. Such has always been, and 
 such ought to ever be, the policy of Athens. The Me- 
 galapolitans (Arcadia) besought Athens for aid against 
 Lacedæmon, then her ally. Sparta claimed this alli¬ 
 ance in order to dissuade her rival from assisting the 
 attacked city. 
 
 “ I wonder, also, to hear it argued that, if we espouse the 
 Arcadian alliance and adopt these measures, our state will be 
 chargeable with inconsistencv and bad faith. It seems to me, 
 0 Athenians, the reverse. Why? Because no man, I appre¬ 
 hend, will deny that in defending the Lacedaemonians, and 
 the Thebans before them, and lastly the Eubœans, and making 
 them afterward her allies, our republic has always had one 
 
 * For the Megalopolitans, § 10. 
 
 f “ Homo liomini lupus, quem non gnoveris.” In suppressing 
 this restriction, tlie Christian philosopher aggravates the offensiveness 
 of the Latin poet’s sentence. 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 381 
 
 and the same object. What is that? To protect the injured. 
 If this be so, the inconsistency will not be ours, but theirs 
 who refuse to adhere to justice; and it will appear that while 
 circumstances change, through people continually encroach¬ 
 ing, Athens changes not.” * 
 
 The protection of the weak was so strict an obliga¬ 
 tion in Demosthenes’ mind, that he made it the sover¬ 
 eign criterion of justice between Athens and other states. 
 To him it was the source of honor and the foundation 
 of equity 
 
 “ Men dispose of their actions easily, but no one is power¬ 
 ful enough to govern the opinion which judges those acts. 
 The people publish over the author of an act whatever appre¬ 
 ciation the act deserves. Let us therefore act so that our 
 politics will conform to justice; let us establish them on this 
 principle: let us do unto the oppressed what we would wish 
 that others would do unto us in adversity (but may this never 
 await us !)” {Twenty-second Exordium.) 
 
 In the oration For the Liberty of the Rhodians , De¬ 
 mosthenes makes a distinction between social and inter¬ 
 national justice; but this time he does not impose upon 
 the latter the obligation of moral beauty. 
 
 “ I believe it a just measure to establish the Rhodian 
 democracy; yet, granting it were not just, when I look at 
 the conduct of these people, I conceive it right to advise the 
 measure. And why ? Because, 0 Athenians, if all men 
 were inclined to observe justice, it would be disgraceful for 
 us alone to refuse; but when all the rest are seeking the 
 power to do wrong, for us to profess high principles and un¬ 
 dertake no enterprise, would, in my opinion, be not justice but 
 cowardice. I see that men have their rights allowed them in 
 proportion to their power. * * * For, although private po¬ 
 litical rights are granted by the laws impartially to all, the 
 
 * Cf. Aristotle, Politics , v, 7. 
 
382 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 same for the weak as for the strong, the rule of Hellenic 
 
 O 7 
 
 right is prescribed by the greater powers to the less.” 
 
 A short time previous the orator, sympathizing with 
 the Megalapolitans, placed Hellenic right, which Ath¬ 
 ens identified with protection of the weak,* below 
 strict right. He subordinated absolute justice to inter¬ 
 national justice, as a modern politician would sacrifice 
 exact equity to European equilibrium. The protector 
 of Rhodian liberty went farther and farther. He rec¬ 
 ognized a social morality arising from equity, and a 
 Hellenic morality subject to the law of force. What 
 was his aim ? He wished that all people should see in 
 the Athenians the defenders of common independence. 
 Let us sound the depths of his thought: the supremacy 
 of Athens, the champion of Hellenic liberty, would 
 realize for him the reign of justice in Greece. 
 
 Thucydides likewise (vi, 89) reminded Athens that 
 it was her political and moral obligation to raise her¬ 
 self to the protectorship of the free states: this was 
 the most ingenious and certain method for her to en¬ 
 counter the preponderance of Lacedæmonian oligar¬ 
 chy. This policy conciliated the useful and the hon¬ 
 orable. Demosthenes, in his turn, celebrated its 
 advantages and magnanimity; but, inconstant to him¬ 
 self, after having established the law of honor, he 
 stranded upon the apology of force: this fall was not 
 expected, and what excuse did he give for it? The 
 spectacle of universal injustice. * * * Too often, in¬ 
 deed, the example of successful iniquity is alluring; 
 the dog of Fontaine (viii, 7) did not resist it. He was 
 carrying his master’s dinner home for him; a mastiff* 
 attacks him: a great struggle. Other aggressors come 
 
 * ânXcùq fir] TzpoicOai /irjôéva rœv èXazrô^roj^ rœ fizî^ovi. 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 383 
 
 upon him. The faithful guardian foresees his defeat; 
 he decides to make the best of it. 
 
 Notre chien, se voyant trop faible contre eux tous, 
 
 Et que la chair courait un danger manifeste, 
 
 Volut avoir sa part; et, lui sage, il leur dit: 
 
 Point de courroux, messieurs; mon lopin me suffit; 
 
 Faites votre profit du reste. 
 
 A ces mots, le premier il vous happe un morceau; 
 
 Et chacun de tirer, le matin, la canaille, 
 
 A qui mieux mieux: ils firent tous ripaille; 
 
 Chacun d’eux eut part au gâteau.* 
 
 Thus certain congresses, in the name of justice (dis¬ 
 tributive), cut up a victim in the interests of general 
 peace. The Athenian maxim is then justified: each 
 has his rights allowed him in proportion to his 
 strength; for none of those interested would believe 
 it his advantage to he just while the others were 
 unjust. 
 
 Demosthenes made a distinction between social and 
 international justice. In what measure is this dis¬ 
 tinction legitimate, and, if it is admitted, what con¬ 
 sequences can be drawn from it ? In principle, justice 
 does not change its nature when it changes its theater: 
 let it be applied to individuals or to groups of indi¬ 
 viduals, to citizens of a single state or to several 
 states, it remains the same in its essence. Good, 
 according to Kant, is that which can be universalized 
 with impunity. Justice being one and absolute in 
 
 * Our dog, seeing that lie was too weak against them all, and that 
 the meat was running a manifest danger, desired to have his share; 
 and he wisely said to them : Do not be angry, gentlemen, my portion 
 will satisfy me; you are at liberty to profit by the rest. At these 
 words he first snapped a mouthful, and each dog tore off all he could 
 of the meat. They all feasted,— each of them had a share of the 
 cake. 
 
384 
 
 POLITICxVL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 itself, tlie principles of social justice should be capable 
 of being extended to international justice, and the right 
 of individuals generalized, ought to become the right 
 of nations. In the actual state of Europe these two 
 kinds of justice are very unequally observed. Social 
 justice is differently respected in each state. In no 
 case is the citizen authorized to violate it, even after 
 another has violated it to his detriment. Indeed, if 
 
 j 
 
 the principle of reprisals were admitted, it would de¬ 
 stroy social order, whose maintenance is a better safe¬ 
 guard of all particular interests than the prosecution 
 of crime or individual repression. The state is effi¬ 
 ciently armed, for the defense of its members, with 
 laws which protect them against every aggressor. 
 Thus a social contract, which is fortified by sufficient 
 sanctions, renders each people respectful to itself. 
 On the contrary, we have not yet been able to estab¬ 
 lish a similar international code for Europe. She has 
 treaties and temporary conventions, very similar to 
 a simple truce. She has no penalty sufficient to pre¬ 
 vent misdemeanors or to suppress and chastise vio¬ 
 lence. If an European state violates justice in order 
 to injure us, have we also a right to violate it in order 
 to secure our defense? This violation is lamentable; 
 for evil always remains evil and nothing modifies or 
 transforms it absolutely. But is not Europe excus¬ 
 able? The temporary and precarious compact which 
 bound the states together by the supposition that it 
 existed, has been broken; anarchy succeeds consented 
 order; the law of Nature, the law of diplomacy. To 
 demand of injustice a recourse against injustice is 
 abnormal and immoral, viewed in the light of principle; 
 but practically allowable, since necessity exacts it. 
 Civil law forbids us to injure another, but permits 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 385 
 
 the killing of a murderer. When a nation’s life or 
 honor, which is one of its vital forces, is threatened, 
 it no longer recognizes any other law than that of 
 preservation, and it no longer discusses the means 
 of securing it.* If it does not defend itself, what 
 foreign force will have the authority and power to 
 defend it ? Perhaps Europe will some day recognize 
 a sovereign arbitration, a justice of universal peace, 
 sufficiently strong and respected to decide quarrels 
 and to give decisions. With such an arbitration the 
 Hellenic world was unacquainted in Philip’s time; it 
 has been wanting among modern nations even to our 
 day. The boldest princes have sometimes been con¬ 
 strained to respect the law, the common protectress 
 of their subjects: the destruction of social peace and 
 the loss of their crown, would perhaps have punished 
 them for their iniquities. Against a neighboring state 
 if it is weak, violence offers less risks. Frederick 
 the Great respected the heritage of the miller of Sans- 
 Souci (this was social right), and violated Silesia (this 
 was the way he understood international law). There 
 were judges at Berlin for a mill; where could judges 
 be found for provinces ? 
 
 * Balzac {Le Prince , ch. viii) deplores the discredit of the old 
 theology, less accommodating, hut more virtuous than the new: “It 
 plainly says that a little evil is forbidden, when great good is to 
 result from it; that if the world can be saved only by a trespass, it 
 is of the opinion that it should be let go to ruin * * *; that God has 
 placed in our hands his commandments and not the government of 
 the universe.” In ch. xxx the thesis is very different: “A drown¬ 
 ing person indifferently catches at everything he meets * * *; 
 necessity excuses and justifies all he does. The law of God has not 
 repealed the law of Nature. * * * To defend oneself with the left 
 hand is not trespassing.” The latter is far from the principle of the 
 old theology. These two chapters are to be read; in them will be 
 found the change of front of the political moralist. 
 
 17 
 
386 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 The struggle for life is a natural and a generally 
 legitimate law, but the infringement of justice for self- 
 defense is not the employment of force to destroy jus¬ 
 tice, nor is it the adoption of the maxim, Might makes 
 right. Demosthenes witnessed the triumph of this 
 detestable principle, and wished to draw from it en¬ 
 couragement for its application. In this he failed. He 
 was better inspired when he recommended to the judges 
 of LejDtines’ law that they should not permit as citi¬ 
 zens what they would reprove as men. How, if in social 
 relations it is necessary that right should prevail over 
 passion, why should it not be so among cities ? States 
 represent so many individuals, and ought to tend, out 
 of respect to the right, to the establishment of an asso¬ 
 ciation similar to that which binds the members of each 
 state. Admitting the legitimacy of might is encourag¬ 
 ing individuals, who compose the human family, to the 
 regime of savage life. 
 
 The idea of right was generally weak among the 
 Greeks. The resources of Athens are exhausted; she 
 throws herself upon an allied town in Bœotia, Oropus, 
 and pillages it from top to bottom. 4 4 This was not through 
 malignity, but through necessity.” Such is the moral 
 conclusion which Pausanias (vii, 11) draws from this 
 robbery. A teacher of morality who made pretensions 
 to gravity, Isocrates, gave an eloquent exposition on 
 the inseparable union of the useful and the honorable. 
 Then when he had to express himself on the violences 
 of Athens, he acquitted her with this excuse: 
 
 “ The Athenians thought that between two grievous evils 
 they must choose the maltreatment of others rather than the 
 maltreatment of themselves, and the unjust rule over other 
 people rather than the unjust enslavement of themselves by 
 Lacedæmon; and all well-informed people would think the 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 387 
 
 same. Some moralists, however, affecting wisdom, would 
 speak and think otherwise.” 
 
 Melos and Scion made no better impression on his 
 coldness: 
 
 “ We have been accused of enslaving the inhabitants of 
 Melos and destroying those of Scion. According to my opin¬ 
 ion, it is not in the least a proof of our tyranny, that people who 
 have made war on us should be severely punished {acpodpa 
 xoXaffiïévreç)-, but it is a strong proof that we govern our peo¬ 
 ple well, that none of the subjugated cities have suffered a 
 similar punishment.” * 
 
 Isocrates gave the matter little consideration, and 
 disposed of it lightly. 
 
 The stability 7 of thought, especially the perfect har¬ 
 mony of theory and practice, will, on certain subjects, 
 always be rare among men. Generally", disavowals 
 given to speculation are detrimental to morality. We 
 think well and act ill. Sometimes deeds are better 
 than words. The writings of Helvetius are like those 
 of- an Epicurean. Ilis life was that of a sage. Such 
 theories have undergone contradictions which are 
 profitable to truth and good. The speculative scepti¬ 
 cism of Kant, not daring to maintain its pretensions 
 before morality, abdicates in its favor. Leibnitz has 
 also fallen into a fortunate inconsistency". The author 
 of the Essais de Théodicée praises God for tolerating 
 particular evils which are the origin of general good. 
 For evil is often the condition of good. “The grain 
 which we sow is subject to a kind of corruption in 
 order to germinate.” We see, then, that the Creator 
 authorizes us to use the maxim, The end justifies the 
 
 * Panegyric, §§ 63, 100; On the Peace , § 28; Panathenaicus, § 117; 
 Antidosis. 
 
388 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 means, and to enjoy tlie benefit of state rights. Should 
 we accord the same privilege to man ? God forbid it! 
 
 “ The rule Non esse facienda mala at eveniant bona is con¬ 
 firmed. The act of a queen will not be approved if she aims 
 to save the state by committing, or permitting, a crime. The 
 crime is certain, and the evil to the state is doubtful. * * * 
 But in regard to God, nothing is doubtful, and nothing could 
 be opposed to the rule of the best, which does not suffer some 
 exception or dispensation.” 
 
 Therefore God will always have the right to pursue 
 the best, even with the aid of evil, because he knows- 
 with certainty the result. Man will not. The evil 
 which he hopes to correct, and the good which he 
 imagines he can effect, are equally uncertain. If, how¬ 
 ever, certainty on these two points were established, 
 would not the evil destined to produce an indisputable 
 good be permitted, and even be praiseworthy ? Logic¬ 
 ally, Leibnitz could not deny the affirmative. But 
 logic is not always the ruling quality of metaphysL 
 cians. Leibnitz, therefore, contradicts himself by 
 refusing to subject man and God to the same moral 
 principle, and the defense which the theorist of op¬ 
 timism makes of his endeavor to imitate God proves- 
 that the system attributed to God, and that of the 
 author, are both very questionable. 
 
 Philosophers who are well informed on politics, or 
 politicians who aspire to philosophy, are seldom con¬ 
 sistent with themselves.* In this there is nothing 
 astonishing. Even professional philosophers are not 
 
 * Frederick II was a philosopher in his correspondence with Vol- 
 atire, and in the Anii-Machiavel. However, he displayed little phi¬ 
 losophy on the throne and in his foreign relations. “Who talks 
 politics talks all hut knavery.” The king of Prussia spoke of politics 
 as Rochefoucault spoke of disinterested virtue : “ Qui a la jaunisse voit 
 tout en jaune.” 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 389 
 
 always consistent. Plato placed justice in tlie number 
 of noblest ideas which constitute the retinue and radi¬ 
 ance of the perfections of divinity. Nevertheless, in 
 his Republic he disregarded justice and liberty to such 
 an extent as to proscribe the elementary rights of the 
 individual, the instinct of propriety, and the natural 
 affections of the family. They are drowned by him in 
 the state “ as a few drops of honey in a great quantity 
 of water.”* The most powerful genius of antiquity did 
 not always escape, if not formal contradictions, at least 
 the divergence of various views acceptable, each in 
 itself, by virtue of their happy media, but not easy to 
 reconcile. 
 
 Aristotle’s method differs from Plato’s. Plato gen¬ 
 erally devotes himself to pure speculation. He lays 
 down, or rather seeks, principles whose formula is the 
 object of his Dialogues / therefore he pursues the defi¬ 
 nition of the good, of the beautiful, and of the holy. 
 In the Gorgias he examines like a philosopher the 
 relations between justice and eloquence, and as dia¬ 
 lectics appear to him alone capable of realizing truth 
 and good, he sacrifices to it rhetoric, which merely 
 aims at probabilities and the appearance of the use¬ 
 ful. Aristotle proceeds differently. At first he es¬ 
 tablishes principles; then, after making these reserva¬ 
 tions, he gives rules adapted to the ordinary course 
 of things. He affirms what ought to be, then he ex¬ 
 plains what is. 
 
 Thus in his Rhetoric he first regrets, in the name 
 of truth and justice, that human infirmity has created 
 an art condemnable in itself. If men were wise, elo¬ 
 quence would be no more necessary to the orator 
 than to the mathematician and the geometrician. But 
 
 * Politics , Aristotle, ii, 1. 
 
390 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE 
 
 hearers have a perverted taste ( 'jwyO-qpia v). They are 
 not satisfied with convincing demonstration. We will 
 therefore speak of elocution and the means of render¬ 
 ing it seductive. Action deserves the disdain of sen¬ 
 sible minds, but the mob exact it of their orators as 
 of their comedians. Things are not what they should 
 be, but necessity knows no law.* We must respect 
 the law. Nevertheless, here are some artifices of rea¬ 
 soning to weaken them if they condemn you, and to 
 strengthen them if they justify you. According as 
 the case may be, make a breach in the written law in 
 the name of natural law, or in the natural law in the 
 name of the written law. Apply the same practice 
 to contracts and treaties. The city reposes on the 
 equality and application of a law common to all. 
 Ought great men also to be subject to it 1 No ! 
 
 “ It would be injurious to them to reduce them to a com¬ 
 mon equality, when their merit and their political import¬ 
 ance place them entirely beyond comparison. Such persons, 
 it may be said, are gods among men,— a new proof that legis¬ 
 lation can concern only individuals who are equal by birth 
 and faculties. But the law is not made for these superior 
 beings. They themselves are the law. It would be ridicu¬ 
 lous to attempt to submit them to the constitution, for they 
 would follow Antisthenes, and would answer as did the lions 
 to the decree rendered by the assembly of hares on the gen¬ 
 eral equality of animals.” f 
 
 Morality, considered in itself, has unchangeable 
 principles. In detailed applications it is as individual 
 and opportune as medicine.:): It is not an iron rule, 
 
 * Rhetoric, iii, 1. Oox. opOœç 'iyovroç àXX wç àvayxaiou. (Cf. i, 
 13, 15.) 
 
 t Politics , iii, 8. These lions recall those of the Gorgias. 
 
 X Nicomachean Ethics , ii, 2. 
 
 I 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 391 
 
 rigid and inflexible. It is tlie lead rule of Lesbos which 
 bends to the accidents of tlie stone and follows its con¬ 
 tours. 
 
 Does the philosopher contradict himself in these 
 various assertions? We prefer to say that he divides 
 the subject into two branches. He sees things from 
 a theoretical, and then from a practical, point of view 
 under their double aspect. The political orator did 
 not thus present the two faces of Janus. Lie confined 
 himself to that face which suited his purpose. He 
 omitted theoretical restrictions, and went straight to 
 the reality of things. How, reality and political ne¬ 
 cessity frequently do violence to speculative truth. 
 Plato and Aristotle, by accepting slavery, submitted 
 to this yoke. Since ancient society rested on this 
 iniquity, it was impossible for them to think of shak¬ 
 ing it from its foundations. The political and social 
 organization of the state prevented the ancients from 
 seeing truth in this light, or, if they did see it, from 
 mentioning it and from pleading for a cause whose 
 triumph, then impossible, was to be realized many 
 centuries after the advent of Christianity; and so, in 
 the best philosophers, principles and the application 
 of principles, absolute morality and political interest, 
 have little harmony. The people, we are told, will 
 be happy when kings are philosophers, or philoso¬ 
 phers kings. According to this they are destined 
 never to be happy. A king may be a philosopher in 
 his spiritual tribunal. He is chief of state in his coun¬ 
 cil. When perchance philosophy reigns, it does not 
 govern. A theoretical moralist celebrates with de¬ 
 light ideal justice, contemplated in its essence and in 
 the perfection of its absolute beauty. “Neither the 
 rising nor the setting of the sun is as worthy of ad- 
 
392 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 miration !”'*’* * Ecstasy is forbidden to tlie poli¬ 
 tician. He does not contemplate the intellectual 
 world. He endeavors to see distinctly tlie real world 
 and to diminish the infinite distance which separates 
 them. Since it is generally refused him to realize 
 absolute good,* he confines his ambition to the task 
 of doing the most possible good and the least possible 
 harm; for he must not become a slave to ideas, but 
 must be classed with men. 
 
 Let us note the difference between the ancients and 
 the moderns in regard to diverse forms of moral obli- 
 gation. The ancients were, first of all, citizens; they 
 subordinated morality to politics,f and all duties to 
 civic duty. Hence the appropriate character of Cicero’s 
 De Officiis , a work so perfect according to the judg¬ 
 ment of SainfiCyran, that he was astonished that it 
 could have been inspired by a purely human genius 
 before the time of Christianity. How, this work is 
 essentially a treatise on social morality. In it Cicero 
 places duty to the gods in the first rank, and scarcely 
 mentions this duty in the rest of the work. This is 
 because the pagans had no need of a special religious 
 morality or precepts exclusively relative to obligations 
 to the Divinity. They served their divinity by serving 
 their country. 
 
 The God of the Christians is the God of humanity. 
 The pagan divinities were wanting in this character of 
 universality. Zeus, it is true, extended his empire over 
 the entire civilized world, without devoting himself to 
 any particular nation or country. But, under him, the 
 immortals willingly adopted certain countries. They 
 
 * The nature of tilings is such that the good and the had are 
 everywhere found in company. (Plato, Laics.) 
 
 f Politics, iii, 7 ; To JYicomachus, i, 1. Esprit des Lois , xxiii, 17. 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 
 
 393 
 
 had on earth a legal domicile and sometimes even tem¬ 
 poral lodgings. They formed an integral part of the 
 city where they were strongly established. * To defend 
 the state w r as to defend them; the defeat of the state 
 involved their defeat and condemned them to the loss 
 of their consecrated residence and to exile. ./Eneas 
 carried with him his vanquished gods and sought a new 
 country for them. And so, while among modern na¬ 
 tions religious faith cannot always be in perfect har¬ 
 mony with patriotic feeling, among the ancients relig¬ 
 ious duty and civic duty, far from counteracting each 
 other, fortified each other to the benefit of the state. 
 
 Montesquieu recalls the trait of Persian Cambyses 
 who placed certain animals sacred to the Egyptians be¬ 
 fore his soldiers. The Egyptians were so stupid that 
 they did not dare to kill them, and the besieged city 
 was captured. “Who does not see that a natural de¬ 
 fense is superior to all precejits ? ” f So the ancients 
 judged. They esteemed devotion to the state much 
 higher than the realization of such a particular moral 
 good. Public good was preeminently the good ; who 
 virtuously served his country had no need of other 
 virtues. Sometimes the political moralist, in recalling 
 the principles of philosophy, modified by a restriction 
 the imperious order of sacrificing all to state interests. 
 “There are hideous and infamous things which the 
 wise man will not do, even to save the state.” ^ But 
 
 * When the Spartan kings departed for war, they carried the two 
 Tyndarides with them; these were their companion gods. Cicero 
 conjured the Romans to avenge the national gods (deos patrios) of 
 Sicily as if they were their own. (Against Verres , ii, livre 4, cli. 43, 
 51.) See M. Tustel de Coulanges, La Cite Antique , iii, G. 
 
 f Esprit des Lois, xxvi, 7. 
 
 X De officiis , i, 45. This exception to the sovereign rule does not 
 trouble Cicero much ; fortunately a thought puts him at his ease (hoc 
 
394 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 this is merely a concession made, for form’s sake, to 
 the idea of absolute good and to the Stoic maxim that 
 the honorable alone is truly useful. Cicero well knew 
 that the wisdom of the politician was not that of Zeno; 
 he even reproached Cato for constantly stating his 
 opinions as in the ideal city of Plato and injuring the 
 republic by his narrow inflexibility.* Let the safety 
 of the people be the supreme law. Such was, upon 
 the whole, the fundamental maxim of ancient politics 
 and morality. 
 
 Christian spiritualism inspired modern nations with 
 a more delicate morality, and, in a measure, more per¬ 
 sonal than civic. A Christian prince can place the in¬ 
 terest of his soul and the interest of state on the same 
 level, sometimes even sacrifice the interest of state to 
 conscientious scruples.. In 1259, by the treaty of Ab¬ 
 beville, Louis IX restored Limousin, Périgord, Quercy 
 and Agénois to Henry III of England against their 
 will. u His conscience troubled him”f on account of the 
 conquests made in France by his ancestors over the 
 future adversaries of the Hundred Years’War. When 
 once engaged in this pursuit, why did not the saintly 
 king continue to the end? Was a partial restitution a 
 “good returning” ? To reduce the kingdom to the do¬ 
 main of Hugh Capet would have been logical.;); In the 
 eyes of the Christian moralist piety is the whole of man, 
 
 commodius se res habet), —that the republic will never exact such a sac¬ 
 rifice of the sage. 
 
 * Ad Atticum , ii, 1. A passage commented upon by Camille Des¬ 
 moulins. ( Les Vieux Cordelier , No e 7, 1 tin., 3 fin.) 
 
 f Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation en France, 14 e leçon. 
 
 X Carneades said to the Romans: “ Every people who have pos¬ 
 sessed empire, and the Romans themselves, masters of the world, if 
 they wished to he just,—that is, to restore the goods of others,—would 
 return to their huts and become resigned to the miseries of poverty.” 
 
RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 395 
 
 even on the throne ; and it is not confounded, like 
 ancient piety, with love of country. The Christian 
 turns all to the safety of his soul; the Greek or Roman, 
 of perfect virtue, turned all to the safety of the state. 
 
 Antiquity was less interested in man, considered in 
 himself, than in the citizen, and especially studied his 
 rôle in the state. 
 
 Political science was to the ancients the fundamental 
 and architectonie science. Consequently political jus¬ 
 tice (distinguished from domestic and civil justice) gives 
 to good its most excellent form. This reminds us of 
 the peripatetic definition of justice,—that which is use¬ 
 ful to the greatest number. Plato’s definition in his 
 Republic is equally stamped with an eminently social 
 character, and has nothing common with the definition: 
 To each his own. It consists in a decorous subordina¬ 
 tion of three elements which constitute the state,—the 
 philosophers who govern it, the warriors who defend it, 
 and the artisans whose labor nourishes it. This justice 
 has, therefore, nothing to do whh equality of rights, 
 nor with individual liberty, both of which Plato sacri¬ 
 fices to the desire of unity; it results from a certain 
 harmony, from a certain order, according to the philos¬ 
 opher, necessary to a good constitution of the state.* 
 
 The social prejudices familiar to the ancients further 
 explain the disproportion which they sometimes per¬ 
 mitted between misdemeanors or crimes and punish¬ 
 ments; they did not specially consider the degree of 
 
 * Likewise justice, for the individual, springs from a fitting rela¬ 
 tion established between intelligence (vuDç), courage ( Ou/jôç } centre 
 of generous passions), and concupiscence (l-cOupa, brutal desires). 
 This justice is written in large capital letters in a well-organized state, 
 and in small capitals in a well-regulated mind; but the basis of the 
 two inscriptions is identical. 
 
396 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 immorality in tlie fault, but tlie amount of damage done 
 to the state. Plato condemned to death the advocate 
 who received money for his services or supported a 
 bad cause. Whence sprung such excessive severity— 
 from a desire to correct, at all hazards, one of the worst 
 plagues of the Athenian city. The principle upon which 
 our military justice, in time of war, rests, is the conse¬ 
 quence of the misdemeanor or crime committed before 
 the enemy. It condemns the freebooter to death, and 
 the sentinel found asleep to several years’ imprison¬ 
 ment. Outside of these particular circumstances mod¬ 
 ern law fixes a penalty, not on possible consequences, 
 but on the intention. Thus it does not punish as a 
 murderer the author of a murder committed in a state 
 of drunkenness. The ancients were disposed to punish 
 not so much the guilt as the injury caused. Hence 
 suits were entered even against inanimate objects. A 
 stone fell and killed a man; it was formally judged, con¬ 
 demned, and thrown out of Attica. Pittacus* was the 
 author of a law which prescribed double penalty for 
 crimes committed during drunkenness. As crimes were 
 more frequent in this state than in the state of sober¬ 
 ness, the legislator consulted the general utility of 
 suppressing a preference for indulgence, which was 
 due to an unconscious appetite. Thus public interest 
 appears to have been the inspiration and the guide of 
 political and private morality among the ancients. 
 
 Morality in itself is one and identical. Its unchange¬ 
 able essence is the order and necessity to which the 
 citizen and the private man ought to make his acts 
 conform. But this unique morality contains many 
 duties of unequal dignity. The determination of this 
 hierarchy may vary according to the media. The mind, 
 
 * Politics , Aristotle, ii, 9, fin. 
 
KELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 397 
 
 which changes and is unequal in the manifestations of 
 its faculties in the child, the mature man and the old 
 man, is, however, always the same in substance. Thus 
 the honorable is the sovereign rule, the mind of all 
 human actions. Nevertheless the honorable is not 
 imposed on all with similar obligations. The politi¬ 
 cian, whose mission is to protect social order within 
 and the security of the state without, ought not to be 
 submitted to the same duties as the individual, who 
 has only his own welfare and moral dignity to defend. 
 Politics and morality, therefore, are not contradictory; 
 but wdien both are submitted to the common principle 
 of good they realize it by different methods, a legiti¬ 
 mate diversity which is enforced by different circum¬ 
 stances and objects. 
 
 In governments, the less the political power is con¬ 
 centrated in the hands of a few, the more politics and 
 justice are susceptible of harmony. A shepherd w r atcli- 
 ing his flock is, according to La Bruyère, the “naïve” 
 picture of the prince, “if he is a good prince.” If he 
 is not, he practices the maxim of Fra Paolo: “The 
 first duty of a prince is to maintain himself prince.” 
 Herein lies the danger of monarchical power. In de¬ 
 mocracies, where sovereign authority has passed from 
 a single person to all, the pole of politics is also dis¬ 
 placed. Interest and duty then unite and engage the 
 attorneys of the sovereign to attend to the welfare of 
 the people, on whom they depend, and whose inter¬ 
 ests are united with their own. In these conditions 
 modern political justice approaches that of the ancient 
 free cities, where it was identified with the advantage 
 of the greatest number. Now, when the governing 
 and governed are thus united by common interests, 
 and the direction of the people is intrusted to the 
 
398 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 people, who does not see that political crimes and 
 public disasters, which emanate from them, must neces¬ 
 sarily be more rare ? Then no dynastic manœuvres 
 compromise national prosperity ; no underhand diplo¬ 
 macy ; none of those intrigues so mysterious that the 
 ministers’ secret is not always the Secret of the King. 
 The policy of parliaments is still discreet ; but it cannot 
 and will not be concealed. The light of liberty puri¬ 
 ties. 
 
 In the heat of the contest Demosthenes for a moment 
 lost sight of moral law. What the philosophers fre¬ 
 quently did to humor their systems, or to yield to the 
 emergencies of the times, the politician did in a burst 
 of indignation at the sight of universal iniquity.* He 
 dreamed' that his country would enjoy the perpetuity 
 of honored power and independence. In consequence 
 of this, he seems to have held strict equity at a low 
 price. To pursue this course is dangerous. The 
 authors of coups d’état never fail to allege the august 
 authority of their desired object. They abandon legal¬ 
 ity to pursue right. They cannot confess that they 
 violate the law to escape its threats. God forbids us 
 to ever excuse the transgression of the law ; but a cri¬ 
 terion is here infallible to determine the amount of 
 esteem due the author of the attempt. It is the judi¬ 
 cial formula : Who profited by it ? ( Qui bono fueritf') 
 If the transgressor of the law alleged public welfare in 
 the hope of securing his own welfare, let us declare 
 him a criminal. If the state alone is to gather the 
 
 * Thucydides, iii, 82. “ In times of peace, and in the heart of 
 prosperity, states and individuals have a better spirit, because they are 
 not thrown against their will into trying necessities; but war * * * 
 teaches violence, and assimilates the passions of the multitude to the 
 severity of the times.” 
 
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 399 
 
 fruit of the crimeful act, philosophers, be indulgent to 
 the politician. The good God who, in creating the 
 world, wished to make it as good as possible, has, 
 however, left it far from his own perfection. 
 
 III. RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 
 
 “01 p.b; xdXXtffroi xai dyuozazot ficoiun b; adzfj zfj 
 The most beautiful and sacred altar is the heart of a-n honorable 
 man.” [Against Aristogiton.) 
 
 “(Piper; ore âv 6 Oeoq didà> yewatcoq: Endure with courage 
 whatever the god ordains.” (Oration on the Crown.) 
 
 In times of violent crises, when evil triumphs among 
 men, it is not rare to see great minds, troubled by 
 the moral disorders which they witness, ^anxiously 
 questioning one another about Providence. The 
 Epicurean Lucretius witnessed the unpunished crimes 
 of the triumvirate, and then disavowed the gods, 
 substituting blind hazard for them. The Stoic Tacitus, 
 a contemporary of Domitian, sometimes doubted the 
 goodness of the best and greatest Jupiter, and sup¬ 
 ported the belief in fatality. In the midst of the evils 
 of the Macedonian invasion, what were the feelings 
 of Demosthenes in this respect ? The orator of the 
 Philippics always speaks with admiration of the 
 power of fortune: u Fortune is master of all things; 
 it is the whole (to oko;) of human things.” But a good 
 fortune can be the reward of good actions. In the age 
 of Aristides and Miltiades, the Athenians, faithful 
 observers of justice in their relations between them¬ 
 selves and with the Greek cities, deserved to reach 
 the zenith of prosperity. The Gods protected them 
 in their struggle against Philip. What could be a 
 more striking proof of their benevolence than the 
 propitious opportunity offered by the siege of Olyn- 
 
400 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 thus ? A friendly god inspired the Macedonian with 
 an insatiable desire destined to ruin him by finally 
 arousing the city. Without Athens having done any¬ 
 thing to call them forth, various favorable circum¬ 
 stances presented themselves voluntarily (aoro/xara). 
 To Divine Providence Demosthenes owed the sagacity 
 which urged him to denounce the enemy’s designs. 
 Heaven’s protection, with the orator’s devotion, was 
 the source of the benefit of the Theban alliance. U I 
 will read to you an oracle of the gods, who always 
 protect the commonwealth far better than her states¬ 
 men.” 
 
 Elsewhere he tells the Athenians to confide in the 
 future: u We have always been more just and pious 
 than Philip.” Why, then, has he thus far succeeded 
 better than we ? This objection, which the Athenians 
 made to the orator and moralist, recalls that of Louis 
 XIY to M. de Meaux. The young king, conqueror 
 of Flanders, invader of Holland, saw his least equit¬ 
 able designs crowned with success; and victory aban¬ 
 doned him in the war of Spanish succession, when 
 he fought for justice and his right. Providence, re¬ 
 plied Bossuet, wished to punish him for his excessive 
 love of worldly glory, and to exercise his piety. If 
 unjust Philip has succeeded better than you, replied 
 Demosthenes to his contradictors, it is because he 
 manages his affairs with more energy than you do. 
 U I see that you have many more claims than he to 
 the support of the immortal gods. But we must con. 
 fess that we are inmovable and inactive. How, who. 
 ever does not act himself, has no right to entreat his 
 friends, still less the gods, to aid him.” 
 
 The Athenians were slow to reflect on the principle 
 of harmony between merit and good fortune. Ad- 
 
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 401 
 
 versity soon compelled them to implore the justice of 
 Providence; before suffering, they had little care for 
 it. “Justice is that which is pleasing and useful to 
 the strong” ( Gorgias ). Athens had formerly pro¬ 
 fessed this doctrine publicly. At the opening of the 
 Peloponnesian war, when the Corinthians reproached 
 them for their selfish ambition, their orators re¬ 
 sponded: 
 
 “We have done nothing at which you ought to be aston¬ 
 ished, nothing contrary to human nature by accepting an 
 empire which was offered to us. * * * We are not the first 
 to act thus; but there is an established law at all times that 
 the strongest shall rule the weakest.* * * Considerations 
 of your own interests have made you allege maxims of 
 justice which never prevented any person from enlarging his 
 domain when opportunity was presented to acquire anything 
 by force.” 
 
 This principle was even more openly pleaded in the 
 conference which the Athenian deputies held with 
 the magistrates of Melos (417), in order to draw that 
 isle from the Lacedaemonian alliance. The Athenians 
 said to them: 
 
 “We must rely upon the pursuit of what is possible, and 
 abandon a principle on which we agree, and have nothing to 
 teach each other mutually; this is because, in human affairs, 
 we submit to the rules of justice, when we are constrained 
 to it by mutual necessity. But for the strong, power is the 
 only rule; for the weak, submission.” 
 
 The Melians: “We sincerely hope that, with the 
 protection of the gods, we will not be inferior to you 
 in defending our sacred rights against injustice.” The 
 reply of the Athenians is curious. Force is of divine 
 right. 
 
 17* 
 
402 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 “We also believe that divine favor will not be wanting to 
 us, for we demand nothing, we do nothing, contrary to that 
 which men attribute to the Divinity and claim for themselves. 
 In fact, we think that, by virtue of a natural necessity, the 
 gods, according to tradition* * * § and men, manifestly employ all 
 the means in their power to rule when they are the strong¬ 
 est. We did not enact this law; we are not the first to 
 apply it; we found it established, and we will transmit it 
 after us, because it is eternal. We profit by it, being thor¬ 
 oughly convinced that no one, not even yourselves, if placed 
 in the same condition of power, would act differently.” t 
 
 Power becoming equity is one of tlie forms of fa¬ 
 tality. We must submit to it as to all necessary things. 
 “ Mortals and immortals, all are subject to the empire 
 of law, which establishes and legitimatizes the most 
 extreme violence with its sovereign hand.”;}; To sup¬ 
 port this article of religious and moral faith Pindar 
 cites the example of Hercules stealing the oxen of 
 Geryon. Thus a legal crime is no longer a crime, or 
 it is an acknowledged law of heaven and earth that 
 power justifies iniquity. By virtue of this eternal law, 
 hereditary in Greece, Melos, guilty of fidelity to Lace- 
 dæmon, was captured after heroic resistance. Forced 
 to surrender at discretion, she saw her women and 
 children reduced to slavery, and all the Melians com¬ 
 petent to bear arms put to death; an atrocious ven¬ 
 geance, which even at Athens found compassionate 
 censors.§ “Everybody knows that all men, even 
 those who have little regard for justice, experience a 
 certain shame for not practicing it; but they boldly 
 
 * Jupiter, stronger than Saturn, dethroned him and sent him to 
 
 Italy to create the golden age. (See Prometheus of Æschylus.) 
 
 f Thucydides, v, 89, 104, 105 ; i, 7G. \ Pindar, Fragments. 
 
 § Isocrates, § 100 ; Thucydides, v, 96. 
 
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 403 
 
 rise up against injustice, especially if they are per¬ 
 sonally struck.”* This shame was wanting to the 
 Athenians in the Peloponnesian war. They auda¬ 
 ciously displayed iniquities which Roman hypocrisy 
 always carefully concealed. In their struggles with 
 Philip they remembered justice and the gods when it 
 was rather late.f 
 
 Demosthenes’ mind generally seemed wavering in 
 regard to questions of religious morality. It is very 
 difficult for a pagan to make his morality and his 
 opinions on the gods harmonize, and to conciliate the 
 logic of his sentiments with the respect of whimsical 
 and illogical dogmas. During the contest, Demos¬ 
 thenes was inclined to diminish the power of destiny. 
 He found it necessary to react against the dispositions 
 of the Athenians, who imputed all to it and even 
 cravenly abandoned themselves to it. When the dis¬ 
 aster was consummated, he threw the responsibility 
 of it upon destiny alone, and no longer upon the neg¬ 
 ligence of the city. Demosthenes could reasonably 
 hesitate between blind fortune and the gods, for the 
 will of the gods is obscure, capricious and contradic¬ 
 tory. Before Salamis the priestess Aristonice an¬ 
 nounced terrible misfortunes to the Athenians; a short 
 time after she gave them a favorable response. Did 
 the god, moved by their despair, change his advice in 
 a few days ? Hegesippus went to consult the oracle 
 of Jupiter at Olympia, then the oracle of Apollo at 
 
 * Demosthenes. 
 
 f “ When men desire to avenge themselves on others, they delight 
 in abolishing at first the rules of common right which are appli¬ 
 cable to the circumstances, and which always leave some hope of 
 .safety to the unfortunate. They thus deprive themselves of a guar¬ 
 antee which they will some day need themselves in the hour of dan¬ 
 ger.” (Thucydides, iii, 84.) 
 
404 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Delphi. He desired to know whether Phoebus would 
 give the same advice as his father.* “One god” 
 (tiç Osw Jv) could procure an advantage for the Athe¬ 
 nians, another injure them according to his particular 
 affections. In fact, the orator declared that he had 
 “often” experienced the fear which a malevolent 
 genius worked for their ruin. To the w'ar waged 
 under the walls of Troy corresponded in Homer a 
 war among the immortal gods. Perhaps the gods 
 were thus divided in the two camps, and some favored 
 Greece, others Philip. The inhabitants of Olympus 
 did not practice the gratuity of grace. They seldom 
 gave before receiving; nevertheless, they willingly fol¬ 
 lowed the maxim of their own pleasure: “ Nothing 
 forces them to interest themselves in those for whom 
 they care not.”f (Cyropædia.) 
 
 The uncertainty which men felt as to the nature and 
 affections of the gods toward them, and the inconstant 
 fortunes which they believed resulted from these dispo¬ 
 sitions, insensibly led them to accept the predominance 
 of fortune. Who could decide on the victory or defeat 
 of the god supposed to protect Athens ? The cause 
 was unknown to Athens and the city was excusable in 
 attributing it to hazard; at least it was all the same to 
 her. Demosthenes, a sad witness of Philip’s victories, 
 could sometimes hesitate between blind fatality and 
 Providence; but, except a few moments of painful un¬ 
 certainty, it seems to us impossible that he whose death 
 was characterized by so profound a religious feeling, 
 did not believe in divine justice and the reward of 
 virtue, as he believed in its efficacy to secure success. 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric, i, 15; ii, 23. 
 
 f Impious Alcibiades lived happily; Nicias, a model of civic vir¬ 
 tue and piety, perished miserably. (Thucydides, vii, 77, 86.) 
 
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 405 
 
 If Demosthenes and Cicero were great orators, it is, 
 according to Châteaubriand’s opinion, because they were 
 extremely religious. “They constantly had the name 
 of the gods in their mouths.” We would not dare 
 assert that Cicero always had them in his heart, even 
 when he invoked them in his most pathetic appeals. 
 Demosthenes, a graver orator and politician than the 
 jocund contradictor of Cato (Pro Murena ), was subject, 
 by his character and circumstances, to strong religious 
 impressions. He was religious without pretense or 
 grimaces; his piety was exempt from prejudices and 
 hypocrisy. A priestess, Theoris, was instructing slaves 
 how to deceive their masters, and used enchantments 
 to dupe them. Demosthenes had her condemned to 
 death. Iiis hardy hand, when necessary, could ransack 
 the sanctuary and seize the criminals who took refuge 
 there. He was not less courageous in refuting the 
 sophisms borrowed from sacred things through bad 
 faith. Leptines contends against immunities by saying 
 that the people cannot, with justice to the gods, excuse 
 any person from duties possessing sacred obligations, 
 a very perfidious (xaxoupyozarov) argument. Demos¬ 
 thenes refuted him. To deprive citizens of the immu¬ 
 nities which they enjoy would be an injustice which no 
 religious pretext could palliate. It is the height of im¬ 
 piety («<7c ftiffroiTov) to legitimatize an iniquity in the 
 name of heaven. What the human conscience declares 
 bad cannot be good in the eyes of God.' x ' 
 
 Did Demosthenes believe in oracles and auguries ? 
 The Athenian masters of rhetoric gave instruction how 
 to use favorable auguries, by virtue of the adage: Seek 
 
 * A sentence true, generous and worthy of a Christian. Wliat 
 evils would be spared the world if men always protected themselves 
 from these false pretexts of religion! (A. Wolf.) 
 
406 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the advantageous ,* and liow to reverse contrary augu¬ 
 ries. Demosthenes respected oracles from which he 
 could draw arguments in his favor; he omitted, or even 
 ridiculed them, when they could be turned against 
 him.f Occasionally he essayed to turn the religious 
 opinions of his fellow-citizens to the welfare of the 
 state. Whoever would act powerfully on men must be 
 their superior, and at the same time must speak their 
 language; he must fascinate the minds of his hearers 
 in order to penetrate them. A special messenger an¬ 
 nounced the death of Philip to Demosthenes before the 
 news spread through the city. He mounted the ros¬ 
 trum and declared that he had just had a dream, a 
 certain presage of approaching prosperity. Presently 
 the official message of the predicted event arrived. The 
 Athenians for a moment took courage and placed con¬ 
 fidence in the gods. This innocent artifice, which Æs- 
 cliines keenly ridiculed, recalls that of Pericles. A 
 very skillful artist who was working on the Propylæa 
 of the Acropolis, fell from the top of the edifice; the 
 physicians despaired of his life. Minerva appeared to 
 Pericles in a dream, and prescribed a remedy which 
 would promptly cure the wounded man, a striking proof 
 of the sympathetic interest which the goddess mani- 
 
 * Td (ru ii<p ip ov ôpâv: Each pursues liis own interest; unity of 
 measures does not exist ; they are smaller in countries where the prod¬ 
 uce is sold, and larger in those where it is purchased. {Nicomnchean 
 Ethics , v, 7.) 
 
 f Four oracles are invoked in the In Midiam , one in the Embassy. 
 In the oration On the Navy Boards he disdainfully places the makers 
 of oracles on the same level as foolish orators. Oracles were the po¬ 
 litical and spiritual directors of antiquity. Strong minds were not 
 their dupes. In Samothrace, the minister of the god, having initiated 
 Lysander, ordered him to declare the most crimeful act of his life. 
 “ Who exacts this confession? — you or the gods? The gods. Well, 
 then, you retire: I will answer them.” 
 
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 407 
 
 fested in Pericles’ constructions. These fictions have 
 nothing in common with those impositions whose am¬ 
 bition and selfish passion became a weapon, for exam¬ 
 ple with the religious stratagem which Megacles and 
 Pisistratus contrived in order to restore the tyrant to 
 his former power.* 
 
 Socrates firmly believed in divination. Aristotle 
 seems to have admitted its principle, but was unwilling 
 to accept all its applications. The famous Epimenides 
 of Crete (a suspicious origin for a diviner) did not 
 predict, properly speaking, the future; f he had pre¬ 
 sentiments of it by the aid of inductions founded on 
 events which really happened, but which were un¬ 
 known to others. This particular observation was 
 
 * Herodotus, i, 60 : “ Megacles, weary of seditions, negotiated with 
 
 Pisistratus, offering him his daughter in marriage and the despotism. 
 
 These conditions were accepted. They came to an agreement, and, 
 
 to execute their plans, they had recourse to the grossest of stratagems, 
 
 in my opinion; because in all antiquity the Greek nation has been 
 
 distinguished from the barbarians by its genius, which forms a striking 
 
 contrast to their gross stupidity; and now this ruse has been employed 
 
 among the Athenians, who are considered the most sensible among the 
 
 Greeks. In the town of Pæania lived a woman named Phva. She 
 
 %/ 
 
 was nearly six feet in height and of remarkable beauty. They placed 
 her in full armor upon a chariot, and made proclamation to the citi¬ 
 zens that they should welcome Pisistratus, whom Athena herself was 
 bringing to her own Acropolis. They announced this proclamation 
 in all quarters, and the news was spread among the people that Mi¬ 
 nerva was bringing back Pisistratus. The whole city believed that this 
 woman was the goddess ; the inhabitants adored a mortal being, and 
 received Pisistratus. After having recovered his power in the man¬ 
 ner just described, Pisistratus espoused the daughter of Megacles 
 according to their agreement.” This family compact did not else¬ 
 where produce good fruit. (Ibidem, 61.) 
 
 f Rhetoric iii, 17. Cf. To Euclemus, ii, 8, where the philosopher 
 admits the sincerit} r of prophetic enthusiasm. The polished society 
 of the 17th century believed in soothsayers. (La Bruyère, De quelques 
 usages.) 
 
408 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 strengthened in the philosopher by the maxim that 
 diviners establish what they say upon the past. Un¬ 
 doubtedly Demosthenes received auguries in the same 
 manner. He respected divination, but not all who 
 professed it. A pupil of Thucydides,* his mind was as 
 free and manly as his teacher’s, and he did not be¬ 
 lieve all that a vain people believed. He did not 
 belong to the family of Euthyphron, bnt to that of 
 Pericles, f 
 
 Peligious feeling, the strongest and most elevated 
 of all sentiments, often inspired the soul with its 
 heroism, and the genius with his masterpieces. An¬ 
 cient and modern art are indebted to it for some of 
 their finest productions,— the Jupiter and Minerva of 
 Phidias, the Moses of Michael Angelo, the Virgins 
 of Raphael. It was paramount in all the important 
 acts of the public life of the ancients. Thus it is found 
 faithfully reproduced where we least expect it in the 
 midst of Aristophanes’ comedies. In the trial scene 
 of the dog Labes, scarcely is the religious rite an¬ 
 nounced, in the opening of the judicial ceremony, 
 when the poet becomes serious, Bdelycleon invokes 
 Agyieus Apollo and willing Pæan with a respectful and 
 touching gravity. His words are characterized by a 
 tenderness of filial piety and sympathy for the un¬ 
 fortunate. Religious faith also mingled in the acts 
 of private life. The old Romans literally could not 
 take a step without the company of a god. The gods 
 assisted man even before his birth, and through friend- 
 
 * Thucydides, ii, 54, 17 ; v, 103. 
 
 f Plutarch, Life of Pericles , ch. vi, 35. The eclipse of the sun 
 and the cloak of Pericles; the ram with only one horn, a marvel 
 differently interpreted by Lampo the diviner and by Anaxagoras 
 the philosopher. Cf. the prodigy of the prætor with horns, in Valerius 
 Maximus, v, G. 
 
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 409 
 
 ship for man they aided inanimate beings in the 
 different phases of their existence. 
 
 Religious feeling necessarily followed the ancients 
 to the tribune. The Roman historians and orators 
 testify that it was one of the greatest sources of their 
 eloquence.* It was the same in Greece. Stobæus 
 has preserved from Euripides a fragment of remark¬ 
 able impiety: 
 
 “ Do you believe that iniquities have wings with which they 
 fly to the Gods, that they are inscribed upon Jupiter’s regis¬ 
 ters, and that he consults them in order to judge men? But 
 he would not be able himself to inscribe all or judge all. 
 Justice is even here on our side for whoever may see it.” 
 
 Never would the Attic orators have dared to offer 
 such insults to public conscience. They reminded 
 their hearers of the fear of divine justice: “It is 
 useless for your suffrages to be secret, they will never 
 escape the gods ” (Demosthenes, On the Embassy). 
 The orator generally invoked them at the opening of 
 his harangue, a tradition which the Peasant of the 
 Danube f never failed to respect. The oration some¬ 
 times closed as it began, with an appeal both religious 
 and patriotic. The religion of patriotism and religion 
 itself (we have noticed it above) were confounded in 
 the hearts of the ancients. This joint responsibility 
 was conspicuous in Demosthenes; in his eyes Philip 
 was the enemy of Athens,— of its soil and of its gods: 
 would that the gods would annihilate him! 
 
 Divinity is and always will be present in the human 
 heart ; in prosperity because of happiness and thank¬ 
 fulness, but still more in reverses, because of a feeling 
 
 * Titus Livius, v, 51; Cicero, In Catilinam, i, 13; ii, 13; De Sup¬ 
 plions, ch. lxxii. 
 
 f Demosthenes, Exordia , 25, 50, 54. ’Aip 'Eariaq apyou {Wasps). 
 
 18 
 
410 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE. 
 
 of liuman weakness and the salutary effect of suffering. 
 It is difficult to govern a people, especially an unfortu¬ 
 nate people, without preaching a belief in divinity. Is 
 it, then, surprising that religious feeling should have 
 animated the harangues of an orator whose life was a 
 struggle against public misfortune, in the midst of 
 those extraordinary events which were destined to 
 astonish the future ? Demosthenes had more respect 
 for the pagan gods than they deserved ; because, if 
 these fallible gods are doubtful, divinity is not. Forced, 
 to contend against the Athenian belief in fatality, and 
 to escape the contradictions imposed upon the moralist 
 by the opposition of pagan theology, Demosthenes 
 was less credulous and more sincerely religious than 
 the majority of his contemporaries. He had neither 
 the pretension nor the power to sound impenetrable 
 mysteries ; but he wished to conciliate as far as possi¬ 
 ble belief in fortune, with faith in a just providence. 
 He has assigned to destiny its proper place by vindi¬ 
 cating the efficiency of human counsels and the obliga^ 
 tion of dutv. 
 
 t/ 
 
 “ For all men, Athenians, there are two essential advan¬ 
 tages. The first and greatest of all is to be fortunate 
 (eu-u/sTv)- the second, less important than the first, but 
 greater than all others, is wise counsel (y.alwq BouÀsôsaOcu). 
 * * * Bad laws undermine those very republics which be¬ 
 lieve themselves most impregnable. In fact, the fortune of 
 nations would not experience vicissitudes if, in distress, a 
 good policy, good laws, the cooperation of honorable men, 
 and a strict examination of all things, conducted them to a 
 better state, and if, on the other hand, neglect of all these 
 resources did not insensibly sap the life of prosperity which 
 was apparently most stable. Prudence in counsel, and that 
 vigilance which neglects nothing, very often raises men to a 
 
RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 411 
 
 brilliant fortune; but it is difficult for them to pursue the 
 same path in order to maintain themselves there. * * * 11 
 
 Man is therefore, as a whole, the architect of his 
 own fortune ; but if he is subservient to the power of 
 destiny, it is a duty to himself that he should not 
 decline. u The brave man should always follow where 
 honor leads, covering himself with hope as with a 
 shield, and nobly supporting the lot which Divinity 
 has assigned him.” Man of Athens, if fatality con¬ 
 strains you, if duty compels you, resign without falter¬ 
 ing. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 jj.7]dè àXirjOcvœç ~po<pipz<sOo.i tov Xoyov. Sometimes Æscliines fails 
 in moving power, because liis words are neither convincing nor sin¬ 
 cere.” (Hermogenes.) 
 
 I.— DEMOSTHENES ACCUSER. 
 
 OLITICAL activity, which was the principal ele- 
 
 JL ment of Athenian life, was not entirely extin¬ 
 guished at Chæronea. Banished thereafter from the 
 Pnyx, it took refuge in the minds of those who re¬ 
 mained free. The great political crises kept all eyes 
 fixed upon state affairs, and heightened political pas¬ 
 sions. The very children at Athens participated in 
 this intellectual agitation.* They repeated in the 
 schools the names of the hired orators of Macedonia 
 or the ordinary guests of the enemy’s emissaries. 
 They also learned, without doubt, how to pronounce 
 with respect the names of those servants of the com¬ 
 monwealth who remained faithful to its hopes and 
 regrets: hence we can judge what interest the long 
 expected trial On the Grown created. 
 
 JEschines took care to emphasize the importance 
 which public opinion attached to it. Tie undertook 
 to overwhelm Demosthenes “in the face of all the 
 citizens who surrounded the inclosure of the tribunal, 
 of all the Hellenes whose curiosity this judgment ex- 
 
 * Kac to. -atdi'a to. b. twv didaffxaAeccuv. (Hyperides, Against 
 Polyeuctes.) 
 
 412 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 413 
 
 cited,— the most numerous multitude that, in the mem¬ 
 ory of man, ever gathered to hear a public trial.” In¬ 
 deed, the spectacle was unique and the conjuncture 
 solemn. The two greatest orators* in the greatest 
 trial were to unfold the resources of their genius and 
 the intensity of their enmities. In the course of this 
 contest the two adversaries were to discuss the poli¬ 
 tics of Athens with their own acts, and to agitate 
 questions which had convulsed Greece for more than 
 twenty years. In the words of Æscliines, they were 
 to be praised or hissed ( 'aopîrrsffOac ) by the Hellenes 
 in the presence of the Athenians; they were to be 
 acquitted of all complicity with an impious violator 
 of the general peace, or enveloped in his infamy, and 
 that, too, on the eve of the Pythian games before the 
 assembly of all Greece. 
 
 The defense of Demosthenes is his masterpiece, and 
 at the same time the masterpiece of the tribune and 
 the bar. Æscliines, a worthy rival of Demosthenes, 
 has given proof of a marvelous talent; but his art 
 lacks “that sound of a great soul” which consecrates 
 and carries the admiration of men to its height. 
 
 Ctesiphon’s accuser was condemned from the first 
 to the reproach of treacherous malignity. 
 
 “A citizen of word and honor should not call upon judges 
 impaneled in the public service to gratify his anger or hatred 
 or anything of that kind, nor should he come before you 
 upon such grounds. The best thing is not to have these 
 feelings, but if it cannot be helped, they should be mitigated 
 and restrained. On what occasions ought an orator and 
 statesman to be vehement? Where any of the common¬ 
 wealth’s main interests are in jeopardy, and he is opposed 
 
 * Gladiatorum par nobilissimum. (Cicero, De Optimo Geneve Di- 
 cendi , cli. vi, vii.) 
 
414 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 to the adversaries of the people. These are occasions for a 
 generous and brave citizen; but for a person who never 
 sought to punish me for any offense, either public or private, 
 on the state’s behalf or on his own, to have got up an accu¬ 
 sation because I am crowned and honored, and to have ex¬ 
 pended such a multitude of words,— this is a proof of per¬ 
 sonal enmity and spite and meanness, not of anything good; 
 and then his leaving the controversy with me and attacking 
 the defendant comprises everything that is base.” 
 
 The very time which JEscliines chose to attack his 
 enemy is a proof of the perfidy of his hatred. Even 
 after the exemplary punishment of Thebes, Demos¬ 
 thenes, and perhaps some citizens as tenacious as he 
 to the love of liberty, were able to entertain some 
 hope. And yet each year was signalized by new 
 victories of Alexander. Victorious at the Granicus 
 (334), at Issus (333), he became master of Asia Minor, 
 of the coast of the Mediterranean, of Tyre and of 
 Egypt. Sparta had braved this ever increasing power: 
 a magnanimous but sterile effort. Agis had been 
 beaten and killed at Megalopolis (330). At Vaxos 
 and Tliasos all citizens who were hostile to the Mace¬ 
 donian hegemony were persecuted. Vo longer was 
 a return of fortune in favor of Greece to be feared. 
 Æscliines then bursts forth against Demosthenes, and 
 proceeds formally to bring an action against him which 
 he had allowed to sleep for eight years.* The com 
 
 * “ It was usual with the Athenians, and indeed with all the 
 Greeks, when they would express their sense of extraordinary merit, 
 to crown the person so distinguished with a chaplet of olive inter¬ 
 woven with gold. The ceremony was performed in some populous 
 assembly, convened either for business or entertainment ; and pro, 
 clamation was made in due form of the honor thus conferred, and 
 the services for which it was bestowed. 
 
 “ To procure such an honor for Demosthenes at this particular 
 juncture was thought the most effectual means to confound the 
 
415 
 
 THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 demnation of tlie accused seemed assured by the in¬ 
 disputable supremacy of Alexander. It was to be 
 pronounced on the eve of the Pythian games: what 
 
 clamor of liis enemies. He bad lately been intrusted with tlie repair 
 of tlie fortifications of Athens, in which he expended a considerable 
 sum of his own, over and above the public appointment, and thus 
 enlarged the work beyond the letter of his instructions. It was 
 therefore agreed that Ctesiphon, one of his zealous friends, should 
 take this occasion of moving the senate to prepare a decree (to be 
 ratified by the popular assembly) reciting this particular service of 
 Demosthenes, representing him as a citizen of distinguished merit, 
 and ordaining that a ‘golden crown’ (as it was called) should be 
 conferred upon him. To give this transaction the greater solemnity, 
 it was moved that the ceremony should be performed in the theater 
 of Bacchus, during the festival held in honor of that god, when not 
 only the Athenians, but other Greeks, from all parts of the nation, 
 were assembled to see the tragedies exhibited in that festival. 
 
 “ The senate agreed to the resolution. But, before it could be 
 referred to the popular assembly for their confirmation, Æscliines, 
 who had examined the whole transaction with all the severity that 
 hatred and jealousy could inspire, pronounced it irregular and illegal, 
 both in form and matter, and without delay assumed the common 
 privilege of an Athenian citizen to commence a suit against Ctesi¬ 
 phon as the first mover of a decree repugnant to the laws, a crime of 
 a very heinous nature in the Athenian polity. 
 
 “ The articles on which he founds his accusation are reduced to 
 these three. 
 
 “ I. Whereas every citizen who lias borne any magistracy is ob¬ 
 liged by law to lay a full account of his administration before the 
 proper officers, and that it is expressly enacted that no man shall be 
 capable of receiving any public honors till this his account hath 
 been duly examined and approved ; Ctesiphon hath yet moved that 
 Demosthenes should receive a crown, previously to the examination 
 of his conduct in the office conferred upon him, and before the pass¬ 
 ing of his accounts. 
 
 “ II. Whereas it is ordained that all crowns conferred by the com¬ 
 munity of citizens shall be presented and proclaimed in their assem¬ 
 bly, and in no other place whatsoever; Ctesiphon hath yet proposed 
 that the crown should be presented and proclaimed in the theater. 
 
 “ III. Whereas the laws pronounce it highly penal for any man to 
 insert a falsehood in any motion or decree ; Ctesiphon hath yet ex. 
 
416 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 éclat seemed to be assured for the triumph of Æs- 
 cliines in the humiliation of his rival! 
 
 Æschines brought a claim of fifty talents (over $51,- 
 000) against Ctesiphon. If the hatred of Æschines 
 were measured by this sum it would be found rather 
 strong. It animated the accuser to ruin Ctesiphon in 
 his fortune and Demosthenes in his honor. 
 
 “ If one of those poets whose tragedies are played after the 
 proclamation of public rewards presented in his play Ther- 
 sites crowned by the Greeks, none of you would endure the 
 spectacle. For Homer paints this ridiculous personage as a 
 coward and calumniator. And do you, if you crown modern 
 Thersites, do you not expect to be ridiculed by Greece? ” 
 
 He flatters himself that he will be allowed to prome¬ 
 nade with his crown, upon an illustrious theater before 
 foreigners and Hellenes, in the midst of the applause 
 of Bacchic feasts. * * * Answer this indecent preten¬ 
 sion by dishonoring him ! The harangue of Æschines 
 bears marks of that smallness of soul ( ptxpoÿuziaç ) 
 which Demosthenes reveals in it. Demosthenes de¬ 
 lighted to remind the Athenians that in the Median 
 wars their country, especially desirous of glory, had 
 spent more men and money than all the rest of Greece. 
 Æschines estimates what the contest against the Mace¬ 
 donians has cost. He accuses Demosthenes of having 
 intentionally, and by 7 venality, burdened Athens with 
 the expenses of the war, rather than Thebes, her ally. 
 Demosthenes alone is the author of your evils, and of 
 the disasters of your country. Sacrifice him, and you 
 will be justified ! The baseness of Æschines’ real sen¬ 
 timents refutes the nobility of his oratorical sentiments: 
 
 pressly declared, as the foundation of this his decree, that the conduct 
 of Demosthenes hath been ever excellent, honorable, and highly 
 serviceable to the state; a point directly opposite to the truth.” 
 (. Leland .) 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 417 
 
 inviolable respect for the law, devotion to public 
 affairs, necessity of offering a striking lesson of moral¬ 
 ity to the youth, love of harmony, homage to this 
 word, the noblest ever taught,— forgiveness;* venera¬ 
 tion for the ancient heroes, whose glorification by De¬ 
 mosthenes would exasperate their manes. .Æscliines 
 omits generous thought or pathetic feeling within an 
 orator’s power. But such is the irremediable vice of 
 bad faith, that it emerges and betrays the most skill¬ 
 ful. f 
 
 Æschines’ malice pierces at every opportunity. 
 The alliance with Thebes and Euboea was the double 
 triumph of Demosthenes’ policy. Æscliines consid¬ 
 ered them grave wounds, inflicted upon the Athe¬ 
 nians “without their knowledge.” The alliance with 
 Euboea, purchased by Callias of the avaricious De¬ 
 mosthenes, lost to the commonwealth the tribute from 
 that island. Demosthenes thereby gained three tal¬ 
 ents. That alliance with Thebes, so much boasted of, 
 was also the fruit of his avidity. The Thebans thought 
 of treating with Philip separately. Demosthenes op¬ 
 poses it. He cannot see them alone accept the Mace¬ 
 donian’s gold. Therefore the jealousy which suggested 
 
 * To xdlhiarov èx Tzacôscaç p9j/j.a , [j.rj [jyrjffixaxeu (forget evil). 
 
 f The oration Against Ctcsiphon contains proofs of charges against 
 Æschines that are honorable to Demosthenes. The enemies of the 
 public peace, said Æscliines, called Demosthenes to the tribune by pro¬ 
 claiming him the “only incorruptible man” in the city. No one 
 ever thought of conferring this eulogy on Æscliines, even in sarcasm. 
 Alexander is surrounded in Cilicia, threatened with ruin by the Per¬ 
 sian cavalry. Æschines aptly describes Demosthenes’ joy: Demos¬ 
 thenes holds in his hand, and everywhere shows the letter, a pleasing 
 message. He notes the down-hearted, terrified look of Æschines. He 
 calls him “the victim with adorned horns, already crowned to fall at 
 the first reverse of Alexander.” This is because the friend of the 
 Macedonians feared reverses which would be the signal of his ruin. 
 
418 - POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 to him the thought of a lucrative reconciliation of 
 the Boeotians with Philip leads him to urge them into 
 the war ; and their ruin is prepared with ours. The 
 malignity of Æscliines is turned against himself when 
 he suggests improbable and contradictory imputations. 
 Demosthenes, at first an accomplice of Philocrates, 
 subsecjuently becomes his denunciator. He was jeal¬ 
 ous (C r i Xoro-Lo.q) of seeing Philocrates better paid than 
 himself. This ally of Philocrates had, however, accord¬ 
 ing to Æscliines, a spy, Cliaridemus, with Philip. The 
 same Demosthenes is guilty of blind hatred toward 
 the Macedonians, and has secret intelligence from 
 them. He rejoices at Alexander’s dangers, and does 
 not profit by them. He is reproached for Bœotictniz- 
 ing , and is charged with the sack of Thebes. These 
 premeditated calumnies bring their author into disre¬ 
 pute. All injustice and base slander is rotten by its 
 nature (aaOpov and reveals its corruption some¬ 
 
 where. {Pro Corona .) 
 
 A man came to Demosthenes to solicit his aid. He 
 said that he had been insulted and struck. “ My friend, 
 it is not true that you have been struck.” The com¬ 
 plainant, raising his voice: u What, Demosthenes! I 
 have not been struck!” “Oh! now I recognize the 
 voice of a man who has actually been maltreated.” 
 Æscliines * had not this accent of sincerity. He studies 
 
 * Hermogenes ( lit pi ids à>v, ii, 11) lias well characterized Æs- 
 cliincs: He has “ eloquence due to the use of artificial proceedings 
 (detvoTrjç i] xarà / 'xiOodov ), but lie is “sophistical”; he aims at bom¬ 
 bast and effect {yaupoq). “ Of oratorical skill he has a moderation, 
 but he has not the character of sincerity to an equal degree. There¬ 
 fore, notwithstanding all the vehemence and severity which he em¬ 
 ploys, he sometimes completely fails in moving power {zoxov oodixa 
 e/si * * * èuxtvrjTov), because his words are neither convincing 
 
THE TRIAL OINT THE CROWN. 
 
 419 
 
 to delude; his rhetorical pathos recalls his school and 
 does not move his hearers. Conviction and truth in 
 emotion exclude declamatory bombast. u O Earth! 0 
 Heaven ! O Yirtue! and you, Intelligence and Knowl¬ 
 edge, by whom we discern the good from the bad, I 
 have aided my country; I have spoken.” High-sound¬ 
 ing words, vainly cried out in a tragic tone. Equally 
 cold is the passage in which measured antitheses fail to 
 arouse indignation against Demosthenes for rejoicing 
 over Philip’s death, seven days after the death of his 
 own daughter. This passage is admired by one of the 
 interlocutors of the Tusculanœ Disput ationes,* and 
 judiciously criticized by Plutarch. ‘ ‘ You have not been 
 able to see with your eyes the ruin of the unfortunate 
 Thebans; see it in your mind. Imagine a city taken 
 by assault, * * * etc.” These lamentable appeals are 
 like melodramatic scenes. Æschines neither spares 
 inflections of the voice nor sobs, and yet he leaves us 
 cold. Although so clever a comedian * * * at the 
 tribune, he has played his rôle poorly. 
 
 “ What strikes me most in the course of his imputations 
 and falsehoods, is, that in speaking of the misfortunes of the 
 city, he has not shed a tear; he has not in the least felt in 
 his heart that grief natural to a devoted and virtuous citizen. 
 But he raised his voice with a satisfied air; he cried out with 
 all his might (Xapuyy(^w^) ; he evidently believed that he was 
 accusing me, and he gave proofs, against himself, that our 
 calamities inspired him with feelings very different from 
 yours.” 
 
 {p eTtotOÔTwç) nor sincere ( p.rjôè Sincerity (aXyOsia) 
 
 is, on the contrary, one of Demosthenes’ strongest qualities. 
 
 * Æschines in Demostlicnem invehitur * * * et quam rlietorice! 
 ( Tusculanœ Disputationes , iii, 2G.) This indiscreet eulogy of Cicero 
 might serve as an epigram to the oration Against Ctesiphon. 
 
420 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Æschines triumphed in these disasters; they were 
 so many arguments against Demosthenes, and justifi¬ 
 cations of the wise policy of the ally of the Macedoni¬ 
 ans. Æschines’ eloquence flows from a happy and fer¬ 
 tile imagination; it has the cleverness and impetuosity 
 of hatred. Demosthenes draws his from the bottom 
 of his heart ; he does not move the imagination, he 
 moves the feelings. We feel in his defense the accent 
 of an honorable man outraged. Thanks to the political 
 rôle which honored him, Demosthenes was destined to 
 he, even as an orator, superior to his adversary. 
 
 One subject aids eloquence and creates it, another 
 renders it singularly meritorious. An implicated client 
 is always difficult to defend. Now, no one was ever 
 more implicated than w T as Æschines in his relations 
 with Macedonia, hence his inability to establish the 
 justification which Demosthenes demanded of him A 
 
 * In a brilliant résumé of Athenian history since the Median 
 wars,— a picture of the alternatives of belligerent passion and of 
 political wisdom in the city,— Æschines renders homage to the 
 memory of Cimon, Andocides and Nicias, peaceful benefactors of 
 the democracy. He eulogizes Thrasybulus and amnesty, which he 
 himself might greatly need. He flatters his audience, he insults his 
 accuser. All these tricks betray the agony of the accused, without 
 dispelling the imputations which press upon him. “ The people 
 were encouraged and recovered their strength (after the expulsion of 
 the Thirty Tyrants), and observe how men were fraudulently enrolled 
 upon the records of the citizens, a class that always attract to them¬ 
 selves the worst part of the state, because they have no other policy 
 than war. During peace they are prophets of evil. With their words 
 they incite minds that are eager for glory and too ambitious. Dur¬ 
 ing hostilities they are military inspectors and admirals, although 
 they have never touched a sword. Fathers of bastards born of cour¬ 
 tesans, sycophants buried in infamy, they precipitate the state into 
 the greatest dangers. With their adulations the}* - caress the name of 
 democracy, and with their conduct they outrage it. Infringers of the 
 peace, which is the support of popular government, eager for war, 
 which is the scourge of the state, they all unite and now attack me. 
 
THE TRIAL OINT TIIE CROWN. 
 
 421 ' 
 
 At first the declared enemy of Philip, he suddenly 
 became milder. He saw the prince, and the hostile 
 ambassador was immediately disarmed. Æscliines 
 thus explains his metamorphosis: 
 
 “You censure my embassy in Arcadia and my oration to 
 the Ten Thousand. You accuse me of fickleness,— you, a 
 fugitive slave whom the hot iron should have branded. Yes, 
 during the war I animated the Arcadians and the rest of the 
 Hellenes against Philip, so far as it was in my power. Seeing 
 that no people aided the commonwealth, that some awaited 
 the issue of the contest with indifference, that others were 
 marching with the Macedonians against us, that the orators 
 in Athens took advantage of the war in order to support 
 their daily luxury, I advised the Athenians, I confess, to 
 unite with Philip and to make a peace which you to-day be¬ 
 lieve shameful, you who never touched a sword.” * 
 
 In other words, YEscliines followed the torrent. lie 
 did not wish to be right against the world. The honor 
 of Demosthenes is that he did not yield to universal 
 enthusiasm: 
 
 S’il en demeure dix, je serai le dixième, 
 
 Et sMl n’en reste qu’un, je serai celui-là. 
 
 Demosthenes, in order to justify his own political 
 conduct, had to celebrate that of his ancestors, whom 
 he justly represented. What could the partisan of the 
 Macedonian alliance, that is to say, of the abdication 
 of Hellenic liberty, oppose to this advantage ? If he 
 
 Philip has, they say, purchased peace; he has profited by negotia¬ 
 tions in order to ruin us all. This peace, made to his advantage, is 
 beneficial to him who has violated it; and they accuse me, not as a 
 deputy, but as a guarantee of Philip and of the peace! I merely 
 used words, and they demand of me actions to satisfy their expecta¬ 
 tions! The same orator, as I have shown, is my panegyrist in his 
 decrees and my accuser before the court. We were ten ambassadors, 
 and I alone am prosecuted for not giving in accounts! ” 
 
 * Embassy , § 79. 
 
422 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 exalts the virtues of his ancestors it is to contrast them 
 with the insinuated crimes of Demosthenes, a parallel 
 in which the bad faith of the orator betrays itself. 
 Ordinarily he will have to conceal a glorious past 
 which speaks against him, or ridicule its praise as 
 commonplace and impotent. 
 
 “ Of the united orators who arose, not one essayed to save 
 the city, but each called our attention to the Propylæa of 
 the Acropolis, our memories to the battle fought at Salamis 
 against the Persians, to the pictures and trophies of our an¬ 
 cestors.” * 
 
 Demosthenes, in the apology of his ministry, which 
 is that of the heroes of Marathon, is naturally mag¬ 
 nanimous and eloquent. On the contrary, most of the 
 beauties of AEschines’ oration will necessarily be artis¬ 
 tic beauties. Moral beauty will not easily find place 
 in it; and also the spirit of that political party of which 
 he is chief, and the character of the thesis which he 
 defends, will appear artistic. 
 
 AEscliines, as an orator, was better endowed by 
 nature than Demosthenes. It only remained for him 
 to become the first orator of Greece; he preferred to 
 enjoy the advantages accruing from the friendship of 
 the Macedonians. Demosthenes snatched the palm 
 from him, in spite of a natural inferiority, because he 
 knew how to hold his mind high, and to draw the 
 powers of his eloquence, which has elevated him above 
 the past and perhaps the future, from the generosity 
 of the heart. The oration On the Crown is the last 
 
 * Embassy, § 74; cf. Demosthenes, § 1G. “You must,” said Æs- 
 chines, “ not remember your ancestors, nor listen to those who recall 
 their naval victories and their trophies. He himself will propose 
 and draw up a law ordaining that we shall only aid the Hellenes 
 who shall have first aided you.” 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 423 
 
 effort of Attic eloquence; “it realizes the ideal con¬ 
 ceived in our minds; we can imagine nothing superior 
 to it ” ( Orator , 38). 
 
 II. PIETY foWARD THE GODS AND TOWARD HIS COUNTRY. 
 
 “ Api] yàp , coq yobv èfi o\ dozsT, oaa tcç rzpdrrst robq Osubq 
 è-ta>7]riîZa)v, marbra <paiv£<jOat, oïa p.7]ô'av, iTz'àvOpWTzao izpayO&ra , 
 novrjpà ipavzir] \ A bad act committed in tlie name of the gods 
 is no more excusable than if it rested on purely human motives.” 
 (Demosthenes, Against Leptines.) 
 
 Æschines felt the inferiority of his cause, and 
 essayed to remedy it. It was difficult for him to 
 derive advantage against Demosthenes from his piety 
 toward his country; he wished to supply this de¬ 
 ficiency by piety toward the gods. He hoped to re¬ 
 duce his adversary to human aid, and then pierce 
 him with a divine arm. The tactics were skillful: the 
 moral state of Greece at that epoch seemed to promise 
 him victory. When the ground trembles, man in¬ 
 stinctively raises his eyes toward heaven. The re¬ 
 mark of Titus Livius (v, 51) will be true in all time: 
 “Adversity recalled the Romans to religious practices.” 
 Brennus and Hannibal, in their turn, revived the 
 feeling of divine power in a people who were indebted 
 to piety for their empire; vanquishers of the ancient 
 Roman gods, they forced her to have recourse to 
 new divinities, even though they should be a black 
 stone. It is characteristic of great disasters to un¬ 
 settle the imagination of the people. Scarcely had 
 France recovered from the evils of the German in¬ 
 vasion, when in 1870 she gave proof of it, as did 
 Greece formerly when she became a prey to the Pelo¬ 
 ponnesian war. In the midst of the public trials, 
 
424 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE, 
 
 only a few select minds resisted tlie torrent of violent, 
 commotions and preserved the judicious firmness of 
 a serene mind. The mass of the nation was pro- 
 foundly agitated. 
 
 This physiological phenomenon was reproduced dur¬ 
 ing the Macedonian epoch. Greece became subservi¬ 
 ent to a man of Pella, the Orient was conquered by 
 a Macedonian of thirty years; a sudden rearrangement 
 of the surface of the earth; was it possible that such 
 astonishing" revolutions should not have turned the 
 minds of men, more strongly than ever, toward di¬ 
 vinity ? What other hand than a divine hand could 
 have led a few cohorts to such incredible success ? 
 These religious prejudices are found in a curious 
 oration of Hyperides in favor of Euxenippus. The 
 Athenians divided the territory of Oropus among the 
 ten tribes of the city. After the distribution, it was 
 discovered that the lot assigned to two tribes had been 
 consecrated to Ampliiaraus. Piety forbade to dispose 
 of it without the consent of the god. Euxenippus, a 
 citizen of venerable probity and age, received the 
 mission to go, with two companions, and sleep one 
 night in the temple of Ampliiaraus. Euxenippus 
 obeyed, and the next day he announced to the people 
 that the lord of the temple signified in a dream that 
 he desired to remain in possession of his territory. A 
 citizen, who was not convinced of the sincerity of 
 the dream, prosecuted him on a criminal charge ac¬ 
 cusing him of having invented the dream. Lycurgus 
 spoke against the friend of Ampliiaraus; Hyperides 
 defended him. Here, then, is a criminal action estab¬ 
 lished on a dream, and seriously discussed. 
 
 Similar inclinations of the mind explain the pages in 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 425 
 
 which Diodorus describes the effects of celestial ven¬ 
 geance, not only on the desecrators of Cyrrlia, but even 
 on those who seconded them or approached them. Phi- 
 lomelus precipitates himself from a rock; his brother 
 Onomarclius is crucified. Phaillus dies of a slow and 
 painful consumption. (lie converted a portion of the 
 sacred treasures into money.) Phalcecus perished con¬ 
 sumed in a fire which was kindled from heaven. Ilis 
 mercenaries were killed or taken prisoners; two thou¬ 
 sand of the latter were sold, and two thousand more 
 were slaughtered as accomplices of an impious man. 
 The wife of a Phocian chief had worn the necklace ot 
 Helen,— she was punished by an uncontrollable lust. 
 Another wife adorned herself with the necklace of Eri- 
 pliyle,—bereft of reason, she perished in the flames of 
 her own house which her own son fired. Chæronea 
 was destined, at a later day, to chastise the Athenians, 
 and Alexander to sack Thebes. “ Thus all the dese¬ 
 crators were struck with divine vengeance.” As to 
 Philip, “lie returned to Macedonia, leaving the Greeks a 
 high idea of his piety and of his military science. * * * 
 Philip, who, by the aid derived from the oracle of Del¬ 
 phi, and by his piety toward the gods, saw his influ¬ 
 ence increase from day to day, was finally proclaimed 
 chief of all Greece, and thus realized the grandest em¬ 
 pire in Europe.” Diodorus, however, made this honest 
 remark on Philip: “Being thus provided with traitors 
 in all cities, and giving the title of lord or friend to 
 whosoever received his gold, he corrupted the morals 
 of the human family by his perverse principles.” Jus¬ 
 tin, not dissimulating Philip’s political perfidy, thus 
 renders homage to his piety: “He alone chastised a 
 sacrilege which the entire world ought to have pun- 
 18 * 
 
426 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 islied. Therefore, the avenger of the majesty of the 
 gods almost deserved to be their equal.”* 
 
 The Athenians were formerly consulted by Iphicrates 
 upon the disposal of the offerings which Dionysius of 
 Syracuse had sent to Delphi and Olympia, and they 
 answered: “It is better to give attention to the sup¬ 
 port of the soldiers than to the affairs of the gods.” 
 The time was past when the Athenians showed them¬ 
 selves “impious on land and sea.” Adversity inspired 
 them with the pious probity which had formerly hon¬ 
 ored Nicias, but they believed that they satisfied divinity 
 by enslaving themselves to superstitions as whimsical, 
 and sometimes as cruel, as those of the contemporaries 
 of the Sicilian expedition. 
 
 Philip, a prudent politician, early saw the advantage 
 which he could derive from the religious prejudices of 
 the Greeks. We have elsewhere spoken of the dex¬ 
 terity with which he interfered in the first sacred war 
 of Pliocis (the pillage of Delphi by Philomelus), and 
 in the second crusade against Amphissa. Even Æs- 
 cliines himself, who was an associate of Philip, could 
 not refrain from invoking the heavens against the ad¬ 
 versaries of the Macedonian party; popular prejudice 
 and youthful remembrances urged him to it. Born of 
 poor parents, he saw his own mother follow the profes¬ 
 sion of initiations (reA iarpia) among the mob. These 
 religious practices were a private counterfeiting of the 
 official Eleusinian mysteries, and bordered upon jug¬ 
 glery. HEscliines played his part in them. He was 
 handsome and well formed; he had a fine voice; this 
 was sufficient to contribute to the success of the mater¬ 
 nal ceremonies, and to make tarts and cakes pour into 
 
 * Justin , viii, 2. These two authors are evidently the echoes of the 
 historians of the Macedonian epoch. 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 427 
 
 the mystic basket. “The amphora long preserves the 
 odor with which the first days impregnated it.” The 
 political orator Æschines preserved the impressions of 
 his youth. A servant in the initiation, afterward an 
 actor, he was prepared by this double education for the 
 role which he played in the trial On the Grown , and 
 which has won for him, from the lips of Demosthenes, 
 this homage, that he was an excellent comedian (5-ox- 
 
 fnzr^Ç apiffToG)- 
 
 Aristotle recommends this artifice to the despot who 
 is desirous of strengthening his power: 
 
 “ The tyrant ought to make a show of an exemplary piety. 
 Men fear less the injustice of a man whom they believe de¬ 
 voted to the service of the gods (deMTtdatjiova.), and they dare 
 less to conspire against him, because they suppose the very 
 heaven is his ally. The tyrant, however, ought to beware 
 of continuing these appearances down to a ridiculous super¬ 
 stition.” 
 
 These maxims are perhaps an allusion to the Mace¬ 
 donian king; at all events they apply to him in every 
 respect. By taking in hand the cause of the gods, 
 Philip gained his own. Æschines certainly aided him. 
 When he announced in the popular assembly the con¬ 
 demnation which the Amjdiietyonic council had, at 
 his instigation, pronounced against the Locrians of 
 Amphissa, Demosthenes cried out: “Æschines, you 
 are carrying the war into the heart of Attica,— a sacred 
 war! ” After the enslavement of Greece, Æschines 
 was not anxious to claim such a work; it was more 
 convenient for him to attribute the disastrous inter¬ 
 vention of Philip and the public ruin to his rival’s 
 impiety: At your advice, Demosthenes, Athens re¬ 
 fused to accept the “hegemony of piety,” the pro¬ 
 tectorship of religion. The defense of the gods, which 
 
428 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 you rejected, fell to tlie Macedonian king; you alone 
 are, therefore, responsible for liis successes and our 
 misfortunes. 
 
 Æschines, considered in his private life, was an 
 epicurean gallant. He revealed the innocence of his 
 manners, and did not seem to use the permitted 
 licenses of his time to their fullest extent. And yet 
 he was not a stranger to them. A defender of Timar- 
 chus reproached him for his severity toward this 
 person: Was not Æscliines himself, a constant at¬ 
 tendant of the gymnasium, in some respects reproach 
 able ? It may be judged from AEschines’ own con¬ 
 fessions. He neither disowns the amatory verses, 
 with which his adversary endeavors to delight the 
 audience, nor the injuries and blows which his 
 gallantry often won for him: U I have loved, I confess, 
 and I still love; I have had quarrels, and I have 
 fought, I do not deny it. But to love a beautiful and 
 modest object is the mark of a tender and well-disposed 
 heart (< pdavOpu-ou ).” Æscliines believed that he could 
 cultivate this form of philanthropy and preserve the 
 dignity necessary to become a serious instructor of 
 the youth. An easy life did not exclude piety among 
 the ancients.* 
 
 In other respects, the devout Æschines sometimes 
 profited by his epicurean maxims. He wrote these 
 lines, which Cicero imitated three times, and which 
 are indeed worthy of a philosopher above all preju¬ 
 dices: 
 
 “ Do not believe, Athenians, that great catastrophes have 
 their origin in the wrath of the gods, and not in the per- 
 
 * The courtesan Rhodope wished to leave at the temple of Delphi 
 a memento of her piety: an offering of iron spits to roast beef, and 
 representing one-tenth of her property. (Herodotus, ii, 134, 135.) 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 429 
 
 versity of men; nor that the crimeful are pursued and 
 chased by Furies, armed with burning torches, as we see them 
 in tragedies: the unbridled love of pleasure, insatiable lust, 
 these are the Furies of criminals. No regard for their honor, 
 no fear of punishment moves them; but the hope of success, 
 the appetite for enjoyments, fascinate and allure them.” * 
 
 Æschines here speaks like Lucretius, and even touches 
 upon horrors which the poet detested. Does he 
 actually believe in the pious motives with which he 
 arms himself against Demosthenes ? The bad faith, 
 abundant proofs of which are in his oration, invites 
 our doubts; but a perfidious consideration encourages 
 him. 
 
 The accusation of impiety was one which the frivo¬ 
 lous Athenians always took seriously. We know how 
 they amused themselves with their gods at the theater. 
 Modern men would prefer to deny the Divinity rather 
 than suppose it vicious. The Athenians permitted the 
 most ridiculous defamation to enter Olympus. Mock 
 and traduce the gods at your ease, but do not deny 
 them. Do not give them new colleagues without the 
 consent of the state. Protagoras saw his books burned 
 and himself banished by the Areopagus; Diagoras of 
 Melos was declared an outlaw; Anaxagoras was thrown 
 into prison; Prodicus of Ceos was condemned to drink 
 the hemlock, like Socrates the Melian (according to 
 the perfidiously spiritual allusion of Aristophanes.) 
 Even the women were not spared. Pericles had to 
 move the people by his tears in order to save Aspasia. 
 Eutliias, a lover of Pliryne, either through cupidity or 
 spite, accused this courtesan of introducing “a new 
 god.” The clientess of Ilyperides owed her safety 
 solely to a pious scruple of the judges; when they 
 
 * Against Timarchus, § 190. 
 
430 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 recognized her beauty, they feared to ofïend the gods 
 by condemning a priestess of Y enus. 
 
 The religious susceptibilities of Athens offered for¬ 
 midable arguments, and Æschines, who wished to in¬ 
 duce the people to condemn Demosthenes, made him¬ 
 self represent the people and cried out against impiety. 
 Demosthenes’ whole life is impious. Under the pre¬ 
 text of repairing the walls of Athens he has destroyed 
 the public tombs. He dares accuse the ambassador 
 with whom he partook of the repast at the Prytaneum. 
 “This barbarian * * * sacrifices, libations, fraternity 
 around the table,—nothing checks him.” He deliv¬ 
 ered to punishment his guest, the Oritanian Anaxinus, 
 an honest merchant who was innocently trading in 
 Greece for Olympias. “To the salt of the hospitable 
 table I prefer the salt of our native land.” Demos¬ 
 thenes takes pride in this shameless confession. He 
 insults Pythia, he derides the oracles, he ridicules 
 Alexander for venerating sacred things.* He advised 
 Chæronea, “notwithstanding contrary presages.” He 
 esteemed more than all other auguries that which 
 Hector preferred: “The best augury is to fight for 
 our country. ”f We embrace the cause of Priam’s 
 son, condemned by heaven to succumb under the di¬ 
 vine arms of Achilles. Æschines rallies to the cause 
 of the gods, whom Demosthenes has outraged. 
 
 The pages in which this engine of war is put into 
 play constitute the finest passages of his oration. The 
 aggressor is there intrenched as in an impregnable fort. 
 
 *Æscliines ascribes these words to him: “This Margites will not 
 stir from Macedonia. He prefers to promenade at Pella, and there 
 to consult the entrails of victims.” (Against Ctesiphon , § 1G0.) Alex¬ 
 ander was indeed superstitious, according to Plutarch. (Life of Alex¬ 
 ander, 7.3-75.) 
 
 \ Iliad, xii, 243. 
 
THE TRIAL OH THE CROWH. 
 
 431 
 
 Let us follow him there. Cyrrha, on the gulf of Crissa 
 in Pliocis, was early the seaport of Delphi. Enriched 
 by the numerous pilgrimages made to the temple of 
 Apollo, the Cyrrhæans had excited the jealousy of the 
 neighboring cities. They were accused of avidity and 
 extortions from strangers, who were the pious visitors 
 of the god. In the first Sacred War (590) Cyrrha was 
 destroyed and its territory consecrated to Apollo ; 
 however, as a harbor was necessary to shelter the 
 visitors of the sanctuary, the Locrians of Amphissa, 
 neighbors of Cyrrha, had it rebuilt and repeopled. 
 The liberality of the faithful was not long in enrich¬ 
 ing the city, which was unduly raised on its ruins; 
 and boldness increased with its prosperity to such an 
 extent that its new inhabitants tilled a part of the 
 fields which the Amphictyonie council had condemned 
 to sterility. Such was the beginning of the second Sa¬ 
 cred War and of the disastrous intervention of Philip. 
 We give the words of his voluntary or imprudent aux¬ 
 iliary, Æscliines. 
 
 “ There is a plain, Athenians, well known by the name of 
 Cyrrha, and a port now called the devoted and accursed. 
 This tract the Cyrrhæans and Acragallidæ inhabited, a law¬ 
 less people, whose sacrilegious violence profaned the shrine 
 of Delphi and the offerings there deposited, and who pre¬ 
 sumed to rebel against the Amphictyonie council. The Am- 
 phictyons in general, and your ancestors in particular (as 
 tradition hath informed us), conceived the justest resent¬ 
 ment and addressed themselves to the oracle, in order to be 
 informed by what punishment they might suppress these 
 outrages. The priestess pronounced her answer, that they, 
 were to wage perpetual war against the Cyrrhæans and 
 Acragallidæ without the least intermission, either by day or 
 night; that they were to lay waste their lands, and to reduce 
 
432 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GEEECE, 
 
 tlieir persons to slavery; that their possessions were to he set 
 apart from all worldly purposes, and dedicated to the Pythian 
 Apollo, to Diana, to Latona, and to Minerva; and that they 
 were not to cultivate their lands nor to suffer them to be 
 cultivated. In consequence of this oracle the Amphictyons 
 decreed, and Solon the Athenian was the first mover of this 
 decree (the man so eminent for making laws, and so conver¬ 
 sant with the arts of poesy and philosophy), that they should 
 take up arms against these impious men, in obedience to the 
 divine commands of the oracle. A sufficient force being ac¬ 
 cordingly raised by the Amphictyons, they reduced these men 
 to slavery, demolished their harbor, razed their city, and con¬ 
 secrated their district, as the oracle directed. And to con¬ 
 firm these proceedings, they bound themselves by an oath 
 that they would never cultivate this consecrated land nor 
 suffer others to cultivate it; but that they would support the 
 rights of the god and defend this district thus consecrated 
 with their persons and all their power. Nor were they con¬ 
 tented to bind themselves by an oath conceived in the usual 
 form ; they enforced it by the addition of a most tremendous 
 imprecation. Thus it was expressed: ‘If any shall violate 
 this engagement, whether city or private person or com¬ 
 munity, may such violators be devoted to the vengeance of 
 Apollo, of Diana, of Latona, and of Minerva; may their 
 lands never yield their fruits; may their women never bring 
 forth children of the human form, but hideous monsters; 
 may their herds be accursed with unnatural barrenness; may 
 all their attempts in war, all their transactions in peace, be 
 ever unsuccessful! may total ruin forever pursue them, their 
 families, and their descendants! and may they never [these 
 are the very terms] appease the offended deities, either Apollo 
 or Diana or Latona or Minerva, but may all their sacrifices 
 be forever rejected!’ To confirm the truth of this let the 
 oracle be read. Listen to the imprecations and call to mind 
 the oath by which your ancestors were engaged in conjunc¬ 
 tion with the other Amphictyons. 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 433 
 
 THE ORACLE. 
 
 Still shall these tow’rs their ancient pride maintain, 
 
 Nor force nor valor e’er their rampart gain, 
 
 Till Ampliitritè, queen of azure waves, 
 
 The hallow’d lands of sov’reign Phoebus laves; 
 
 Till round his seat her tlireat’ning surges roar, 
 
 And burst tumult’ous on the sacred shore. 
 
 THE OATH.-THE IMPRECATION. 
 
 “ Yet, notwithstanding these imprecations, notwithstand¬ 
 ing the solemn oath and the oracle, which to this day remain 
 upon record, did the Locrians and the Ampliissæans, or, to 
 speak more properly, their magistrates, lawless and aban¬ 
 doned men, once more cultivate this district, restore the de¬ 
 voted and accursed harbor, erect buildings there, exact taxes 
 from all ships that put into this harbor, and by their bribes 
 corrupt some of the pylagoræ* who had been sent to Delphi, 
 of which number Demosthenes was one; for, being chosen 
 into this office, he received a thousand drachmas from the 
 Ampliissæans to take no notice of their transactions in the 
 Amphictyonie council. And it was stipulated still further, 
 that for the time to come they should pay him at Athens an 
 annual sum of twenty minæ out of their accursed and de¬ 
 voted revenues, for which he was to use his utmost efforts, 
 on every occasion, to support the interest of the Ampliissæans 
 in this city, a transaction which served but to give still 
 further evidence to this melancholy truth, that, whenever he 
 hath formed connections with any people, any private per¬ 
 sons, any sovereign magistrates, or any free communities, he 
 
 * The Amphictjmnic council was composed of three kinds of dep¬ 
 uties: first, the Pylagorœ, or orators of the assembly of Pylæ (the 
 Ampliictyons met at Thermopylæ in autumn and at Delphi in the 
 spring); second, the hieronineinones , or guardians of the sacred ar¬ 
 chives. The council was presided over by an hieromnemon. Each 
 Amphictyonie people sending an hieromnemon to the diet had, in 
 its turn, the honor of presiding. Third, the theori. The tlieori were 
 deputies at Delphi to consult the oracle. 
 
 19 
 
434 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 liatli never failed to involve them in calamities the most de¬ 
 plorable. For, now, behold how Heaven and fortune as¬ 
 serted their superior power against this impiety of the Am- 
 pliissæans ! 
 
 “ In the archonship of Theophrastus, when Diognetus was 
 iëromnemon, you chose for pylagoræ Midias * (that man who 
 on many accounts I wish were still alive) and Thrasycles, 
 and with these was I joined in commission. On our arrival 
 at Delphi it happened that the iëromnemon Diognetus was 
 instantly seized with a fever, and that Midias also shared the 
 same misfortune. The other Amphictyons assembled, when 
 some persons, who wished to approve themselves the zealous 
 friends of this state, informed us that the Amphissæans, now 
 exposed to the power of the Thebans, and studious to pay 
 them the most servile adulation, had introduced a decree 
 against this city 7 ", by which a fine of fifty talents was to be 
 imposed on the community of Athens, because we had de¬ 
 posited some golden shields in the new temple, before it had 
 been completely finished, which bore the following, and a 
 very just inscription: 
 
 “‘By the Athenians: taken from the Medes and Thebans 
 when they fought against the Greeks.’ 
 
 “ The iëromnemon sent for me and desired that I should 
 repair to the Amphictyons and speak in defense of the city, 
 which I had myself determined to do. But scarcely had I 
 begun to speak on my first appearance in the assembly (where 
 I rose with some warmth, as the absence of the other depu¬ 
 ties increased my solicitude), when I was interrupted by the 
 clamors of an Amphissæan, a man of outrageous insolence, 
 who seemed a total stranger to politeness, and was, perhaps, 
 driven to this extravagance by some evil genius. He began 
 thus: ‘Ye Greeks, were ye possessed with the least degree of 
 wisdom, ye would not suffer the name of the Athenians to 
 
 * This Midias was the man who struck Demosthenes; hence the 
 deep regrets of Æschines. 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 435 
 
 be mentioned at this time; ye would drive them from the 
 temple as the objects of divine wrath.’ He then proceeded 
 to take notice of our alliance with the Phocians,* which the 
 decree of Crobylus had formed, and loaded the state with 
 many other odious imputations, which I then could not hear 
 with temper, and which I cannot now recollect but with pain. 
 His speech inflamed me to a degree of passion greater than 
 I had ever felt through my whole life. Among other par¬ 
 ticulars, on which I shall not now enlarge, it occurred to 
 me t to take notice of the impiety of the Ampliissæans with 
 respect to the consecrated land, which I pointed out to the 
 Amphictyons from the place where I then stood, as the tem¬ 
 ple rose above the Cyrrhæan plain and commanded the whole 
 prospect of that district. 4 You see,’ said I, 4 ye Amphictyons, 
 how this tract hath been occupied by the people of Amphissa. 
 You see the houses and factories they have there erected. 
 Your own eyes are witnesses that this accursed and devoted 
 harbor is completely furnished with buildings. You your¬ 
 selves know, and need not any testimony, that they have 
 exacted duties and raised large sums of wealth from this 
 harbor.’ I then produced the oracle, the oath of our an¬ 
 cestors, and the imprecation by which it was confirmed, and 
 made a solemn declaration that, 4 for the people of Athens, 
 for myself, for my children, and for my family, I would sup¬ 
 port the rights of the God and maintain the consecrated land 
 with all my might and power, and thus rescue my country 
 from the guilt of sacrilege. Do you, ye Greeks,’ thus did 
 I proceed, 4 determine for yourselves as ye judge proper. 
 Your sacred rites are now prepared, your victims stand be¬ 
 fore the altars; you are ready to offer up your solemn prayers 
 
 * This alliance was culpable in the eyes of the Ampliissæan, be- 
 cause the Phocians had formerly pillaged the treasury of Delphi. 
 
 f Æscliines did not dare say that a god inspired him with this 
 thought, as the gods undoubtedly suggested to the Ampliissæan his 
 injurious sally. lie left his hearers to suppose it. Was not the 
 thought rather a souvenir of his engagements with Philip? 
 
436 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 for blessings on yourselves and on your countries; but 0! 
 consider, with what voice, with what front, with what con¬ 
 fidence, can 3 ^ou breathe out your petitions if ye suffer these 
 sacrilegious men, thus devoted and accursed, to escape with 
 impunity! The imprecation is not conceived in dark or 
 doubtful terms. No; the curse extends not only to these 
 impious profaners, but to all those who suffer their profana¬ 
 tion to pass unrevenged. These are the very words with 
 which the awful and affecting form is closed: ‘May they 
 who permit them to escape unpunished never offer up an 
 acceptable sacrifice to Apollo, or to Diana, or to Latona, or 
 to Minerva; but may all their devotions be rejected and 
 abhorred !’ 
 
 “ When I had urged these, and many other particulars, I 
 retired from the assembly, when a considerable clamor and 
 tumult arose among the Amphictyons; and the debate was 
 now no longer about the shields which we had dedicated, but 
 about the punishment due to the Amphissæans. Thus was a 
 considerable part of that day wasted, when at length a herald 
 arose and made proclamation that all the inhabitants of 
 Delphi above the age of sixteen, both slaves and freemen, 
 should, the next morning by sunrise, assemble in the adjoin¬ 
 ing plain, called the ‘ plain of victims,’ with spades and mat¬ 
 tocks; and by another proclamation it was ordained that the 
 representatives of the several states should repair to the same 
 place to support the rights of the god and the consecrated 
 land; and that, if any representatives should disobey this 
 summons, their state was to be excluded from the temple, as 
 sharing in the sacrilege and involved in the imprecation. 
 The next day we accordingly repaired to the place appointed, 
 from whence we went down to the Cyrrhæan plain; and 
 having there demolished the harbor, and set fire to the build¬ 
 ings, we retired. During these transactions the Locrians of 
 Amphissa, who are settled at the distance of sixty stadia from 
 Delphi, assembled in arms, and fell upon us with their whole* 
 force; and, had we not with difficulty gained the town by a. 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 437 
 
 precipitate flight, we must have been in clanger of total 
 destruction.” 
 
 It would be inaccurate to say that antiquity never 
 experienced religious wars.* Never did the most 
 ardent leaguers feel or express religious fanaticism 
 more strongly. Certain traits of this passage recall 
 the severity of the prophets of ancient law against the 
 enemies of Jehovah. “Take the little children of the 
 Philistines and dash their heads against the stones.” 
 The author of the /Soirées de Saint Pctersburgh was 
 not moved by piety in the face of these inhuman aber¬ 
 rations. Æs chin es undoubtedly despised them in his 
 heart, but he wished to take vengeance on Demosthe¬ 
 nes, and he made the most of them. 
 
 * Rome did not experience them, but she had not the perfect toler 
 ance that Voltaire has attributed to her by sometimes forcing the 
 texts. (Cf. Philosophie de V Histoire et Essai sur les Mœurs.) It is proper 
 to distinguish their beliefs and their worship. The Romans disre¬ 
 garded the religious doctrines of foreigners. They themselves had 
 none at all. For the absent dogma they substituted formulas, a rit¬ 
 ual, and ceremonies very definite in the minutest details. The frag¬ 
 ments of Fabius Pictor’s work on the rites of Rome are very expressive 
 in this respect. The flamen of Jupiter was forbidden to ever touch 
 or name a dog, a slie-goat, ivy, beans or raw flesh, or to remain out of 
 his house three consecutive nights. A certain ceremonial accompa¬ 
 nied the cutting of his hair and nails. The legs of his bed were 
 smeared with fine clay. He was forbidden to be in open air without 
 ‘ his bonnet, etc. * * * The heretics of Rome were the impious who 
 violated these prescriptions, or others of like import. The Romans, 
 indifferent about doctrine, made an attempt at the liberty of con. 
 science as soon as they departed from the formalism of the religion of 
 the state. This religion, it is true, was hospitable, and welcomed all 
 the gods to which the senate had accorded the investiture. The 
 other gods and their followers were severely proscribed. The repub, 
 lie and the empire pursued all foreign unrecognized gods officially, 
 before declaring a war of extermination on the god of the Christians. 
 They were never as tolerant as the authors wish to convey in such 
 works as Cicero’s De Divinatione. 
 
438 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 “ On the succeeding day Cattyphus, who acted as president 
 of the council, summoned a ‘ convention ’ of the Amphic- 
 tyons; so they call an assembly, formed not only of the rep¬ 
 resentatives, but of all who came to offer sacrifice, or consult 
 the oracle. In this convention many accusations were urged 
 against the Amphissæans, and much applause bestowed on 
 our state. The whole debate was closed with a resolution, 
 by which the iëromnemons were directed to repair to Ther¬ 
 mopylae, at a time appointed previously to the next ordinary 
 assembly, with a decree prepared for inflicting the due pun¬ 
 ishment on the Amphissæans, for their sacrilegious offenses 
 against the god and the consecrated land, and for their out¬ 
 rage on the Amphictyons. To prove the truth of this, I 
 produce the resolution itself.” 
 
 Athens was disposed to associate herself with the 
 pious reparation voted by the Amphictyonie diet. De¬ 
 mosthenes, faithful to his bargain with the Amphis¬ 
 sæans, opposed it. u This v r as commanding you to for¬ 
 get the oaths which your ancestors swore, to forget the 
 anathema and the divine oracle.” All other cities send 
 delegates to Thermopylae, u except one single city, 
 whose name I will pass over in silence (Thebes, re¬ 
 cently destroyed by Alexander), and may its disaster 
 never be renewed among any people of Greece ! ” 
 Hostilities were opened against the Amphissæans. 
 Athens remained a stranger to them, while the gods 
 offered to her in this sacred expedition a leader¬ 
 ship which Demosthenes had sold. The orator here 
 with majestic eloquence unrolls the picture of the 
 strange catastrophes which were the consequence of 
 the sacrilege committed by Demosthenes, in spite of 
 the advice of the gods. 
 
 “And did not the gods warn us of our danger? Did they 
 not urge the necessity of vigilance, in a language scarcely 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 439 
 
 less explicit than that of man? Surely never was a state 
 more evidently protected by the gods, and more notoriously 
 ruined b} r its popular leaders. Were we not sufficiently 
 alarmed by that portentous incident in the mysteries, the 
 sudden death of the initiated? Did not Amyniades still 
 further warn us of our danger, and urge us to send deputies 
 to Delphi to consult the god? And did not Demosthenes 
 oppose this design? Did he not say the Pythian priestess 
 was inspired* by Philip, rude and brutal as he is, insolently 
 presuming on that full power to which your favor raised 
 him? And did he not at last, without one propitious sacrifice, 
 one favorable omen to assure us of success, send out our 
 armies to manifest and inevitable danger? Yet, he lately 
 presumed to say that Philip did not venture to march into 
 our territories for this very reason, because his sacrifices had 
 not been very propitious. What punishment, therefore, is 
 due to thy offenses, thou pest of Greece? If the conqueror 
 was prevented from invading the territories of the van¬ 
 quished by unpropitious sacrifices, shouldst thou, who, with¬ 
 out the least attention to futurity, without one favorable 
 omen, hast sent our armies to the field, shouldst thou be 
 honored with a crown for those calamities, in which thou 
 hast involved the state, or driven from our borders with 
 ignominy? 
 
 “ And what can be conceived, surprising or extraordinary, 
 that we have not experienced? Our lives have not passed in 
 the usual and natural course of human affairs; no, we were 
 born to be an object of astonishment to posterity. Do we 
 not see the king of Persia, he who opened a passage for his 
 navy through mount Athos, who stretched his bridge across 
 the Hellespont, who demanded earth and water from the 
 Greeks; he who, in his letters, presumed to style himself 
 sovereign of mankind, from the rising to the setting sun; 
 
 * Demosthenes expressed this by an artificial phrase (the priestess 
 Pliilippized), on which the adversary founds liis charge of rudeness 
 and brutality. 
 
440 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 now no longer contending to be lord over others, but to 
 secure his personal safety? Do not we see those crowned 
 with honor and ennobled with the command of the war 
 against Persia, who rescued the Delphian temple from sacri¬ 
 legious hands? Hath not Thebes, our neighboring state, 
 been in one day torn from the midst of Greece? And, 
 although this calamity may justly be imputed to her own 
 pernicious counsels, yet we are not to ascribe such infatua¬ 
 tion to any natural causes, but to the fatal influence of some 
 evil genius.* Are not the Lacedaemonians, those wretched 
 men, who had but once slightly interfered in the sacrilegious 
 outrage on the temple; who, in their day of power, aspired to 
 the sovereignty of Greece; now reduced to display their 
 wretchedness to the world by sending hostages to Alexander, 
 ready to submit to that fate which he shall pronounce upon 
 themselves and on their country; to those terms which a 
 conqueror, and an incensed conqueror, shall vouchsafe to 
 grant? And, is not this our state, the common refuge of the 
 Greeks, once the great resort of all the ambassadors from the 
 several cities, sent to implore our protection as their sure 
 resource; now obliged to contend, not for sovereign author¬ 
 ity, but for our native land? And, to these circumstances 
 have we been gradually reduced from that time when De¬ 
 mosthenes first assumed the administration. Well doth the 
 poet Hesiod pronounce on such men, in one part of his 
 works, where he points out the duty of citizens, and warns 
 all societies to guard effectually against evil ministers. I 
 shall repeat his words; for I presume we treasured up the 
 sayings of poets in our memory when young, that in our 
 riper years we might apply them to advantage. 
 
 * OsoftXdftziav * * * d<ppo(TL)v7]v, madness attributed to divine 
 wrath: Quos jperderc vult Jupiter demented. 
 
 Daigne, daigne, mon Dieu, sur Mathan et sur elle 
 
 Répandre cet esprit d’imprudence et d’erreur 
 
 De la chute des rois funeste avant-coureur! ( Athalie , i, 2 ) 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 441 
 
 When one man’s crimes the wrath of Ileav’n provoke, 
 
 Oft hath a nation felt the fatal stroke. 
 
 Contagion’s blast destroys, at Jove’s command, 
 
 And wasteful famine desolates the land. 
 
 Or, in the field of war, her boasted pow’rs 
 Are lost ; and earth receives her prostrate tow’rs, 
 
 In vain in gorgeous state her navies ride; 
 
 Dash’d, wreck’d, and buried in the boist’rous tide. 
 
 Take away the measure of these verses, consider only the 
 sentiment, and you will fancy that you hear, not some part 
 of Hesiod, but a prophecy of the administration of Demosthe¬ 
 nes; for true it is, that both fleets and armies, and whole 
 cities, have been completely destroyed by his administration. 
 (Leland.) 
 
 In all this quotation from Æscliines’ oration, the 
 tone is elevated and the thoughts are as grand as 
 the images, but in the midst of his solemn appeals 
 ostentation is more apparent than true emotion. In 
 vain he exhausts all the resources of his art; his ora¬ 
 tion always exhibits the baseness of his heart. Now 
 this baseness stamps upon the eloquence of Æscliines 
 a stain which his sentimental and religious disguises 
 are unable to dissimulate. The mask is well adjusted, 
 painted with appropriate colors, and yet through this 
 mask the hypocrite is clearly discovered. Was it 
 not sufficient for Æschines to have beeç the auxil¬ 
 iary of Philip, and was it necessary that he should 
 complete his impersonation in all points by becoming 
 the auxiliary of Divinity ? 
 
 The gods are useful allies, and their intervention 
 is always advantageous. Demosthenes knew how to 
 consider their auguries; he sought his allies else¬ 
 where,— in his conscience as a good citizen, in his 
 hatred toward the invader and toward his accomplices. 
 This answer of Pytliia was delivered to the assembled 
 
442 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE, 
 
 people: “All tlie Athenians, except one, advise the 
 same.” Philip’s partisans had dictated this answer 
 to Pytliia in order to render Demosthenes odious. 
 Æscliines rendered himself odious by making himself 
 the interpreter of sacred impostures. Philocrates com¬ 
 pares him to a prophet delivering oracles. The oracle 
 and the orator seem to us to offer another analogy 
 besides that of diction. Pythia often obeyed other 
 inspirations than those of heaven, and did not yield 
 less to Pluto than to Apollo. 
 
 Before the destruction of Phocis, Æscliines feigned 
 sickness (sickness has at all times been a diplomatic 
 instrument), that he might not go on an embassy to 
 Macedonia. Wlren the extermination was consum¬ 
 mated, Æscliines recovered and flew to the king. 
 Philip celebrated the ruin of Phocis with rejoicings: 
 Æscliines assisted at the festive banquet of the in¬ 
 vader, an indecency which he was destined to again 
 
 renew after Chæronea. 
 
 •* 
 
 “ What lie did after he had reached the king is far more 
 shocking. For when all of you here, and the Athenians in 
 general, considered the poor Phocians so shamefully and 
 cruelly treated, that you would not send either members of 
 the council or the judges to represent you at the Pjdhian 
 games, but abstained from your customary deputation to the 
 festival, Æscliines went to the sacrifice which Philip and 
 the Thebans offered in honor of their success and conquest; 
 and was feasted, and joined in the libations and prayers 
 which Philip offered up in thanksgiving for the lost 
 fortresses, and territory and troops of your allies, and 
 donned the garland and sang the pæan in company with 
 Philip, and pledged to him the cup of friendship. Nor is 
 it possible that I should state the matter thus, and the de¬ 
 fendant otherwise. * * * With respect to his doings yonder, 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 443 
 
 there will be evidence against him by his colleagues and 
 persons present, who told the particulars to me; for I did 
 not go with them on the embassy, but excused myself. * * * 
 What prayer do you suppose Philip offered to the gods when 
 he poured his libation? What do you suppose the Thebans? 
 Did they not pray for might and victory in battle for them 
 and their allies; the contrary for the allies of the Phocians? 
 Well, then; Æschines joined in that prayer, and invoked a 
 curse upon his country, which you ought now to make recoil 
 upon himself.” * 
 
 Let us see how Æschines tries to justify himself. 
 
 “ The accuser says, I sung the pæan with Philip, after 
 the destruction of the cities of Phocis. What proof could 
 manifestly establish it? Like my colleagues I have been 
 invited to a customary banquet which, with the deputies of 
 Greece, guests like us, counted not less than two hundred 
 table companions. In this crowd, no doubt, I have been clearly 
 remarked; I did not keep silent; I sung, if we shall believe De¬ 
 mosthenes, who was not there, and did not produce any testi¬ 
 mony of any present person. And how had my voice been dis¬ 
 tinguished unless I intoned first, as in the chorus? If then 
 I was silent, Demosthenes, your accusation is lying. But if, 
 when, my fatherland was flourishing and my fellow-citizens 
 were not afflicted by any disgrace, I sung with my colleagues 
 a hymn by which the Divinity was honored without out¬ 
 raging Athens in anything, I did a pious, innocent action, 
 and I deserve to be absolved. But no, I am not therefore 
 worthy of any pity; it is you who are a pious man,— you, the 
 accuser of them whose libations you have been a partaker of.” t 
 
 Æscliines is logical. He declares Philip’s expedi¬ 
 tion against Phocis pious; there can be no impiety 
 in celebrating its success.:}: Either Æschines is sincere 
 
 * On the Embassy, § 128. f On the Embassy , § 1G2. 
 
 f According to Demosthenes, Æschines’ intrigues resulted in 
 excluding Phocis from the treaty which Philip consented to. Æs- 
 
444 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 in the expression of his religious belief, and then, it 
 must be confessed, his piety chokes his patriotic feeling 
 and his moral sense; or lie affects sentiments which 
 lie lias not. In both cases he is to be pitied; for his 
 deceitful devotion is insulting to the Divinity, or his 
 piety is very similar to that of a Frenchman whom 
 conscientious scruples would have induced in 1859 
 to desire the ruin of the F rencli army in Italy. 
 
 Demosthenes formally accuses Æschines of having 
 deliberately served Philip’s designs in provoking the 
 sacred war against the Ampliissæans: 
 
 “ When clothed with the dignity of the state he arrived 
 among the Amphictyons, dismissing and disregarding all 
 besides, he hastened to execute what he was hired for. He 
 makes up a pretty speech and strong, showing how the Cyr- 
 rhæan plain came to be consecrated. Reciting this to the 
 presbyters, men unused to speeches and unsuspicious of any 
 consecpiences, he procures a vote from them to walk around 
 the district, which the Ampliissæans maintained they had a 
 right to cultivate, but which he charged to be parcel of the 
 sacred plain. * * * When the Amphictyons, at the instance 
 of this man, walked over the plain, the Locrians fell upon 
 them and well-nigh speared them all ; some of the presbyters 
 they carried off captive. Complaints having followed, and 
 war being stirred up against the Ampliissæans, at first Cotty- 
 plius led an army composed entirely of Amphictyons; but as 
 some never came, and those that came did nothing, measures 
 were taken against the ensuing congress b} 7- an instructed 
 gang, the old traitors of Thessaly and other states, to get the 
 command for Philip. And they have found a fair pretext: 
 for it was necessary, they said, either to subsidize themselves 
 
 chines then labored to deliver Phocis to the prince, “ bound hand and 
 foot Qwuov où/. 6 7T ifi oj rw /sips (l^Vavrîç).” (On tlce Embassy.) This 
 accusation is not surprising when we see Æschines on many an 
 occasion detesting the “ impious ” Phocians. 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 445 
 
 and maintain a mercenary force and fine all recusants, or to 
 elect him. What need of many words? He was thereupon 
 chosen general; and immediately afterward collecting an 
 army, and marching professedly against Cyrrha, he bids a 
 long farewell to the Cyrrhæans and Locrians, and seizes Ela- 
 tea. Had not the Thebans, upon seeing this, immediately 
 changed their minds and sided with us, the whole thing would 
 have fallen like a torrent upon our country. As it was, they 
 for the instant stopped him; chiefly, 0 Athenians, by the 
 kindness of some divinity to Athens, but secondly, as far as 
 it could depend on a single man, through me.”* 
 
 The recital which Æschines himself has given of the 
 memorable sitting of the council in which he was the 
 hero, if closely examined, confirms the probability of 
 Demosthenes’ imputations. Many of the traits arouse 
 suspicions. Scarcely had they arrived at Delphi, when 
 the liieromnemon and one of the pylagoræ were taken 
 with a fever. Was this an unfortunate accident or a 
 premeditated evasion ? Did they wish by absenting 
 themselves to give room to Æschines, who had his own 
 plan, and to avoid associating themselves with a dan¬ 
 gerous responsibility ? Amphictyons, who are friends 
 of Athens, inform Æschines that the Amphissæans, 
 through complaisance for the Thebans, who were hos¬ 
 tile to Athens, are about to decree a fine of fifty talents 
 against the republic, because of a consecration injuri¬ 
 ous to Thebes. Æschines runs to the assembly to de¬ 
 fend his country. Now, according to Demosthenes, 
 Ainphissa never thought of raising any complaint of 
 this nature against Athens. It is a “false pretext” 
 which the knave alleges to justify his tirade against 
 the Locrians, whose ruin he plotted. Whilst Æschines 
 justifies Athens, an Ampliissæan, “perhaps urged to 
 
 * Pro Corona , § 149." 
 
446 POLITICxVL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 tliis error by a god,” insults the Athenians and demands 
 that they be driven from the temple as accomplices of 
 the sacrilegious Phocians. Is this fact probable ? Did 
 not the Ampliissæans, according to yEscliines’ confes¬ 
 sion, take part against the Amphictyonie troops, in 
 favor of the inhabitants of Cyrrha, a people of Phocis ? 
 The outrages of this person kindled the wrath of Æs- 
 chines. He replies by giving a pathetic picture of the 
 sacrilege of Amphissa. It is no longer a question of 
 votive shields, but of the chastisement which must be 
 inflicted upon the Locrians. Thus the eloquent apos¬ 
 trophe which was called forth by the insults of the 
 Amphissæan, was an unpremeditated diversion, in¬ 
 stantaneously inspired in the Athenian pylagoræ by a 
 patriotic indignation, a digression profitable to Athens 
 and for which the republic ought to feel thankful to 
 him. yEschines, on hearing the city thus stigmatized, 
 could not control himself; never, in his whole life, had 
 he experienced such anger. A skillful orator exagger¬ 
 ated his wrath in order to explain an untimely explosion 
 of religious zeal, whose consequences were disastrous 
 to Athens. Later, yEscliines, as if under the impres¬ 
 sion of the divine maledictions which he has described, 
 personally made his peace with the gods. He advised 
 the Ampliictyons to follow this prudent example, and 
 to swear a war of extermination against the impious, 
 lie aroused their fanaticism; he placed the sacred sword 
 in their hands. This was a consecration of slaughter. 
 
 In these conjunctures the religious zeal of yEscliines 
 is equivalent to a crime of high treason. For the Athe¬ 
 nians had not authorized their pylagora to arouse the 
 Amphictyonie council against Amphissa, and to incite 
 a sacred war which was eagerly desired by their enemy. 
 yEscliines, the deputy of Athens at Delphi, did not 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 447 
 
 look to tlie affairs of Athens but to those of Philip. 
 His piety, even if sincere, could not therefore exculpate 
 him from a public crime, the origin of the capture of 
 Elatea and the ruin of his country. It would be use¬ 
 less to “torture” the truth; he could never free him¬ 
 self from a treason which crowned his iniquities. Thus 
 spoke Demosthenes, and at the same time cursed his 
 “ impure head.” In the oration On the Embassy Æs- 
 cliines is indignant at the thought that the Athenians 
 should have left Demosthenes unpunished, when they 
 had “executed Socrates the sophist.” This badly- 
 drawn comparison is expressive. Æschines’ hatred of 
 Demosthenes is veiled, like that of Meletus and of 
 Anytus, under religious pretext. Personal resentments 
 are the secret of his piety and the stimulus of the fanati¬ 
 cism which he inspires in the Athenian people without 
 even having the sad excuse of sharing it. 
 
 Æschines has sown with dangers the path on which 
 Demosthenes had to j>ass in order to defend himself. 
 He hoped to see him strike against engines of war, the 
 indiscreet touch of which provoked mortal explosions. 
 Such was Demosthenes’ necessity to justify Cliæronea 
 and to speak freely of the all-powerful Alexander. The 
 orator set this difficulty at naught; he dared to main¬ 
 tain that the defeat, even though foreseen, had to be 
 met in the name of duty; he was not afraid to conclude 
 an oration which teemed with regrets at the downfall 
 of Athens, with execrations against its conquerors. 
 Æschines had laid another snare for him, which was 
 even more perfidious. This Demosthenes could not 
 brave. 
 
 It is always difficult to undertake the justification of 
 acts or of words declared impious. If we reply that the 
 accuser is a knave who lies knowingly, we are always 
 
448 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 apt to wound the feelings of the people, and of hearers 
 who are perhaps sincerely imbued with opinions af¬ 
 fected by the informer. If we allege patriotic probity 
 and disinterested devotion to the state, this apology is 
 foreign to the question and does not refute the accusa¬ 
 tion of disrespect toward the gods. Ilow are we to 
 prove, in the present cause, that political passions and 
 human covetousness mingled with the anathema against 
 the Phocians, the plunderers of Delphi, or against the 
 Ampliissqeans, the desecrators of the sacred field ? 
 Here Demosthenes cannot meet TEscliines with equal 
 arms. The lieutenants of the Phocian Plialæcos com¬ 
 menced digging around the hearth and tripod of Delphi 
 on the belief in a Homeric verse, which mentions 4 ‘ the 
 treasures concealed in the stony soil of Phoebus’ tem¬ 
 ple in rocky Pytlio.”* Violent earthquakes, manifest 
 signs of divine wrath, checked the desecrators. De¬ 
 mosthenes himself had to fear the commotions of the 
 sacred ground on which his enemy forced him to defend 
 himself; at every imprudent word he was threatened 
 with the fire of heaven. Hence his reticence and his 
 shifts,—he walked upon burning coals. 
 
 If the question turns upon the first sacred war of 
 Phocis (355), he denies that he was implicated in it as 
 a responsible counsellor. He was not then connected 
 with public affairs. Besides, even if he had been ani¬ 
 mated with an indulgence toward the Phocians, these 
 feelings could have found their excuse in the feelings 
 of the Athenians. Athens indeed recognized “their 
 wwongs,” but she hated their enemies, the Thebans, 
 even more than she reproved a sacrilege to which de¬ 
 spair had driven a ruined people,— a people despoiled 
 of all, of their land, their wives, their children. Their 
 
 * Iliad , ix, 404. 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 449 
 
 Apollo seemed powerless to protect them. They de¬ 
 manded provisions and arms of his treasure of Delphi. 
 The impiety of the Phocians, who attacked the divinity 
 itself in their distress, had, according to Justin (viii, 1), 
 rendered the Thebans even more odious because they 
 reduced them to this extremity. Sparta sent aid to 
 them; Athens accorded her alliance to them. Demos¬ 
 thenes was excusable for not having fought those im¬ 
 pressions in the hearts of his fellow citizens which 
 circumstances rendered legitimate. 
 
 Æscliines accuses him of having devoted Athens 
 to the wrath of the gods, by dissuading her from 
 joining the Amphictyonie league. To this charge 
 the orator could not answer without the evasion that 
 it was better to aid his country than the gods. A 
 direct justification upon the basis of the imputation 
 being forbidden him, he used palliatives and devious 
 methods. He did not deny the impiety of the dese- 
 crators of a consecrated district; he raised doubts of 
 the consecration itself. For want of a forcible apology, 
 he proved that the adversary could not present his 
 own. The accused became the accuser; he called on 
 the gods to witness the justness of his intentions 
 and the purity of his acts. Tie invoked Pythian 
 Apollo in particular, whom Æscliines especially 
 wished to arouse against him; he called him to wit¬ 
 ness the truth of his words when he accused Æs- 
 chines of having been the voluntary auxiliary of 
 Philip, under pretext of defending the gods. Even 
 without urging the sacred war, he (Demosthenes) was 
 more worthy of the protection of the Delphic god than 
 the religious Æscliines: such was the impression 
 which Demosthenes wished to leave upon his hearers; 
 and to this effect he demonstrated the criminal in- 
 19* 
 
 « 
 
450 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 telligence between Æschines and the Macedonians, 
 in their plot against Greece. Demosthenes deserted 
 the cause of the gods! Æschines deserted the cause 
 of his country! Æschines was really impious, he was 
 the scourge of all the Hellenes. 
 
 III. DEMOSTHENES A B A.D COUNSELLOR. 
 
 ll Tobç TrpoLTTOvzaç uxèp ô/icôv t: TÏjç aÔTod rô/rjç àviTrXrjffsv * * * 
 EbOuôiy.to Arjp.O(r0é'yrjç £<prj <pikoq elvac ’ ovtoç ùtzojàsto: With his 
 ill fortune Demosthenes has ruined those who labored in your be¬ 
 half. * * * He says that he was the friend of Eutliydicus; Euthydi- 
 cus has perished ” (Dinarchus). 
 
 Æschines did not dare say openly to the Athenians: 
 “You have failed in defending your liberty against 
 Philip.” He attributed their defeat to the fatal in¬ 
 fluence of a bad counsellor. From the dav on which 
 
 «y 
 
 Demosthenes concluded a venal compact with sacri¬ 
 legious Ampliissa, all who approached him were 
 plunged more than ever into incurable evils. The 
 malediction connected with his person triumphed over 
 the good fortune of Athens. Thebes, Lacedæmon, 
 the Great King, all the enemies of Macedonia have 
 succumbed; a political and sacrilegious orator sympa¬ 
 thized with them in tlieir struggle against the people 
 who avenged the Divinity. Æschines unscrupulously 
 took advantage of the prejudice which had made an 
 unlucky man of Demosthenes. Six years later, Dinar¬ 
 chus, in the trial of Harpalus, exposed the disastrous 
 effects of this fatal politician. 
 
 Belief in a good or bad destiny was a conviction 
 deeply rooted in the minds of the Greeks. Herodo¬ 
 tus is thoroughly imbued with it, and owes to it one 
 of his most touching recitals,— that of Adrastus the 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 451 
 
 Accursed (i, 34). This predestined good fortune is 
 considered by Aristotle * among the number of con¬ 
 vincing arguments in orations. Æschines insists on 
 it the more voluntarily because he knows his adver¬ 
 sary is unable to refute it successfully. What could 
 he allege to prove logically that he was not infested 
 with a fatal ill-fortune ? Appearances were against 
 him: the cities which he had joined to Athens had 
 all fallen like herself; the Macedonians, the enemies 
 of his whole life, were everywhere triumphant. The 
 desecrators, aided in vain by his political manage- 
 
 * Rhetoric i, 5. The fortunate man has ugly brothers, and he alone 
 is handsome. (Cf. Eudemian Ethics , vii, 14.) “ It cannot be denied 
 that there are classes who really have good luck. They have fine 
 opportunities to act foolishly, everything succeeds for them. * * * 
 Nature establishes between men from the moment of their birth pro¬ 
 found differences, giving to some blue eyes , to others black eyes. * * * 
 In like manner Nature makes some fortunate, others unfortu¬ 
 nate: * * * In navigation it is not the most skillful who are fortunate; 
 but sometimes it is as a game of dice, in which one draws nothing, 
 whilst another draws a number that proves that he is naturally 
 fortunate, or that he is loved by the gods, as they say. * * * If this 
 fool succeeds, it is because destiny, which is an excellent pilot , is in his 
 favor. I confess that we are justly astonished ( aroizov ) that God or 
 destiny loves a man of this kind, rather than the most honest or 
 prudent man.” 
 
 The partisans of Philip purposely exalted his good fortune. De¬ 
 mosthenes recognized it, with a feeling of bitter irony, in a particular 
 passage: “Numerous are the motives, Athenians, for congratulating 
 Philip on his good luck; but he can be especially congratulated on 
 one advantage of which I have not found another example (I call the 
 gods to witness) among the great fortunes of our century. To have 
 taken great cities, to have joined vast countries to his empire, all 
 successes of this kind are brilliant and worthy of envy; who doubts 
 it? Nevertheless, we could cite many others who have enjoyed them. 
 But good luck was his; he shared it with no one. What is it? his 
 policy needed perverse men, and the perversity of those whom he 
 found, surpassed his desires.” (On the Embassy , § 67.) 
 
452 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 ment, edified the world by the exemplary chastise¬ 
 ments which they suffered. To refute such over¬ 
 whelming testimony, strengthened by the superstitious 
 feelings of a people who were astonished at the sight 
 of revolutions which had shaken the whole world, was 
 indeed a heavy task; Demosthenes sustained its weight 
 as well as he could. 
 
 “ From many things one may see his unfeelingness and 
 malignity, but especially from his discourse about fortune. 
 For my part, I regard any one who reproaches his fellow-man 
 with fortune, as devoid of sense. He that is best satisfied 
 with his condition, he that deems his fortune excellent, can 
 not be sure that it will remain so until the evening. How, 
 then, can it be right to bring it forward, or upbraid another 
 man with it? As Æschines, however, has on this subject (be¬ 
 sides many others) expressed himself with insolence, look, 
 men of Athens, and observe how much more truth and hu¬ 
 manity there shall be in my discourse upon fortune than in 
 his. I hold the fortune of our commonwealth to be good, 
 and so I find the oracles of Dodonæan Jupiter and Pythian 
 Apollo declaring to us. The fortune of all mankind which 
 now prevails, I consider cruel and dreadful. 
 
 “ For what Greek, what barbarian, has not in these times 
 experienced a multitude of evils? That Athens chose the 
 noblest policy; that she fares better than those very Greeks 
 who thought if they abandoned us they should abide in pros¬ 
 perity, I reckon as part of her good fortune. * * * If you 
 can mention, Æschines, a single man under the sun, whether 
 Greek or barbarian, who has not suffered by Philip’s power 
 formerly, and Alexander’s now, well and good; I concede to 
 you that my fortune, or misfortune (if you please), has been 
 the cause of everything. But if many that never saw me or 
 heard my voice have been grievously afflicted,—not individuals 
 only, but whole cities and nations,—how much juster and 
 fairer is it to consider that to the common fortune apparently 
 
THE TRIAL ON TIIE CROWN. 
 
 453 
 
 of all men, to a tide of events overwhelming and lamentable, 
 these disasters are to be attributed? * * * If we suffered 
 reverses, if all happened not to us as we desired, I conceive 
 she has had that share of the general fortune which fell to 
 our lot. As to my fortune (personally speaking), or that of 
 any individual among us, it should, as I conceive, be judged 
 of in connection with personal matters. Such is my opinion 
 upon the subject of fortune,— a right and just one, as it ap¬ 
 pears to me, and I think you will agree with it. Æschines 
 says that my individual fortune is paramount to that of the 
 commonwealth, the small and mean to the great and good. 
 How can this possibly be?” 
 
 Demosthenes was not unfortunate, because he was 
 not conquered: “I have conquered Philip, because his 
 gold has not been able to corrupt me. * * * I never 
 was beaten by Philip in estimates or preparations; far 
 from it; but the generals and forces of the allies were 
 overcome by his fortune.” Nobody has a right to 
 charge him with the reverses of Athens; he neglected 
 nothing that could insure success. But the struggle 
 was too unequal: to the arms of the Macedonians he 
 only opposed speeches, and the traitors paralyzed all 
 his efforts. Greece has suffered, not through the fault 
 of Demosthenes, but for not having followed his advice. 
 One Demosthenes in every city would have been enough 
 for the common salvation, but all the cities were full of 
 yEschineses. “Then go not about saying, O Atheni¬ 
 ans, that one man has inflicted these calamities on 
 Greece. Heaven and earth! it was not a single man, 
 but a number of miscreants in every state.” Thu¬ 
 cydides (ii, 37) praises the Athenians for respecting, be¬ 
 yond all the others, the laws protecting the sanction of 
 public opinion. In Demosthenes’ eyes one of them is 
 not to reproach an unfortunate man for misfortunes 
 
454 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 which he cannot prevent. Æschines makes tlie lost 
 cause a weapon against his enemy; he violates that law 
 of moral delicacy which forbids the abuse of an inno¬ 
 cent man on account of unfortunate circumstances. 
 Demosthenes was unfortunate in having stranded; he 
 did not strand because he was unfortunate. Instead 
 of exciting public hatred against him, Æschines ought 
 to have respected his affliction, and, if he was able, to 
 have shared it. 
 
 Notwithstanding the force of his reasoning and the 
 eloquence of his complaints, Demosthenes undoubtedly 
 did not succeed in overcoming the prejudice of an ill- 
 luck which was connected witli his person. After Chæ- 
 ronea, the Athenians continued to be inspired by his 
 counsels. Nevertheless, out of deference for a preju¬ 
 dice at variance with the bold confidence of his fellow- 
 citizens, the orator for some time abstained from sign¬ 
 ing his own name to decrees which he had adopted. 
 He subscribed the name of a friend, Nausicles. He 
 wished to remove every pretext for a distrust in the 
 future, and to preserve the city from even the appear¬ 
 ance of a fatal influence, a touching proof of his piety 
 toward his country. 
 
 AVithout accepting the prejudice of the Athenians on 
 the fatality attached to Demosthenes, even we are 
 struck by the character of a life which an evil destiny 
 seems to have constantly pursued. This tragic color 
 appears manifest to whosoever considers the rough 
 career which the orator experienced; and, at first, what 
 a contrast his career forms with that of Æschines! The 
 friend of the Macedonians sung the pæan at Philip’s 
 table after the ruin of Phocis; he celebrated Chæronea 
 with the conqueror; and his life passed calmly and 
 pleasantly between the fruitful sympathy of the Mace- 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 455 
 
 donians and tlie artistic admiration or moral indiffer¬ 
 ence of his fellow-citizens. He lived happily, honored 
 by the greatest number. One disgrace befell him,—he 
 provoked Demosthenes to a single combat, in which his 
 hatred was baffled and his vanity humiliated. He re¬ 
 solved upon voluntary exile, and then spent his leisure 
 hours between the culture of eloquence and friendly 
 relations with Alexander, until he died peaceably at 
 Rhodes or Samos. 
 
 With this picture let us compare that of Demosthenes’ 
 life and death. Early deprived of his paternal inherit¬ 
 ance, Demosthenes, at the age of twenty, was obliged to 
 contend with his avaricious guardians for his property. 
 His persevering efforts deprived them of a small share 
 of it. After a laborious youth, obstinate in struggling 
 against natural imperfections, he enters the tribune. 
 He is there mocked. Far from losing his courage, he 
 redoubles his energy, finally triumphs over his defects, 
 and carries the suffrages of the Athenians. What fruit 
 will he reap from it ? He chooses an honorable part,— 
 the defense of Hellenic rights. Philip’s talents, the 
 vices of Athens, the weakness of all Greece, throw 
 obstacles in his way, which, though constantly sur¬ 
 mounted, constantly rise up again before him. Always 
 in the breach, he struggles alone for the national 
 honor. He is always right, and he is always van¬ 
 quished. He passed his life rolling the rock of Sisy¬ 
 phus. After Chæronea, he saw liimself dishonored 
 as a public scourge, detested as sacrilegious, and ac¬ 
 cursed. 
 
 Is not he who sows good and reaps evil, who ap¬ 
 proaches without ever reaching his object, indeed con¬ 
 demned by the gods ? The Theban alliance ‘ for a 
 moment made the scales balance in favor of Athens; but 
 
456 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the superior force of destiny very soon disturbed her 
 equilibrium. Fatality seems to have played with De¬ 
 mosthenes. At the death of Philip (336) and of Alex¬ 
 ander (323) it brightened his life with rays of hope, 
 and each time plunged him again into dark uncer¬ 
 tainty. The Athenians restored his courage by ren¬ 
 dering due homage to his patriotic policy (330). A 
 few years afterward (324) the Areopagus condemned 
 him on a charge of corruption. An exile awaited him 
 more humiliating than that of FEschines, if he was 
 guilty; much more grievous if he was innocent. His 
 return was a triumph (323) which recalls that of Alci¬ 
 biades.* Scarcely had a year passed when the defeat 
 of Cran on again ruined his hopes. He was incessantly 
 baffled by deception and bitterness. 
 
 Less upright than Nicias, but more illustrious and 
 more useful to his country as a citizen, he was the 
 victim of a longer and more painful misfortune. Fond 
 of pleasures, and of the money which procured them, 
 very sensitive to the wounds of self-love, given to 
 lamentable tailings through timidity, his weaknesses 
 subjected him to the slanders and calumnies of his 
 enemies, and conspired with his civic virtues to make 
 him suffer. Virtue ought to be always gratuitous; 
 why is it not always unpunished ? Chæronea, the 
 grandest political title of Demosthenes in our estima¬ 
 tion, won for him the reproachful term, parricide. At 
 the time of his greatest credit he was obliged to sup- 
 
 * A galley was sent to bring liim from Ægina; and when lie came 
 up from tlie Piraeus to Athens the whole body of citizens went to meet 
 and to congratulate him on his return, insomuch that there was neither 
 a magistrate nor a priest left in the town. The people made him a 
 present of fifty talents, which was intended to compensate the fine 
 that was imposed upon him by the Areopagus. (Plutarch, Life of 
 Demosthenes, 27.) 
 
THE TRIAL O N THE CROWN. 
 
 457 
 
 port the overwhelming weight of a state which was 
 rebellious to generous counsels, because it was inac¬ 
 tive. -5 '* Broken by a final disaster, he terminated his 
 days as a fugitive, surrounded by the enemies of his 
 country, in the face of indifferent or impotent gods. 
 “The life of the statesman is as ruffled as that of the 
 warrior. During thirty years Demosthenes main¬ 
 tained the contest against Athens and against Macedo¬ 
 nia. He conquered his country, but the victory was 
 too late. He could not find in her sufficient support 
 to accomplish his work by rejecting the Macedonian 
 yoke. This unfortunate destiny, and the firmness of a 
 mind unswayed by misfortune, give a tragic expression 
 to Demosthenes’ figure. It is surprising that an Alfi¬ 
 eri, for example, has not profited by such a drama. 
 The inflexible obstinacy of Demosthenes recalls Prome¬ 
 theus,^: Pliiloctetes and Electra. He hated the invader 
 as the son of Pæan hated the Atrides. Like him, he 
 preferred pain to the shame of a compromise. He did 
 not recognize the right of pardoning. Clytemnestra 
 killed her husband. “ Strike again! ” cried Electra to 
 Orestes. The Macedonians killed Hellenic liberty. 
 To his last breath Demosthenes cried, “Revolt and 
 take vengeance on the murderers ! ” 
 
 Pain is a blessing, said Antisthanes. “True hap¬ 
 piness is obedience to the voice of duty” (Hyperides). 
 
 * Demetrius reports this saying of Demades: “Athens is no longer 
 the warrior city of our ancestors. She is an old woman who drags 
 her sandals, and lives on tisane.” 
 
 \ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , x, 7. 
 
 X Æschylus, Prometheus : “ I have foreseen all. I have wished, yes, 
 I have wished, to act thus. I will not deny it, in order to aid mortals 
 I have incurred sufferings ” (v, 270). “ For thy servility, know you 
 
 well I would not exchange my misery” (v, 95G). Demosthenes used 
 the same language to Æscliines. 
 
 20 
 
 
458 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 In this respect only was Demosthenes happy during 
 his whole life. Considering things with the elevated 
 sentiments of which he himself gave a striking ex¬ 
 ample, he was also happy in his death. He deserved 
 above all others the hatred of his country’s enemies. 
 W as not this a more enviable death than that of Æs- 
 chines, who died faithful to the Macedonians and 
 forgetful of Athens ? Or of Philip, the politician of 
 skillful intrigues, wdio was assassinated in a court in¬ 
 trigue ? Or of Alexander, the young Bacchus, the 
 conqueror of India, who was carried away by an 
 orgy ? Or of Dinarchus, who was paid for his ser¬ 
 vices by the executioner of Polysperclion ? Or of 
 Demades, expiating his duplicities by the murder of 
 his own son, whom Cassander killed in his arms, and 
 then killed the father ? The great soul of Demos¬ 
 thenes in the midst of trials found in itself the con¬ 
 solation of manly courage: the consciousness of his 
 fidelity to duty. It foresaw another consolation, post¬ 
 humous but sovereign: the certainty of an honored 
 immortality. 
 
 The testimonies of esteem which his fellow-citizens 
 conferred upon him gave him a presentiment of his 
 future renown. In the trial On the Crown , Athens, 
 feeling that the cause of Demosthenes was her own, 
 wished to sanction the glory of her orator by sharing 
 it. The Republic, said Æschines, would appear such 
 as the one whom she would crown. Athens pre¬ 
 ferred rather to resemble Demosthenes than his ac¬ 
 cuser, and she proudly crowned the irreconcilable 
 adversary of her conquerors. The firmness of his 
 attitude after Chæronea was a plain proof of his de¬ 
 termination. The constancy of Rome after Cannæ 
 has been praised. Frivolous Athens was no less 
 
» 
 
 THE TEIAL OH THE CROWN. 
 
 459 
 
 vigorous, although in a situation still more desperate. 
 Owing to energetic measures, the city was put in a 
 state of defense; the slaves enfranchised; the op¬ 
 pressed restored to their rights. The sepulchres fur¬ 
 nished stones for the fortifications, and the trophies 
 of the temples gave up their arms. Demosthenes 
 was the soul of the resistance; he went to arouse the 
 allied cities, whilst the people, not having political 
 rights to spare their Yarro, punished Lysides * and 
 inflicted capital punishment on the emigrants. Philip, 
 in the face of this unexpected resolution, used gen¬ 
 erosity and prudence, f 
 
 IV. -GRECIAN ELOQUENCE EXTINGUISHED WITH DEMOS¬ 
 
 THENES. 
 
 " Il p.i au yâp To.pzT7 t ç à-oaivurai ebpooxa Zsuç 
 ’AvépoÇj ebrav p.t v y.o.za. oobXtoy rjp.ap zÀrjGiv: 
 
 “Jove fix’d it certain, that whatever day 
 Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.” 
 
 After peace was concluded Athens, notwithstand¬ 
 ing the division of parties, did not cease to contend 
 secretly in proportion to her resources. Her courage 
 did not fail her. She was subjugated by force. At 
 every propitious opportunity she attempted to raise 
 
 * Attic Orators : “You commanded the army, Ly sides; a thousand 
 citizens have perished and two thousand have been made prisoners, 
 and a trophy has been raised against the republic, and all Greece 
 is enslaved! All these misfortunes have befallen us while you were 
 guiding and commanding our soldiers; and you dare to live and to 
 enjoy the light of the sun, and to present yourself on the public 
 square; you, a monument of shame and opprobrium to your 
 country!” ( Lycurgus .) 
 
 t Of. The Funeral Oration attributed to Demosthenes. 
 
460 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 her head. She pursued the agents of Olympius; she 
 gave all liberty to orators who were hostile to her 
 conquerors. “Before the smoking ruins of Thebes” 
 she dared (a firmness admired by Livy, ix, 18) pro¬ 
 test against her masters and even ridicule them. Alex¬ 
 ander wished to be a god and the recognized god of 
 the Athenians. People ought to deliberate upon the 
 demanded apotheosis: “What kind,” said Lycurgus, 
 “will that god be whom we cannot worship except 
 on condition that we purify ourselves when leaving 
 him ? ” On the proposition of Demosthenes, the city 
 declared that it would confine itself to the gods which 
 its ancestors worshiped. This proud liberty won the 
 esteem of Alexander. He expressed the desire that 
 at his death command in Greece should be reserved 
 to the Athenians. Their eulogies, he declared, were 
 the recompense whose hope stimulated his exploits. 
 
 Forty-two years after Demosthenes’ death (280), 
 Athens wished to consecrate the respect due to his 
 memory by a public act. Demochares, a nephew of 
 the orator, proposed and carried a decree in which 
 we read these words: 
 
 “ Demosthenes served the Athenian people by his benefits 
 and his counsels. * * * He gave to the state three triremes 
 and thirteen talents. * * * He contributed his own property 
 in order to provide arms for poor citizens and to purchase 
 grain during the famine. * * * He ransomed several citi¬ 
 zens who had been made prisoners by Philip at Pydna, at 
 Methone, and at Olynthus. * * * At his expense he repaired 
 the walls of the Piraeus. * * * By his eloquence and devo¬ 
 tion he brought into the Athenian alliance the Thebans, 
 Euboea, Corinth, Megara, Achaia, Locris, Byzantium, and 
 Messenia. Sent on an embassy among our allies, he per¬ 
 suaded them to furnish more than five hundred talents for 
 
THE TRIAL GIST THE CROWN. 
 
 461 
 
 war expenses. A deputy to the people of the Peloponnesus, 
 he distributed money among them in order to prevent them 
 from sending reinforcements to Philip against Thebes. To 
 the Athenians he gave the wisest counsels, and supported the 
 national independence and democracy better than any of his 
 contemporary orators. Banished by the supporters of the 
 oligarchy when the people had lost their sovereignty, he 
 died in the isle of Calauria, a victim of his own patriotism. 
 * * * Pursued by the soldiers of Antipater, he remained to 
 the last faithful to the democracy, and at the approach of 
 death he did nothing which was unworthy of Athens. * * * 
 The oldest of his family will hereafter be supported at the 
 Prytaneum, and in the games he will be assigned to places 
 of honor. A bronze statue will be erected on the public 
 square to Demosthenes.” 
 
 The statue received this inscription: 
 
 “Divine in speech, in judgment too divine; 
 
 Had valor’s wreath, Demosthenes, been thine, 
 
 Fair Greece had still her freedom’s ensign borne, 
 
 And held the scourge of Macedon in scorn ! ” 
 
 Athens owed even more to her orator than she ac¬ 
 knowledged. As long as he lived he supported the 
 soul of his country. The proud sentiments which he 
 inspired in her might have left Athens some oblivion 
 of her sad condition. When Demosthenes was lost to 
 her, not having in herself the power to raise her head 
 under the yoke, she bowed humbly and submitted en¬ 
 tirely to the degrading influence of servitude. From 
 that day she was actually enslaved, and her feelings 
 made it quite evident. 
 
 Seven or eight years after the adoption of the decree 
 in honor of Demosthenes, the same Athens voted a 
 similar decree in favor of his nephew, Demochares. 
 This person received the same homage as liis uncle for 
 having proved his devotion to the public welfare, but 
 
462 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 tlie conditions and circumstances under which the two 
 men labored were very different. In the number of 
 Demochares’ eminent services were his successful em¬ 
 bassies to kings; he obtained money from Lysimachus, 
 from Ptolemæus and from Antipater. He was a good 
 administrator, a faithful democrat and a successful beg¬ 
 gar. In 305, Athens had reached the depth of her 
 moral degradation. She celebrated the entry of De¬ 
 metrius Poliorcetes within her walls with this sacred 
 hymn: 
 
 “Yes, the greatest and most beloved of the gods are 
 present in our city. See how the propitious occasion intro¬ 
 duces Demeter and Demetrius together. She comes to cele¬ 
 brate the mysteries of her daughter (Proserpine); he, as 
 joyful as becomes a god, appears handsome and smiling. The 
 majestic spectacle of his presence! All his friends in a circle 
 around him like the stars; he in the midst of them like the 
 sun. 0 thou son of all-powerful Neptune and of Aphrodite, 
 hail! for the other gods are either too far away, or they have 
 no ears, or they do not exist, or they have no care for us. 
 But thou, we behold thee present, not in wood or in stone, 
 but in reality,— to thee we address our prayers, * * * etc.” 
 
 “Such,” adds Athenæus, u was tlie song which the 
 warriors of Marathon sung, not only in public, but 
 even around their firesides; they who had punished 
 with death the adorers of the Persian king, and who 
 had slain myriads of barbarians.” This servile cantata 
 was the worthy accompaniment of the adulations with 
 which Demetrius was overwhelmed even to disgust. 
 Athenæus has transmitted to us the proofs of all this: 
 altars to the intimate acquaintances of the new god, 
 temples to his two mistresses.* Thus the city pros- 
 
 * One of them, Lamia, was a flute-player at Athens. Plutarch 
 {Life of Demetrius) gives curious details on these unheard of adula- 
 
THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 463 
 
 tituted itself to a foreign master; the city in which the 
 popular song of Harmodius and Aristogiton had been 
 chanted for years; the city which had been formerly 
 honored with the meritorious names of the Prytaneum, 
 of the hearth, of the rampart and of the school of 
 Greece A 
 
 By losing his liberty, says Homer, man loses half his 
 virtue. When Greece was deprived of her independ¬ 
 ence, she was at the same blow bereft of her genius. 
 Macedonian rule did not pacify her eloquence; it anni¬ 
 hilated it. Demosthenes had no heir ; he did not even 
 leave a legacy to any one. The Hellenic language, so 
 fertile in masterpieces for almost two centuries, was 
 suppressed immediately and forever. Only rhetoric 
 survived, babbling and varnished, in its schools; bom¬ 
 bastic and ingenious, an adulatress to the powerful. 
 But one name rises above this level mediocrity, that of 
 Demetrius Phalereus. Could it be otherwise ? Ban¬ 
 ished from the political domain, where it once enjoyed 
 its liberty, eloquence could find no other soil to culti¬ 
 vate than the petty debates of civil life and flattery. 
 The pride of the city became the humble auxiliary of 
 the domestic hearth, the captive servant of foreign 
 masters. Bobbed, without any compensation, of her 
 Attic eloquence, which was supplanted by Asiatic lo¬ 
 quacity, Greece deserved, in this respect, to be com- 
 
 tions. “ These mockeries completed the corruption of a prince whose 
 mind was not altogether sane.” One of the most grievous fantasies 
 of the new god to the Athenians was the immediate payment of the 
 tribute of two hundred and fifty talents. The sum was sent without 
 delay to Demetrius, who delivered it to his courtesans “ to purchase 
 toilet powder.” This was a strange way to recompense the Athenians 
 for their devotion for which they paid so dearly. 
 
 * Tzpuravzïov (Tlieopompus), ka-iav (the oracle itself), epstapa 
 (Pindar), -dtdeufftv (Thucydides). 
 
464 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 pared u to one of those houses delivered up to liber¬ 
 tinism and evil genius ; the free and wise woman lan¬ 
 guished in disdain, whilst the mad courtesan, summoned 
 to destroy everything, governs like a mistress and 
 overwhelms the legitimate wife with insults and hu¬ 
 miliations.” * 
 
 Demosthenes is to he honored for having devoted 
 his life to the ambition of preventing the ruin of the 
 Athenian mind and genius with her enslavement. He 
 only succeeded in retarding it. But the transforma¬ 
 tion of Greece, which was immediately disfigured, 
 further justified the orator of the Philippics. He 
 had a presentiment of the void which the disappear¬ 
 ance of Athens would leave in the world, and the 
 check to civilization which her defeat caused. In fact 
 neither moral and national dignity, nor eloquence 
 nor poetry, nor even any high inspiration in the arts, 
 survived the fall of the Attic city. The day on which 
 she fell with Demosthenes, the shining light of the 
 Occident was extinguished; long years were to roll 
 by before Alexandria was to see the Aurora of a new 
 dawn. 
 
 * Dionysius of Halicarnassus. ( Memoirs , Introduction, i.) 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 u Ü£prytypd(fOu) /xèv rà.yaOw raurrj ‘ Set yàp 'taux; VTroruTzwaat 
 TrpwTov, elO'iïffTepov dvaypdfpat. * * * c 0 ypovo; twv toiootojv 
 eupsTYj; ‘ oOz'j v.at twv Tsyvwv yeydvaac; at è~tâ6aec;: Let us 
 content ourselves with this imperfect sketch of the good. It is, 
 perhaps, necessary at first to draw from it an incomplete image, 
 whose features will he perfected subsequently. * * * Time reveals 
 these progresses; it is the source of the protection of the arts.” 
 (Aristotle, Nicomachecm Ethics , i, 5). 
 
 ANTIQUITY, u the youth of the world,” will al- 
 Yl- ways seem young in certain respects; its pre¬ 
 judices and its customs are past, hut the humanity 
 which it portrayed still lives. The universal man 
 of whom Pascal speaks, is modified in his growth; hut 
 in his essence he remains perpetually the same. Also 
 the strange moral necessity constantly revives among 
 men the same phenomena, different in their forms, 
 but substantially identical.* 
 
 * This periodical return of the same currents in human life is 
 sometimes aided by the immutable stability of the physical nature 
 in the midst of which man acts; to moral necessity is allied a kind 
 of geographical fatality. In our days, as in the times of Philip, 
 Byzantium is the key of universal rule. It is to-day defended in the 
 name of European independence against the presumptive heirs of 
 Peter the Great. Twenty centuries ago Athens and Depiosthenes 
 defended it against a prince of the north, who longed for the con¬ 
 quest of the southern states, and perhaps that of Asia, which was 
 reserved for his son. Who knows whether Greece, the historical and 
 natural bulwark of the Bosphorus, will not some day receive the 
 custody of the Oriental Porte? Byzantium, the beautiful and envied 
 pultana, has up to this period been trusted without danger to an 
 
 465 
 
466 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Thus the commotions of those states which strug¬ 
 gle to preserve or gain their liberty, will always have 
 the same consequences in the manifestations of hu¬ 
 man passion. The Macedonian period and the French 
 Revolution were destined to be for Greece a triumph, 
 for France a cradle of political eloquence. The two 
 nations, in a national storm resulting differently for 
 each, were stirred in their patriotic, moral and re¬ 
 ligious fibers. 
 
 Demosthenes protested against the iniquities of the 
 invader and the felony of his Greek allies. The leg¬ 
 islative assembly rose up against the manifesto of 
 Brunswick and the emigrants. The political oratoi* 
 of the Philippics advised the Athenians to sacrifice 
 strict right to the superior cause of Hellenic rights; 
 the Committee of Public Safety gained authority by 
 the example of nature, which is interested in classes, 
 not in individuals. An unexpected ally, Joseph de 
 Maistre, came to justify these theories. The revolu¬ 
 tionary power, u a monster* of power,” said he, u is at 
 the same time a dreadful chastisement for the French, 
 and the only means of saving France.” Some ques¬ 
 tioned themselves about Providence, some found it 
 convenient to abandon themselves to destiny and to 
 submit to the good fortune of Philip; others, the better 
 classes, held up with Demosthenes the claims of the 
 city to the benevolence of the gods, and wished to 
 aid them by a manly use of liberty. Thus the action 
 of Providence was even apparent to the enemies of 
 
 effeminate guardian. The Turk, unable himself to guard her, can no 
 longer protect her from the covetousness of a manly neighbor. The 
 European states would be satisfied if the Greeks were strong enough 
 to become the protectors and masters of Constantinople, and wise 
 enough never to abuse her. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 467 
 
 the French revolution. With logical fanaticism the 
 author of Considerations sur la France declared that 
 it was “ decreed.” In it he beheld an u overwhelming 
 force which surmounted all obstacles. Its whirlwind 
 carried away all that human power could oppose to it 
 like light chaff. Ho one crossed its path with im¬ 
 punity.” What are we to say of the commotions of 
 the imagination at the sight of a young conqueror who, 
 full of faith in his own star, renewed the prodigies of 
 Alexander ? Destiny conducted the one from Pella 
 to the Indus and to Babylon, the other from Brienne 
 to the pyramids and to Moscow. Both overran the 
 world with resistless power; as formerly Hellenism, 
 so ’89 was diffused through the universe. 
 
 Hume, before the most brilliant period of the Brit¬ 
 ish parliament, marked the absence of political elo¬ 
 quence in his own country: u Great interests are want¬ 
 ing to us.” They were not long wanting to England, 
 and especially to France. The political movements 
 which supported the eloquence of Rome and Athens 
 seem moderate compared with the prodigious renova¬ 
 tion of which France in 1789 gave the signal to Eu¬ 
 rope. Philosophical meditation had enriched the soil 
 by thoroughly ploughing it. To the sowing of ideas 
 succeeded a harvest of disputed reforms, which were 
 propagated by eloquence. Contending parties always 
 held speech in dread, and armed themselves with it 
 as with an irresistible power. Oratorical duels were 
 fought over the body of royalty, then in the heart of 
 the republic, between the moderate party and the vio¬ 
 lent party. Mirabeau and Barnave, Yergneaux and 
 Danton, gave to the tribune a resonance and an out¬ 
 burst of eloquence in which genius and passion were 
 more conspicuous than perfect wisdom or virtue. The 
 
I 
 
 468 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 gravity of the interests discussed and the solemnity 
 of the circumstances gave a grandeur to these ora¬ 
 torical contests which was unknown to the most im¬ 
 posing debates of the Pnyx and the forum. Hence 
 the character of an eloquence whose vehemence was 
 more than Roman, and whose transports were some¬ 
 times emphatic, w r as very far from Athenian sobriety. 
 Things, men, orations, everything at that period, 
 affected gigantic proportions. Memories of Greece 
 haunted the imagination. Sparta, an exemplary city, 
 with its rigid virtues, was erected into a model of pa¬ 
 triotism. She was envied her Lycurgus. Hérault de 
 Séclielles seriously proposed to inspire himself with 
 the laws of Minos, as did Sparta. Democratic Athens 
 exercised less prestige on the mind. However, they 
 thought of her in order to threaten the dictators with 
 the dagger of Harmodius. They purloined from the 
 Hellenes an emblem, the Greek bonnet; but how faith¬ 
 fully revive their eloquence ? In the Convention tem¬ 
 pests burst forth which overran the hall in the name 
 of the sovereign people. Eloquence is a flame which, 
 according to Tacitus, needs the nourishment of civil 
 agitations; but if the little flame be transformed into 
 a volcano, what does it become ? Too often at that 
 epoch it gave place to popular roaring or to the im¬ 
 passible reading of sinister reports in the midst of 
 the silence of fear. Thus the civic exaltation and the 
 effective atrocity of generous aspirations hurried France 
 to an inauspicious crisis. * * * But let us not touch 
 the ax. 
 
 Athenian eloquence, as we have seen, often bore the 
 characteristics of the pamphlet.* The same was true 
 
 * “ Political eloquence is censured for being quarrelsome and hateful 
 (< pda-eyOrjixuvas ).” (Isocrates, Anlidosis. See ch. vin.' 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 469 
 
 at certain epochs of the political eloquence of the mod¬ 
 erns. The great Irish agitator, O’Connell, sometimes 
 seasoned his harangues with that wrath and violence 
 familiar to the ancient tribune. The orators of the 
 revolution could scarcely refrain from these impetuosi¬ 
 ties. Those, however, who truly deserve the name of 
 orator rarely gave to their orations the insulting vio¬ 
 lence familiar to the Agora. This relative moderation 
 is due to the literary customs of the two countries. 
 The pamphlet and the oration were confounded at 
 Athens ; at Paris they were cultivated separately. 
 What the mouth would not have dared to hazard in 
 an assembly, however bold, the paper, which never 
 blushes, published throughout all France. Friends 
 and enemies of the new constitution had their publish¬ 
 ers, — champions with cruel teeth. The Revolutions 
 of France and of Brabant repaid the Acts of the 
 Apostles for their outrages and bites. Calumnies in 
 verse and in prose, ridiculing or lacerating parodies, 
 bloody sarcasms which were to be avenged in blood, 
 malice and venom, nothing was wanting to these libels 
 that could exhale shameless hatred. 
 
 The chair of the new apostles was a tumbrel less 
 Attic than that from which Æschines insulted Demos¬ 
 thenes. The spoken pamphlet of Athens outraged 
 truth and decorum, but not modesty. The written 
 pamphlet of the innovators and of their adversaries 
 despised all law. That wrath should be thus mani¬ 
 fested in ignominious language is too much; but what 
 would this have been if the pamphlet had not favored 
 what Aristotle calls the purgation of the passions and 
 preserved eloquence ? 
 
 The liberties of the Athenian pamphlet were a feeble 
 echo of the audacities of the comic stage. The u di- 
 
470 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 vine ” muse of Aristophanes spat upon his enemies 
 with a “vast spittle.” The muse of André Chénier 
 could not refuse the temptation of “ spitting upon their 
 names” and u chanting their punishment. ” Neverthe¬ 
 less, Greek comedy, even with its transports, was 
 never murderous. Camille Desmoulins remarked with 
 his accustomed spirit : 
 
 “ The Athenians were more indulgent, and they wrote fewer 
 songs, than the French. Far from sending to St. Pelagie, 
 and still less to the Place de Revolution, the author who, 
 from the beginning to the close of the play, discharged the 
 most bloody arrows against Pericles, Cleon, Lamor, * * * 
 Alcibiades, against the committees and presidents of sections, 
 and against the sections in mass, the Sans-Calottes applauded 
 with enthusiasm, and no one suffered death except those spec¬ 
 tators who burst by dint of laughing.” * 
 
 * The Vieux Cordelier , No. 7 ; the Pour et le Contre , bearing on the 
 liberty of the press: “ How can one be mistaken in this respect? As 
 for me, I do not see how a republic can be recognized where the lib¬ 
 erty of the press does not exist. The Athenians were true republicans 
 by principle and by instinct. Not only did the Athenian people per¬ 
 mit speaking and writing, but I see, from that which remains to us 
 of their theatre, that they enjoyed no greater pleasure than to see rep¬ 
 resented upon the stage their generals, their ministers, their philoso¬ 
 phers and their committees, and, what is stranger, the representation 
 of themselves. Read Aristophanes, * * * and you will be aston¬ 
 ished at the strange resemblance between Athens and democratic 
 France. You there find a Père Ducliène as at Paris, the red bonnets, 
 the orators, the magistrates, the motions and the sittings, absolutely 
 as ours. You will there find the principal characters of the day: in 
 a word, an antiquity of two thousand years with which we are con¬ 
 temporary. The only resemblance which is wanting is that when 
 her poets represented Athens with a long beard, * * * under the cos¬ 
 tume of an old man, who was called People, the Athenian people, 
 far from being angry, proclaimed Aristophanes the victor of the 
 games, and encouraged him to create laughter at tlieir own expense. 
 * * * Remember that these comedies were so caustic against the ultra 
 revolutionists, and the occupants of the tribune at that time, that there 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 471 
 
 The Clouds amused Socrates, it did not kill him. 
 The pamphlet and the eloquence of the French Revo¬ 
 lution are as sharp as a sword. * * * 66 Yes, monsters, 
 I will accuse you before nations with my steel pen, 
 glittering with the sacred fire of liberty which you 
 do not know; I will pierce and burn your entrails.” 
 Sometimes there was death without phrases, and 
 again there were phrases that were truly mortal, such 
 as those of St. Just. The same St. Just, in 1789, 
 published a poem ( Or gant ) in which the author dis¬ 
 played a vein of hilarity, and essayed here and there 
 the picture of guileless love. Robespierre composed 
 verses which Dorat would not have disowned. 
 These literary distractions were not long to amuse 
 the rivals of the Septembrists. The Greeks were too 
 exclusively artists to have threats of death anywhere 
 than on their lips; generally outside of art they took 
 few things seriously. The men of the Revolution 
 were, above all, citizens inflamed with their convic¬ 
 tions, and were easily carried from a sublime enthu¬ 
 siasm to fury. 
 
 The revolutionary furnace was the crucible where 
 
 is one of them which was played under the arclion Stratocles, 430 b.c., 
 and that if it were translated to-day, Hébert could assert to the Corde¬ 
 liers that the piece could only be of yesterday, and of the invention of 
 Fabre d’Eglantine, against him and Ronsin, and that this is the 
 translator who caused the dearth of subsistence. * * * Charming 
 democracy, that of Athens! ” 
 
 The interlocutor of Camille Desmoulins makes this judicious re¬ 
 striction to the claim of the unlimited liberty of the press: “The 
 French people, as a mass, do not sufficiently read the journals, and 
 are not sufficiently instructed and informed by the primary schools, 
 to discern clearly at the first glance the difference between Brissot 
 and Robespierre. Consequently, I do not know whether human 
 nature is capable of that perfection that would warrant the unlimited 
 liberty of speaking and writing.” 
 
472 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 very different materials were moulded, and from tliat 
 material came the pure metal in which to-day, blended 
 with that of France, shines forth the statue of our 
 French Republic, crowned with its triple device as 
 with an aureola. Our fathers in ’89 had the fanati¬ 
 cism of liberty and of their country; the contempo¬ 
 raries of Demosthenes were unacquainted with this 
 sacred ardor. Sometimes they scarred themselves 
 in order to derive a little money from the enemy; 
 the majority escaped the more serious scars of the 
 Macedonian sword. They celebrated their independ¬ 
 ence without sacrificing themselves for it; they ap¬ 
 plauded the country of their ancestors, but lost their 
 own. Our fathers, regardless of life, met their pun¬ 
 ishment with the enthusiasm of martyrs. Nothing 
 great is accomplished without faith. The men of 
 the French Revolution had faith: their heroic abnega¬ 
 tion saved us. The Athenians wmre sceptics in taste 
 and in thought; they had not, like our ancestors, 
 souls of granite to check the sterile torrent of the 
 invasion which was to submerge them. 
 
 II. Revolutions which provoke the greatest shocks 
 among men are social revolutions. That which in 
 England in 1650, and in France in 1789, was excep¬ 
 tional and scandalous, was the rule and the normal 
 state in Athens. The social strata were there mixed 
 and were leveled since the time of Solon and Pericles. 
 The city was, therefore, saved from those dangerous 
 eddies of a state where the bottom aspires to take 
 its place on the surface. Social peace was not of 
 an irreproachable clearness, for absolute equality of 
 rights will never suppress the inequality of conditions 
 and fortunes. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 473 
 
 Well settled in lier basis and nearly satisfied with 
 her condition, Athens might have derived from the 
 hatred of the foreigner an ardor similar to that of her 
 social struggles. She might and should have em¬ 
 ployed against her invaders the energy she had mani¬ 
 fested in the Peloponnesian war. She was formerly 
 impetuous against rival cities, but she was mild in 
 the face of Philip; less devoted to liberty than to 
 repose, she only demanded the continuance of her 
 self-enjoyment without labor or sacrifice. The Greeks 
 hated the Greeks more than they detested the Mace¬ 
 donian. Municipal passions had been violent in Greece, 
 and would reappear upon every occasion; but there 
 was no longer a passion for the country of the Hel¬ 
 lenes. France, on the contrary, in ’92, felt both 
 social and patriotic passions. She had to defend her¬ 
 self against the allied royalists and against the sover¬ 
 eigns; it w r as a gigantic struggle. Athens did not 
 experience any of these powerful incentives; in vain 
 did Demosthenes attempt to arouse her with his patri¬ 
 otism. Whatever might befall her, she was assured 
 that she would not be deprived of the advantages of 
 her social organization; she therefore resigned her¬ 
 self to the loss of an independence whose preserva¬ 
 tion seemed to her too expensive. 
 
 Man’s moral nature has something of the invari¬ 
 ability of the laws of physical nature; but humanity 
 has the privilege of reconciling this constancy with 
 the law of progress: a progress which is necessarily 
 limited as to the perfection of the human soul, but 
 unlimited in the domain of the mind and of social 
 amelioration. The ancient republics were often op¬ 
 pressive aristocracies (thus Dome) or tyrannical gov¬ 
 ernments ruled by demagogues. The abuses of liberty 
 20 * 
 
474 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 inspired liigli-minded men with a false idea of the 
 true republican constitution. The Socratics whose 
 ideal was Sparta, demanded the rule of the best 
 (< apiGTov.pa-ia ). How, it is known liow this fortunate 
 predominance of aristocracy usually terminated.* 
 Aristotle excluded artisans from the state;f in his 
 eyes the only legitimate citizen was he who enjoyed 
 ease and leisure. The real democracy of Athens was 
 not much better than the one which the philosopher 
 fashioned after his own idea. Perfect equality was 
 unknown. In oligarchical states, the great eat the 
 small. In the country of Hyperbolos and Cleonymes, 
 the small aimed to live on the substance of the great. 
 They had the right to be poor and mediocre, but 
 not the right to be superior by wealth or merit. What 
 would the equality have become, if some citizens 
 were permitted to rise above the common level by 
 their virtue ? 
 
 This distrust in eminent merit seemed so naturally 
 inherent in Athenian democracy, that Aristotle praised 
 ostracism as a law of humanity. J In fact, this process 
 of elimination was better than the leveling by decapi¬ 
 tation which Tarquin enjoyed; but it was too much 
 that the proscription of excellent capacities should 
 seem necessary. A very eminent citizen, not having 
 
 * “ If you desire a good constitution, you will first see that the wise 
 enact the laws; then that the good repress the bad and deliberate 
 upon state affairs, without permitting the stupid to offer their advice, 
 to harangue or appear in the assembly. But the immediate result 
 of these excellent measures will be that the people will fall into 
 bondage (dou?,eia>)." Xenophon, Government of the Athenians. 
 
 f Politics , iii, 3. Antiquity experienced more revolting maxims 
 than the exclusion of artisans from the state: the exclusion of weak 
 children from life. 
 
 X Politics , iii, 8. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 475 
 
 any position clearly defined in tlie state by tlie Athe¬ 
 nian law, invaded and usurped them all. A very emi¬ 
 nent citizen, in a modern republic, concentrates his 
 powerful activity in his functions; he does not en¬ 
 croach on the authority of another. He has liis sphere 
 determined; that of a great man at Athens was not 
 determined. When the united merits of all the 
 citizens could not equal the merit of one, it was 
 necessary to repudiate this superior being, or to sub¬ 
 mit to him. Athens remained forty years submissive 
 to Pericles; but ostracism generally saved her from 
 the danger of extraordinary talents. The ship Argo , on 
 the principle of equality, refused to receive Hercules 
 because he was much heavier than his companions. 
 The modern ship of state is so strongly constructed 
 that it can sustain the most powerful characters. 
 To-day preeminent merit has its place in our democ¬ 
 racy. Far from excluding it from the state, it is 
 desired. Themistocles, Cimon and Aristides were 
 banished from the city of Minerva to preserve the 
 public safety. To-day they would be unanimously 
 sent to Parliament, if they were not already there. 
 
 Athenian democracy saw a menace and a social dan¬ 
 ger in the riches of individuals.* The political phi¬ 
 losophers labored to regulate and restrain it. Syco¬ 
 phants toiled, after their fashion, to solve the problem 
 
 * Formerly, says the author of the Antidosis, people acquired 
 wealth in order to be considered. “ Now they must refrain from 
 wealth as from a crime; if they do not justify themselves thereupon, 
 they are lost. * * * I could count more wealthy men deprived of 
 their fortunes than guilty men punished for their misdemeanors.” 
 He bitterly complains that he himself is taxed above his resources. 
 He would have himself considered less wealthy than was Gorgias, 
 whose fortune did not exceed $3,09G. However, he never had a wife 
 or children, and lived exempt from this tax (hiTuupyiaç), the longest 
 continued and most expensive of all. 
 
476 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 by making a breach in opulence for tlieir own profit. 
 Hot content with extorting money from the allied 
 cities desirous of purchasing the protection of orators 
 who were heeded by the multitude, their envy and 
 cupidity made them covetous of the goods of their 
 fellow-citizens. It is easily seen from the Greek ora¬ 
 tors how the flatterers of the rabble made war on the 
 owners of the silver mines of Attica, and farmed them 
 by extortion * One of the most delicate questions of 
 modern society is the relations of labor and capital. 
 This difficult problem was ignored by the ancient re¬ 
 publics, in which labor was almost the exclusive lot 
 of the slave. Athens, nevertheless, had her artisans. 
 Rome, the proud aristocrat, despised them; Plato, the 
 disdainful dreamer, regulated them in the last rank of 
 the social scale. He admitted them only as workmen 
 to serve him. Socrates, a true sage, reinstated them 
 by eulogizing manual laborers. Athens, not being 
 able to live like Pome on the spoils of the world, was 
 obliged to work, however little. The social question 
 at Athens, therefore, offered a particular difficulty. 
 We have seen how Demosthenes essayed to hold the 
 balance equal between the opposed pretensions of the 
 rich and the poor, and for want of a just conciliation, 
 pursued the good of the state, f 
 
 * These abuses and disorders led Xenophon to propose the work 
 ing of the mines by the state, with the consent and to the profit of the 
 people. * * * “Thus all the Athenians will be able to derive their 
 subsistence from the public revenues. * * * I declare that thereby 
 our commonwealth will become not only wealthy, but more mild, 
 more friendly to order, and better prepared for war.” “ It is just 
 that the poor and the people at Athens should have the advantage 
 over the nobles and the wealthy; for it is the people who, with their 
 oars, propel the vessels and who constitute the power of the com¬ 
 monwealth.” Although somewhat ironical, this reflection is just. 
 
 t See ch. iv. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 477 
 
 The public welfare also inspired Hyperides with 
 wise words. The informers, by imposing upon the 
 owners of mines, forced them to abandon their work¬ 
 ing, to the detriment of the public treasury. Was it 
 serving the state to molest individuals in this manner ? 
 u The best citizen is not the man who, in return for 
 a little money (proceeds of fines and of confiscations), 
 causes a detriment to the general interests of the city,* 
 nor the man wdio furnishes temporary resources and 
 deprives Athens of her legitimate revenues. It is the 
 man who has a regard for the future interest of his 
 country, for the concord of the citizens, and for your 
 glory. There are people whom all this does not 
 trouble. They deprive the industrious of the fruit 
 of their labor, and pretend to enrich the city while 
 they are preparing indigence for it; for if p> r operty 
 and the accumulation due to economy become a cause 
 of alarm , who will expose himself to danger?” The 
 Athenian people, jealous of the revenues of miners, 
 attempted to deprive them of their income for the 
 benefit of the treasury, from which they themselves 
 derived in part their subsistence and the gratuity of 
 their pleasures. This was a strife organized between 
 capital and idleness. The question of the respective 
 rights of capital and labor is not settled in our day, 
 but it will undoubtedly have its solution also, wdiich 
 will be another proof of the superiority of modern 
 democracy. 
 
 And, now, what advantages has modern democracy 
 over Athenian democracy ? Justice is not at the 
 mercy of skillful speech, as it was before the heliasts. 
 Politics is in the hands not of frivolous and suspected 
 
 * The treasury deducted one twenty-fourth of the revenues of the 
 mines. 
 
478 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 orators, but of experienced politicians. The man and 
 the citizen are distinct; private enmities do not trouble 
 the state within or compromise its security abroad. 
 The nation rises above the greatest individual intel¬ 
 lects. The government of Athens was a great con¬ 
 vention formed of all the citizens and without con¬ 
 trol,— a dangerous balance, whose jerks in times of 
 trying crises could overthrow the state. Modern re¬ 
 publics are balanced; a prudent equilibrium unites 
 stability and animation in them. Their course, regu¬ 
 lated by harmony, follows the course of time. The 
 Athenian people repudiated their demagogues, who 
 were often unworthy favorites and extemporary repre¬ 
 sentatives of the city, without proper authority or 
 regular mandates. To-day the governess of the city 
 is public opinion, and this queen governs, provided 
 with the most excellent political organ,— universal 
 suffrage,— an instrument decisive and pacifying. 
 
 III. The progress of moral sense is not less appar¬ 
 ent than political and social progress; a manifest proof 
 of this is found in the different judgments which the 
 Athenians and we pass on Demosthenes as a man and 
 an orator. In order to properly judge an ancient man, 
 we must first replace him in his own sphere; we must 
 go to him, instead of bringing him to us, and see him as 
 his contemporaries saw him. Therefore we have often 
 used the testimony of Aristotle, a powerful genius, in 
 whom converged, as in a concentric focus, all the ideas 
 of his century, illuminated by the light of the past.* 
 His work, a genuine encyclopaedia, is the Sum of Greek 
 
 * For his Politics alone, lie made a collection of the constitutions 
 of 158, or, according to some, of 250 democratic, oligarchical, aristo¬ 
 cratic and tyrannic states. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 479 
 
 philosophy. Now, ancient philosophy was universal 
 science. We cannot, then, cite a more reliable witness 
 of the feelings and ideas of the atmosphere in which 
 Demosthenes lived. But while criticism remains faith¬ 
 ful to the principle of consulting the past, it does not 
 abdicate its right of personal appreciation. Demosthe¬ 
 nes, then, remains amenable to the moral sense and 
 taste of modern critics. 
 
 The Athenians were little affected by certain weak¬ 
 nesses of Demosthenes,— they found the same in them¬ 
 selves. Benign moralists, far from exacting that he 
 should be better than his time, were disposed, by a feel¬ 
 ing of their own infirmities, to plead extenuating cir¬ 
 cumstances in his favor. The author of the Philippics 
 fled at Chæronea. Nature and destiny shared this fault 
 with him. We are born courageous or timid, as we are 
 born dark or fair. He could not resist the tempta¬ 
 tion to acquire money,— never did Philip’s gold soil 
 his hands. He loved pleasures,— well ! who does not? 
 The virtue of the citizen is of more importance than 
 that of the private man. As a political orator, he did 
 not recoil before a falsehood,— the object of eloquence 
 is victory. He forgot himself to such a degree that he 
 followed Æscliines’ example, and lavished insults upon 
 him. Invective was an integral part of democratic lib¬ 
 erty; it was not so essential to enlighten the judges as 
 to prejudice them. 
 
 On these general points the moderns judge Demos¬ 
 thenes with less indulgence than his fellow-citizens did. 
 They are severer in regard to moral weakness, and have 
 the greatest respect for propriety and truth. Modern 
 political eloquence attacks opinions, not persons. Mind¬ 
 ful of dignity, which is a part of parliamentary dignity, 
 it commands respect by respecting itself. A political 
 
480 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 orator who is to-day convicted of public falsehood, 
 loses his honor and credit. The Athenians were little 
 moved by the impostures of their orators, and saw in 
 these a means of delusion which custom justified. u The 
 aim of the architect is to give to his work that harmony 
 which satisfies the,- perceptions of the senses, and as 
 far as possible, to invent methods which will deceive 
 the sight by aiming at symmetry and everything that is 
 not real but apparent.” The theory of delusion was 
 not confined, in Greece, to architecture; to-day decep¬ 
 tions are banished from eloquence. 
 
 The Athenians did not admire Demosthenes more 
 than we do to-day; we perhaps appreciate him more 
 by admiring him in a different manner. Ancient criti¬ 
 cism was confined to a narrow channel, that of style,— 
 the choice of words, the arrangement of sentences, har¬ 
 mony: such were its preferable objects. It compared 
 as “engravers and sculptors”* the most dissimilar 
 authors, such as Isocrates, Plato and Demosthenes. 
 It gave special attention to the beauties of diction. 
 Lucullus excused himself to Atticus for the faults found 
 in his history written in Greece. He said that he had 
 sown barbarisms and solecisms in it to show clearly 
 that it was the work of a Roman. A Greek would 
 never have dreamed of carrying the love of local color- 
 
 * Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On the Excellence of Demosthenes' Elo¬ 
 cution, ch. 51. Cicero himself did not escape this fault. He sepa¬ 
 rated the history of eloquence from political history, and saw only 
 differences of style in orators who were separated by an interval of 
 one hundred and twenty years, Appius Cæcus and Servius Galba 
 (De Claris Oratoribus , 14 and 23). He commences the paragraph on 
 Cato the orator by saying: “I leave aside the citizen, the senator and 
 the general.” What remains? Style ( Ibidem , 17). Plutarch, who 
 gave less attention than Cicero to elocution, gave a juster account of 
 Cato’s eloquence. (Life of Cato, 10.) 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 481 
 
 ing so far. The worship of form was the brilliant idol¬ 
 atry of the Hellenes. 
 
 The reputation of Isocrates,* and the sovereign 
 authority which he enjoyed, astonish us to-day. Imag¬ 
 ine a modern publicist profiting by his great fame in 
 order to address one of the three emperors with a great 
 written political oration, containing parentheses of this 
 nature: “I pray your majesty will pardon me for 
 using metaphors and metonymies so imperfectly. My 
 years are the cause of it. I no longer have the vigor 
 or talent of youth.” This, however, was the condition 
 of Isocrates, the great master of the art of diction. lie 
 wrote a long programme, in the form of a letter, to the 
 Macedonian king, in which he pledged himself to give 
 a direct contradiction to the “impertinent dreamers” 
 who accused the king of meditating the enslavement of 
 Greece, and to turn his forces and those of the Hellenes 
 against the Persians : 
 
 “ We have not given to this oration the dress of harmo¬ 
 nious cadences, nor that of varied figures. I employed them 
 in my youth, and instructed others in the ornaments which 
 render eloquence agreeable and persuasive. To-day I cannot 
 use them. My age prevents me.”t 
 
 And who asked these ornaments of you, candid old 
 man ? 
 
 Modern readers do not clearly comprehend the thou¬ 
 sand niceties and delicacies of ancient diction. Those 
 minute precepts, that curious refinement of number, 
 of assonances, of alliterations, and so many other arts 
 which were taught and carefully practiced, and which 
 
 *“I have seen among my pupils orators, generals, princes and 
 kings.” (Isocrates, Antidosis.) They came from Sicily, and even 
 from the Pontus, to be instructed in his school. 
 
 t Oration to Philip. 
 
 21 
 
482 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 the ancients made state affairs, are now disdained even 
 in our academies.* The Greeks and Romans were 
 charmed with them, and applauded them in their 
 gravest political speakers. When C. Gracchus spoke 
 in public he had a musician concealed behind him, who 
 quickly gave him a note on an ivory flute, in order to 
 raise his voice if it fell too low, or to moderate it in 
 the course of stormy debates, f In place of this musi¬ 
 cian, the regulator of the orator’s intonations, modern 
 assemblies employ a president, who represses the flights 
 of speech, not those of the voice, and prevents the 
 storms which the tribune’s flute did not avert. 
 
 Modern eloquence has no ostentation. It has more 
 regard for things than for their envelope. Like Ghat- 
 ham, Fox and Pitt, the orators of the French revolu¬ 
 tion generally improvised and disdained all revisions 
 for the sake of impression. Even now, when the 
 political fever is slumbering, eloquence owes little to 
 art. The time is no more when the author of the 
 Panegyric on Athens spent ten years in writing a 
 
 * Aristotle, Rhetoric, iii, 9, fin. The Latins followed, and on some 
 points, perhaps, surpassed the Greeks. Quintilian, in a chapter On 
 Action, teaches his orator the language of the fingers, not forgetting 
 the thumb, which is also capable of certain effects: “To draw the 
 index near the thumb, and to press its extremity upon the right side 
 of the thumb-nail, relaxing the other fingers, is a gesture expressive 
 of approbation, etc. etc. * * * ” (The lesson On Philosophy given to 
 M. Jourdain is here surpassed.) Such a disposition of the fingers 
 expresses aversion ; such, modesty. The author takes the trouble to 
 inform us that Demosthenes undoubtedly pronounced the humble 
 exordium of the oration On the Crown “ with the first four fingers 
 slightly closed at the extremity, his hand not far from his mouth,” 
 etc. He also states in what measure it is proper to strike one’s sides 
 and to stamp one’s feet, “ movements which are suited to indigna¬ 
 tion and awaken the judges. ( Institution Oratoire, xi, 3.) 
 
 \ De Oratore, iii, 00. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 488 
 
 work of fifteen pages. To-day we would scarcely de¬ 
 vote ten hours to the preparation of an oration. Atti¬ 
 cism was simple and natural. It shunned large, sono¬ 
 rous words, and resplendent outbursts of eloquence. 
 Its familiarity was always allied, in the shades and in 
 the contexture of the whole, to an exquisite art. It 
 might sometimes be pronounced abandonné , and nég¬ 
 ligé. It was the négligé of a woman naturally beauti¬ 
 ful, but perfect in the art of pleasing. Modern sim¬ 
 plicity is naïve and unpremeditated. Thought and 
 sentiment alone attract. 
 
 P. L. Courrier said of American journalism that it 
 made use of the same style, whether the question was 
 a reform in the state, a coalition of European powers 
 against liberty, or “the best soil for sowing turnips.” 
 Our modern political orators do not speak entirely in 
 the same tone in a debate on the constitution, or on 
 the appointment of a door-keeper. Nevertheless, their 
 eloquence always has a frankness that is foreign to the 
 artistic cases of the ancients. The orator of to-day 
 does not lecture ; still less does he harangue. lie 
 exposes, he explains, he opens his thought, he opens 
 his heart. Ilis is an attentive, convincing conversa¬ 
 tion. He cannot and does not wish to use it otherwise. 
 Time flies, affairs are pressing upon him. His speeches 
 ought to be his acts. He addresses himself not to his 
 hearers, but to his citizens. Like them, he owes his 
 entire attention to the administration and to the gov¬ 
 ernment of his country. Is this not a commendable 
 progress ? 
 
 The artistic orator is sometimes tempted to make 
 lamentable sacrifices to his art, and he gives to his 
 audience æsthetic impressions, which indiscreetly draw 
 them from the public interest under discussion. An- 
 
484 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 cient eloquence avoided dry discussions, technical de¬ 
 tails and figures. It submitted to the same yoke as 
 did history according to the conception of Herodotus, 
 Livy and Tacitus. Modern history is no longer a 
 branch of eloquence grafted with poetry. It is the 
 mirror of the entire organization of the state, the ex¬ 
 act and expressive relief of the different elements of 
 the material, political, intellectual, and moral life of 
 a people. Speech has shared with history the benefit 
 of this transformation. Rhetoric is no more; elo¬ 
 quence is living, nourished more than ever in France 
 and America by the excellent practice of affairs in 
 liberty. Who has not during the past years been 
 moved by the reading of orations which political wis¬ 
 dom and patriotism inspired in the orators of our par¬ 
 liament ? Some of these harangues (a man familiar 
 with Greek eloquence will be pardoned for the rash¬ 
 ness of this judgment) approach, in certain respects, 
 the masterpieces of Demosthenes. Maturity and fer¬ 
 tility of thought, force of truth and captivating rap¬ 
 ture, are equal. Why are they not equally admired 
 and considered as fine as the ancient efforts ? Because 
 they are written in English or French, and are not 
 two thousand years old. 
 
 The purely Attic beauties of Demosthenes are al¬ 
 most lost to us.* They often possess imperceptible 
 shades; but there are imperishable beauties which wfill 
 continue to resist the modifications of taste and the 
 translators. His good sense, his logical force, his 
 generous passion, will render Demosthenes famous 
 
 * Isocrates (Antidosis) cites a fragment of an oration of his youth. 
 “This passage,” says he, “ is of an elocution more ornate than that 
 which you have just heard.” This difference certainly did not escape 
 the Greeks. Even forewarned, the modern reader can scarcely com¬ 
 prehend it. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 485 
 
 forever. Time has shaken off the delicate charms of 
 his diction like so many flowers; the oak remains firm, 
 supported by its powerful roots, adorned with its vig¬ 
 orous branches and the majesty of its crown. It is 
 like the Parthenon robbed of the fragile ornaments of 
 its polychromy, an inevitable obliteration, which does 
 not in the least deprive the marble of its perfect beauty. 
 
 The orator and the politician are inseparable in De¬ 
 mosthenes.* They are both conspicuous in his acts 
 and in his orations. In both two qualities are pre- 
 
 * Demosthenes at times hacl concentrated in his hands all the 
 public powers, except that of strategus. After Chæronea he could 
 exculpate himself from the disaster by throwing it upon the generals. 
 I was right in advising war. If you bave been conquered it is be¬ 
 cause others have not done their duty. In preceding ages this excuse 
 would have been impossible. When Themistocles, Cimon, Pericles, 
 Alcibiades, or Nicias, proposed a military expedition, it was always 
 understood that they did not refuse to take charge of it. They as¬ 
 sumed the double responsibility of the counsel and of the execution. 
 Thucydides (iv, 28) has shown how the currier Cleon, taken at his 
 word by the people, was decreed strategus and victorious strategus in 
 spite of himself. In Demosthenes’ time the Athenians did not exact 
 of their political orators that they should be both counsellors and 
 men of action; therefore they never imposed the military command 
 on Æschines, although in his youth he had borne arms successfully. 
 Demosthenes, not being a military man, had his general, Diopithes. 
 This distinction between the thought which inspires and the hand 
 which executes is, in certain respects, a good one. Sometimes the 
 people accuse of versatile inconsistency the men of opposition who 
 have become men of government,— a reproach ill founded. The one 
 sees above all things the absolute good, the other is placed in contact 
 with practical difficulties. The opposition unrestrained in its ideal 
 conceptions, and the government which has its hands bound by real 
 necessities, represent the perpetual dualism of ideas and facts of the 
 desirable and the possible. Each is legitimate; their antagonism 
 conspires to the welfare of the state by preventing the exclusive and 
 equally dangerous triumph of chimerical theory or of a narrow 
 positivism. The true politician finds that medium which, in cor¬ 
 recting the two systems, the one by the other, reconciles them. 
 
486 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GKEECE. 
 
 dominant: warmth of passion and wisdom. True to 
 the principle of the inviolability of national dignity, 
 manifesting an invariable perseverance in his desired 
 aim, he was judicious and versatile in the employment 
 of means. His heart was proud and impetuous, his 
 mind was serene and penetrating. Tie did not rush 
 into war like a mad blind man / he well knew when 
 to advise peace. He hated Philip instinctively and 
 heartily. While his soul was enraged against him his 
 mind meditated. He saw where the crafty policy of 
 the Macedonian would insensibly drag Greece. He 
 marvelously comprehended the carefully dissembled 
 obstinacy of the cunning and insinuating invader of 
 he Attic city. He had* a presentiment of the incura- 
 able wound which the surrender of Athens would in¬ 
 flict upon the Hellenic world, then the grandest ex¬ 
 pression of humanity. 
 
 Equally inclined to a belief in fortune and provi¬ 
 dence, his religious sincerity incapable of prejudices 
 and selfish considerations, united two pieties which in¬ 
 sincerity alone could separate,— the religion of the 
 gods and the religion of his country. Free to choose 
 between the advantages of submission and the bitter¬ 
 ness of the struggle, he struggled during thirty years 
 against enemies of his country devoid of mercy and 
 exhaustless, always conquered and yet worthy of con¬ 
 quering. His gravity contended against the levity of 
 the Athenians; his vigor against their feebleness; his 
 patriotic anxieties against their indifference. He con¬ 
 sumed his forces in enlightening them and inspiring 
 them with the spirit of their ancestors, which seemed 
 to be centered in his breast; the energies and sufferings 
 of his country sought refuge in his heart. On the point 
 of falling into the hands of the Macedonians, he did 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 487 
 
 not invoke the men who abandoned him, but the gods 
 whom he honored by loving his country. Iiis destiny 
 was stamped with an unfortunate fatality; his heroic 
 character was more than tragic. When he was van¬ 
 quished at Chæronea, the Athenians continued to see 
 in him their benefactor, and it was just. If they had 
 not faced this disaster “in emulation of a triumph,” 
 they would have fallen to the level of the Messenians 
 and the Thessalians, instead of holding in Greece and 
 in history that rank of supremacy in which their fore¬ 
 fathers had placed them, and in which the esteem of 
 posterity conferred upon them in their turn the reward 
 which they had reserved for patriotism. At the call 
 of Demosthenes they marched forth to contend for the 
 crown, and they gained it. 
 
 If the moral weaknesses and the political passions of 
 Athens are not entirely unknown to us, our state is 
 better constituted than she was; our men and citizens 
 are better. It was due to the soul and genius of the 
 orator of the Philippics , that Athens, in her struggle 
 with Macedonia, did not fail; but her own infirmity 
 forced her to succumb; her past mistakes* and her 
 present weakness weighed equally on her. In order to 
 conquer or to survive her defeat, she must have changed; 
 one man alone, however devoted and powerful, could 
 not bring about in her this metamorphosis. France, 
 in her struggle with a modern Macedonia, has survived 
 unparalleled reverses because the causes of the disas¬ 
 ters were not inherent in her. To recover, she had 
 only to shake off the yoke. Despotism cut down the 
 tree in order to gather the fruit; by virtue of its living 
 roots and a wise cultivation, in a few years the tree 
 sprouted again, and to-day it bears better fruit. De- 
 
 * The expedition to Sicily and Ægos Potamos nearly ruined Athens. 
 
488 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE 
 
 mosthenes at least saved the honor of his country. In 
 
 1 1 
 
 1870 France held her honor safe, and to-day we see it 
 increasing in respect. When Demosthenes attempted 
 to arouse the courage of his fellow-citizens by urging 
 the efficient energy of human counsels against fortune, 
 they reminded him of Philip’s invincible destiny. 
 Modern nations know how to have faith in Providence 
 and liberty. God and France protect France. 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 [The Words Between Brackets Refer to the Notes.] 
 
 page 
 
 Translator’s Preface.. 5 
 
 Author's Preface .......... 7 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The three ages of Attic eloquence. 
 
 Sovereign power of speech in Greece.— The usurpers 
 of the sword supplanted by orators.— Spontaneity of 
 eloquence favored, from the heroic ages, by the social 
 and central location of Greece.— Correlative develop¬ 
 ment of the democratic constitution and eloquence 
 at Athens.— Solon’s constitution, [the law against 
 bachelors].— The constitution of Clisthenes.— Influ¬ 
 ence of the Median wars.15-24 
 
 Candidates chosen by lot.— [Salamis and the democratic 
 expansion judged by Plato.] — The social strata.— 
 Ephialtes and Pericles.— Native institutions and dis¬ 
 positions. 24-28 
 
 The three ages of Attic eloquence.—Why cultivated elo¬ 
 quence was late in Greece.— Spontaneous generations 
 and artificial reproductions.—An intimate union of 
 Greek arts and practical life.— Utilitarian aesthetics 
 
 [Aristotle’s definition of beauty].28-32 
 
 First Period. — Eloquence spoken, not written; exclu¬ 
 sively practical, not erudite.— Pericles, his masters — 
 [some of his sayings].— Pericles at the tribune. . 32-30 
 
 489 
 
490 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Second Period.—W ritten eloquence (Antiphon) taught 
 as an art.— Logographers and rhetoricians.— Bor¬ 
 rowed speeches and panegyrics.— The sophists; their 
 influence both salutary and pernicious.— Restoration 
 of the scientific method.— Aristophanes, the conser¬ 
 vative poet.— Analysis of thought and language.— 
 Isocrates and the Trojan horse.— Qualities and de¬ 
 fects.— Subtilties and gracefulness.— Sicilian affec¬ 
 tation at Athens.— Idealists and empirics.— Fruits 
 of scepticism.— [The “ amiable queen ” of Lamettrie. 
 
 — D’H olbach, Helvetius.]— Protagoras.— Callicles.— 
 
 The sophisms of Athenian political morality expiated 
 
 at Chæronea. .36-46 
 
 Third Period.— The Attics.— The law against pathetic 
 pleading.— The artistic and militant eloquence of the 
 Macedonian epoch.—What are we to think of the 
 joint responsibility of eloquence and morals ?—Taste 
 and moral sense.— Greece in the time of Miitiades; 
 of Alcibiades; of Philip.— Taste in France in the 
 seventeenth century.— The zenith.— Æschines and 
 Demosthenes.— Genius and patriotism. . . . 46-51 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PHILIP.-THE ATHENIANS. 
 
 Demosthenes has two adversaries to contend against. 
 
 1. Philip.— The captain .— The phalanx.— New tactics.— 
 Activity. — Bravery. — Love of glory. — Insatiable 
 
 ambition.— His first respose.52-55 
 
 The Politician .— Internal difficulties.— How he dupes 
 the Greek cities.— Philip and Ulysses.— An excellent 
 diplomatist.— An obstinate contest against Athens al¬ 
 ways disavowed.— The friend of peace.— Variable 
 manœuvres. — Craft.— He throws off his mask.— He 
 attacks the Athenian maritime forces and insular 
 allies.— The guardian of the coasts.— The avenger 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 491 
 
 of the outraged gods.— How lie rewards himself for 
 his pietjr.— Checks.— Tenacity and versatility.— The 
 great means: — the mule laden with gold.— He se¬ 
 duces traitors and then discards them.— He hates 
 and esteems Athens.— His vices, like his virtues, 
 
 serve to aggrandize him.55-63 
 
 II. The Athenians. — The Greeks divided.— Distrusts 
 and spites.— The Roman’s fatherland.—Weakness of 
 national sentiment in Greece.— Selfish isolation.— 
 Greece in the face of the barbarians and the Mace¬ 
 donian. 63-65 
 
 The Athenians careless and tickle.— A taking exor¬ 
 dium.— A scandalous and mad laughter before the 
 Areopagus.— Newsmongers.— The credulous.—Vol¬ 
 untarily deluded.— How they console themselves for 
 the progress of the invader.— Demosthenes’ cries of 
 alarm.— The water-drinking counsellor.— The agree¬ 
 able counsellor.— War of decrees.— Make haste to¬ 
 day!— Words and actions.— Their love of glory re¬ 
 mains sterile.— Citizens devoted by proxy. . . 65-70 
 
 The Athenians of Pericles; of Demosthenes.— Enjoy¬ 
 ments of life at Athens.— [A lesson on morality by 
 the comic poet Alexis.] —War against the generals.— 
 Election of magistrates.— Socrates, # Montesquieu.— 
 
 A cavalry officer.— Metamorphoses of Midias.— The 
 Athenians play into Philip’s hands.— The pugilism 
 of the barbarians.— Nothing to the purpose.— The 
 Panathenæa and preparations for war.— Each de¬ 
 pends upon his neighbor.— Nothing regulated, noth¬ 
 ing consecutive.— Advantages of Philip’s autocracy.— 
 
 Unity of plans and actions.70-76 
 
 Athenian patriotism.— Alcibiades. — An epidemic.— A 
 Spartan mother.— Artlunius of Zelia.— Venality.— 
 Athenian feelings toward traitors.— How Philip en¬ 
 ticed Greek cupidity.— The banquet of Caranus.— 
 
 To each one his wages.— Shameful treason, de- 
 
492 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 spised by Philip, stigmatized by Demosthenes.— The 
 mercenary orators deciy Athens when with the prince, 
 and praise the prince when in Athens.— Official phan¬ 
 tasmagorias.— Athens cries out treason and is the 
 first to betray herself.—Where true power rests.— 
 Demosthenes’ mission.76-82 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 DEMOSTHENES-THE MAN-THE CITIZEN. 
 
 I. The man .—Foresight justified.—Demosthenes’ grand¬ 
 mother.— Studious vigils and legendary exercises.— 
 
 The gilded youth of Athens.—The life of a prosper¬ 
 ous and happy family.— Edifying concession.— De¬ 
 mosthenes reproached with effeminate manners.—The 
 régime of water.— A cautious voluptuary, Demos¬ 
 thenes qualified and restrained himself.— Æschines 
 and Philinte.— Animadversions which are praises. 83-89 
 Did Demosthenes love money?—Weakness and relative 
 integrity — Eloquence often venal at Athens.— An 
 improbable scruple of Philip.— Power of incorrupt¬ 
 ible men.— How Demosthenes conquered Philip. 89-93 
 Demosthenes reproached with timidity.— Haughty lan¬ 
 guage of Hegesippus.—True courage according to 
 Thucydides.— The financier Blepæus. — Demosthenes 
 naturally nervous and sensitive.— The Cithæron. — 
 Firmness and infirmities.— Alcibiades at the tribune; 
 an opportune diversion.— Demosthenes apologizes for 
 
 his timidity.— Civil courage.93-97 
 
 The soldier of Chæronea. —Extenuating circumstances.— 
 Proofs of pardon.— Revenge through eloquence.— , 
 An illiterate accused.— Antiquity indulgent to the 
 infirmities of Nature.— Incorrigibles. — A son who 
 strikes his father by virtue of heredity.— Cowardice 
 often involuntary and excusable (Aristotle).— Un¬ 
 healthy passions and intemperances.— [A case of con- 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 493 
 
 science submitted to the oracle].-— Physical constitu¬ 
 tion and will.— Liberty imperfectly understood by 
 the ancients.— Man and the animal.— Socrates and 
 Zopyrus.— Demosthenes might have been able and 
 ought to have conquered his original nature. . 97-107 
 
 Demosthenes in exile.— Plutarch’s reproach.— Filial 
 submission to his country.— The fugitive in the 
 temple of Neptune.— Religious end.— Bitter senti¬ 
 ments.— A good citizen depicted by himself. . 107-110 
 
 II. The Citizen. — Devotion to the state.— Hired ora¬ 
 tors.— Alliances and coalitions.— Each at home; iso¬ 
 lated and successive endeavors.— The great cities 
 profit by the weakness of rival towns.— The alliance 
 with Thebes.— The patriotic activity of Demosthenes 
 embraced the whole state.— He confronts Philip.— 
 
 He is the soul of the Republic.— [Reasons for the 
 division of public authority at Athens].— He arouses 
 Greece against Alexander.— Demosthenes at Olym¬ 
 pia.— [Shallow illusions of Isocrates].— Plutarch’s 
 parallel between Demosthenes and Cicero.— An out¬ 
 law.—Often accused; acquitted with éclat. —[Contra¬ 
 dictions between the laws and decrees of Athens]. 110-117 
 
 CHAPTER IY. 
 
 DEMOSTHENES-THE STATESMAN. 
 
 I. Political sagacity .— Leptines’ law.— Short-sighted 
 economists.— Powerful armies on paper.— Good sense 
 the master of human life.— Strong intellect capable 
 of controlling passion.—Why Athens should have 
 aided Byzantium, Megalopolis, Rhodes.— The interest 
 of the state, the decisive rule of Demosthenes.— He 
 commands an alliance with the Great King.—Affairs 
 of the Chersonesus; to condemn Diopithes would be 
 impolitic and inequitable.118-125 
 
494 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 II. Opportunism. — Theophrastus.— Apologetic letter to 
 
 Lentulus. — The pilot of the state.— Aiming at unity 
 of object, not language.— Origin of theatrical 
 grants.—After attacking the tlieoricon, Demosthenes 
 justifies it; for what reason? — Mutual murmurs-of* 
 the rich and the poor.— Poverty, an enviable sinecure 
 at Athens.— Necessity of consolidating the social 
 structure. .125-129 
 
 Versatility among the Greeks.— Opportunism notable 
 in Demosthenes, an obstinate nature.— The orator 
 of the Philippics pleads in favor of peace.— Amphic¬ 
 tyonie intrigues.—Avoiding a sacred league against 
 Athens.— [Opportunism in religious law].—Apology 
 of deserters.— [Confidence in Atticus].— Demosthenes 
 many colored.— Opportune policy of the Roman Sen¬ 
 ate; Porsenna of the patrician order, revenges its 
 fear.— Commentary on Titus Livius by Camille Des¬ 
 moulins; an outburst of liberalism. . . . 129-134 
 
 III. Obstacles at Home. —Demosthenes and modern states¬ 
 
 men.— Traitors, indifferent and honorable classes.— 
 Phocion, the chopper of Demosthenes’ allocutions.— 
 Vices of the financial and military organization of 
 Athens.— Apportionment of taxes.— The law of ex¬ 
 change ( Antidosis ).— Abuse and reform of the trier- 
 archy.— Attempts at seduction and threats.— Demos¬ 
 thenes wished to convert the munificence of the state 
 into compensatory salaries for public services. — 
 Regular pay and permanent armies.—The mercena¬ 
 ries.— Vices of Grecian brmanda^e. • . . 134-141 
 
 The social question at Athens.— Essence of democratic 
 government (Aristotle).'—Course to be followed in re¬ 
 gard to the poor; their ambition compared to that of 
 the rich.— Organization of property rights; Plato’s 
 radical solution.— Phaleas of Chalcedon.— Equality 
 of property.— Controlling covetousness of more 
 importance than equalizing wealth.— How democ- 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 495 
 
 racies perish.— Obligations of the state toward the 
 greatest number, according to Demosthenes.— Recip¬ 
 rocal duties of the rich and poor. [Bossuet’s sermon; 
 charity ought to justify Providence.] — Political con¬ 
 ception of Demosthenes..141-145 
 
 IV. Demosthenes as Minister of Foreign Affairs. — Clear¬ 
 sighted statesmanship.— Distrust is the rampart of 
 free cities. — [An oath without artifice.] — Why 
 Philip dreaded the Athenian democracy. — What is 
 the absolute incitement of Athens.— Demosthenes 
 judged by Philip (Lucian).— Philip triumphs over 
 Demosthenes and insults him on the battle-field of 
 
 Chæronea. .145-149 
 
 Doubts raised on Demosthenes’ political sagacity; was 
 he ignorant of the secret of Macedonian power?— 
 Every structure that reposes on iniquity is ruinous.— 
 
 The moralist and the statesman.— A political maxim 
 of Demosthenes turned against himself.— Answer to 
 these critics; the weakness pointed out by Demosthe¬ 
 nes was real, and victory possible.— Consecutive study 
 of Hellenic and foreign affairs.— On certain points 
 the orator has feigned blindness.—Why he traduces 
 or calumniates Philip.— Eloquence at the Pnyx and 
 in the Council.— An oratorical caricature.— The ora¬ 
 tor himself revealed his tactics.149-155 
 
 Was Demosthenes right in counselling resistance to the 
 invader? Polybius blamed him for it.— Mably sus¬ 
 tains Polybius and pronounces Demosthenes a con¬ 
 temptible politician.— Mably refuted by himself.— 
 
 An eternal contradiction.— A page from M. Cousin. 
 
 —Is Demosthenes culpable for not anticipating the 
 evolutions of humanity? — Present duty and the 
 Philosophy of the future.— Political ethics of Aris¬ 
 tophanes’ Diceopolis. — Wars of conquest and wars for 
 independence.—. A line from Corneille. . . 155-164 
 
 M. de Lamartine, the Marseillaise of the Peace (1841).— 
 
496 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Fatherland and universal fraternity.— Fénelon prefers 
 Atticus to Cato and to Demosthenes.— The duties of 
 the prince and of private persons.— In a democracy 
 the duties of the sovereign are imposed upon the na¬ 
 tion.— Eulogy on Leosthenes (Hyperides).— Athens 
 rewarded Demosthenes.— The two crowns. . 164-166 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 of Demosthenes’ eloquence. 
 
 I. Demosthenes’ eloquence more modern than Cicero’s. 
 
 — Luminous precision.— Brevity which goes straight 
 to the point.— A reprimand must avoid tedium.— 
 Simplicity of exordiums and perorations.— [Conclud¬ 
 ing words of two Pindaric odes.] — Improvisation; 
 why Demosthenes did not succeed in it.— An imagi¬ 
 nation more vigorous than prompt.— His attitude 
 at the forum.— Power of improvisation.— To ignore 
 it is a grave fault; especially in an Athenian orator. 
 
 — Demades and Æschines as improvisers.— Writings 
 remain.167-176 
 
 Repetitions in Attic eloquence; various reasons which 
 justify them; why they are practiced by the orator 
 and well received by the audience.— The Athenians 
 prefer beauty to novelty.— Dangers of originality at 
 Athens.— Every superiority is suspected of tyranny. 
 
 — Isocrates’ opinion on the relative merit of the 
 thinker and the writer.176-183 
 
 II. Revisions.— Fénelon, Bossuet, Bourdaloue, Massil¬ 
 lon.— Demosthenes is justified for haying written the 
 Oratio in Midiam. — The sonnet of Orontes and the 
 panegyric on Athens.— Criticisms addressed to labored 
 compositions.—A good guaranty for literary propriety. 
 
 — Compositions intended to be read; orations for ac¬ 
 tion.— Proofs of revising among the Attics.— Antici¬ 
 pated refutations. .183-185 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 497 
 
 How are we to reconcile the artistic preconceptions of 
 Demosthenes with Fénelon’s eulogy? — Demosthenes, 
 a consummate artist, remains simple and natural.— 
 
 He had to please the Athenians in order to save them. 
 
 — Specimens of convincing argument in orations not 
 exclusively political.— Episodes of Greek tragedy.— 
 Digressions in civil pleas and mixed orations.— Dif¬ 
 ferent conditions of the tribune and bar,— What dis¬ 
 courses realize the triumph of eloquence? . 185-190 
 
 Omission of evidence in the case.— Evidence taken to 
 give rest to the tribunal and orator.— Civil pleaders 
 furnished with briefs.— Demosthenes suppresses tech¬ 
 nical documents in which he has not done oratorical 
 work.— Literary disinterestedness of Crassus.— De¬ 
 mosthenes neglects reality for lasting beauties. 190-192 
 III. General developments.— Advantages and inconve¬ 
 niences of this method.— Difficulty of classing the 
 Olynthiacs. — Taste of Attic eloquence for political or 
 moral theses.— Influence of the philosophic turn of 
 mind.— The first oration Against Aristogiton ; simi¬ 
 lar premises boldly avowed.— Even in general themes 
 Demosthenes remains a precise orator and rigorous 
 logician.— Eloquence varied in its appliances, but 
 uniform through its common fund of ideas and senti¬ 
 ments.— [Examples of general theses].— Technical 
 discussions united to general considerations.— Plead¬ 
 ing On the Embassy. — A speech on public affairs [Oft 
 the Navy Boards]. — Elevation of Demosthenes’ elo¬ 
 quence . . .192-198 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS 
 of Demosthenes’ eloquence.—(continued.) 
 
 I. Mould of Demosthenes' argumentation .— Marshal de 
 Gramont. — Not words, but deeds. — History’s les- 
 
498 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 sons.— Discerning genius.— Dialectic vigor.—What 
 the political orator owes to the logographer.— An 
 embarrassing dilemma.— Happy retorts. — Refuta¬ 
 tions in form.— Logic and wit. 199-206 
 
 Identity of resources.— The orations of Æschines and 
 Demosthenes compared. — Sacred formularies and 
 proceedings.— Challenges.— Torture.— To death ! — 
 
 The accused refused the liberty of speech. . 206-210 
 
 Dramatic cast of address.— Simple question to Aristode- 
 mus.— Scenes at the Agora; incidents at the trib¬ 
 une.—Stormy sessions.—The Attic hive.— An exam¬ 
 ple to follow..210-214 
 
 II. Pathos. — Demosthenes and Thucydides.— Deep medi¬ 
 tation and passion.— The law of Athenian courts 
 prohibited pathetic appeals.— The Greeks distrust 
 their own sensibility.— Homer’s heroes.— The Cap¬ 
 ture of Miletus by Phrynichus.—Custom stronger than 
 law.— Petitions and tears of the accused.— The chil¬ 
 dren of Midias.— Attic tradition in Hyperides.— 
 Pathetic eloquence, being illegal, is dissimulated.— 
 
 In what respect the pathos of Æschines differed from 
 that of Demosthenes.— Racine and Corneille.— The 
 transports of Isocrates.— Personifications in Æschines 
 and Demosthenes.— A picture of Phocis in ruins.— 
 Usual sources of the pathetic in Demosthenes.— 
 
 Rough eloquence.214-219 
 
 Demosthenes exhibits wit.— The shadow of an ass.— In¬ 
 genious delicacy of style.— [Delicacy of the Attic 
 language].— A lesson in wit given to Æschines. — 
 Demosthenes not successful in pleasantries.— Sallies 
 of Alcestes.— Sharp sayings less agreeable than biting 
 ones.— Euphemisms at Athens. — How Demosthenes 
 praises Philip.— Indignant and virulent irony.— A 
 clerk putting on airs. — Irony among the trage¬ 
 dians. — Irony on the lips of Demosthenes while 
 dying.219-226 
 
499 
 
 ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 / 
 
 III. Beauties of style. —Vigorous conciseness.— Speaking 
 pictures.— Energy was familiar to the Attics of the 
 Macedonian epoch.— Poetic expressions; Cicero; Aris¬ 
 totle; scruples of Voltaire.—Picturesque relief.— 
 
 The Greek language an artistic pencil,— Emblazoned 
 figures of speech; censured by Æschines; excused by 
 Cicero.— Conclusions of Pliny the Younger and of 
 Lupercus on the sublimity of style in Pliny the 
 Younger.— Antithesis.— Contrasts and parallels. — 
 
 A citation. 226-281 
 
 IV. Plans. —Method among the ancients and moderns.— 
 Why Demosthenes’ plans are sometimes difficult to 
 comprehend.— A wise disposition calculated for the 
 effect to be produced.— The curve in Greek archi¬ 
 tecture.— The great compositions of the deliberative 
 nature compared as to plans and achievements with 
 the productions of the bar.— Clearness of Æschines’ 
 composition.— Unrestrained moments of Demosthe¬ 
 nes.—[Pretended improvisations].—Wherein consists, 
 in Demosthenes, the true unity of his productions.— 
 
 The dispersed order of military tactics.— Diversions 
 and detached pieces.• . . 231-238 
 
 Action. — The comedian Satyrus.— Æschines criticises 
 the vehement action of Demosthenes. The two kinds 
 of eloquence described by Buffon.— Apostrophe to 
 the heroes of Marathon.—Why this fragment has not 
 been detached from its frame.— Olympian Demos¬ 
 thenes not after the fashion of Pericles.— Impressions 
 of Dionysius of Halicarnassus from reading a page of 
 Isocrates or Demosthenes. 238-246 
 
 V. Precautions and oratorical customs. — Truth, “with 
 a loose vein.”—Eulogy on absent virtues.— Athens 
 unconscious of envy: the modesty of the ancients; 
 of the moderns.— Æneas, Cicero, Isocrates.— The ora¬ 
 tion On the Crown an adroit apology.— Demosthenes 
 absolved of his renown.— [A feature of manners]. 246-250 
 
500 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Courageous frankness.— Euphræus. — Sycophant dema¬ 
 gogues.— Severe reprimands.— Deceptive obesity.— 
 
 The Athenian people live at the mercy of unworthy 
 masters, their own work.—A scene from the Knights .— 
 
 The spongers of good people.—Aristophanes in hatred 
 of the demagogues, becomes a corrupting dema¬ 
 gogue.— A compliant sovereign.— Impertinences of 
 Cleon, of Stratocles.— The lion’s court. . . 250-255 
 
 VI. National character and the government of Athens 
 well understood by Demosthenes.— Emulation of 
 ancestry.— Hereditary generosity of Athens in the 
 midst of universal egotism.— Singular judgment of 
 Theophrastus.— Reply to the panegyrists on the 
 Lacedaemonian constitution.— Originality of the Athe¬ 
 nian constitution.—* Abuse does not forbid use.— On 
 the competency of majorities: Plato, Aristotle, guest 
 and cook.— The greatest crime in the eyes of the 
 Greeks.— A flattered picture of the Athenians.— 
 Tyrannical hegemony.— Supremacy and recurring 
 violences in the large cities.—The passion of equality 
 prepared the way for the destruction of liberty.—The 
 noble son and the usurping slave.—Why a void oc¬ 
 curs around Athens. . 255-263 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ORATORICAL CONTESTS IN POLITICAL DEBATES AT ATHENS. 
 
 I. Historical criticism.— Grandeur of the political de¬ 
 bates between Demosthenes and Æschines. — Artistic 
 side.— Success of a dichoreus in the forum.— Pélisson 
 and Socrates.— Pleaders not favored by Nature.— . 
 Exhibitions of eloquence; feasts of intellect.— Griev¬ 
 ous distractions of Athenian tribunals. . . 264-269 
 
 He who cannot please cannot be right.— An obligation 
 imposed upon Demosthenes of being artistic in his fine 
 language.— Antagonistic virtue at the games, at the 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 501 
 
 theater and at the tribune.— Orators and athletes.— 
 
 A fundamental idea.— Passion for glory; Timanthes, 
 Niceratus.— Crowns awarded at the theater. . 269-272 
 
 II. Oratorical contests.— For what purpose the adver¬ 
 
 saries spend their time in order to engage in con¬ 
 tests.— Excuses and pretexts.— Demosthenes writes 
 the Oration in Midiam, and at the same time comes 
 to an agreement with the enemy.—Assaults by strata¬ 
 gem.— Exchange of epithets.— Panurge.— [The wish 
 of Strepsiades].— Every weapon is good that inflicts 
 wounds. 272-276 
 
 Speaking well, often and long.— [The motion for an 
 Hour-glass, August 3, 1789]. Jealous malignity.— 
 Æschines’ voice.— Mirabeau. — Orators and coin- 
 medians.— Demosthenes pleads against Æschines 1 
 voice.— A tournament of eloquence before Philip. 276-282 
 
 III. Æschines master of rhetoric at the tribune.— Inci¬ 
 dents of literary, artistic and theatrical history.— 
 Poets and legends.— The archives of the Greeks.— 
 
 The address to the court; a work of art.— Coarse in¬ 
 vectives and philosophic ethics.— Cicero a student of 
 the Greeks. 282-286 
 
 Artistic care excluded cruelty.— Athens a humane 
 city.—Result of the orations On the Embassy and On 
 the Crown. — Æschines in exile.— Laharpe’s astonish¬ 
 ment.— An artistic queen.— Advantages of historical 
 criticism. 286-289 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 INVECTIVE IN GREEK ELOQUENCE. 
 
 I. Freedom of abuse among the ancients.— The comic 
 pamphlets of Aristophanes.— A cock fight.— Intoxi¬ 
 cation of anger and hatred. 290-291 
 
 Causes of invective in Greek eloquence.—(First).— The 
 want of moral delicacy among the ancients.— Pardon 
 
502 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 for vituperation.— Rejoicing over vengeance.— The 
 most honorable epitaph.— The baton corrective of 
 satire.— The Metelli.— The Chevalier de Rohan.— 
 Ulysses’ scepter.— Among kings.— [An article from 
 the law of the XII Tables].— (Second) — Defama¬ 
 tion a form and privilege of democratic govern¬ 
 ment at Athens.— The feudal Greece of the Iliad.— 
 Thersites.— (Third) — The Greeks falsifiers and fond 
 of scandal.— A scene from the Ajax of Sophocles.— 
 (Fourth) — Invective a useful diversion.— Mixed Au¬ 
 dience. 291-297 
 
 (Fifth) — The public ministry extended to the entire 
 public.— Tribunal ignorant and prejudiced.— Spites 
 and revenges of trifling people.— Collectors in the 
 wasp’s nest.—(Sixth) — The plaintiff pleading his own 
 cause does not smother his resentments.— The Athe¬ 
 nian logographer and the modern advocate.— De¬ 
 faming by invective and defaming by law.— Anony¬ 
 mous calumnies.— (Seventh) — Swaying the judge 
 instead of enlightening him.— Swift and Wood.— 
 
 The laic of unworthiness .— To vilify an adversary is 
 to convict him.— Government of family and of state.— 
 Socratic prejudice, reviewed by Æschines. . 297-303 
 
 II. Invective in civil suits.— The sages themselves make 
 use of it at the tribune.—What rendered these vio¬ 
 lences endurable.— Picture of Aristogiton.— [Origi¬ 
 nal method of disposing of his parents].—Viper, scor¬ 
 pion and tarantula.— Public accusation against Tim- 
 archus.— Demosthenes and the seditious tribunes of 
 Titus Livius.— [Nicias and the informers].— Why 
 the Oratio in Midiam should never have been writ¬ 
 ten. — Invective in the oration against Ctesiphon. 
 Edifying catalogue.—You are angry, therefore you 
 
 are wrong.— Gall and venom of Æschines. . 303-315 
 
 III. Demosthenes no friend of invective.—Feminine re¬ 
 sentments.— A stinging cuff.— Demosthenes, when 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 503 
 
 provoked, lias a right to defend himself;— Mocked 
 from the cradle.— Demosthenes’ ancestors.— Æschi- 
 nes’ family under the lash of Demosthenes.— Æschi- 
 nes’ fortune compared with that of Demosthenes. 315-321 
 Demosthenes’ personal resentments.— Private and patri¬ 
 otic enmity.— The quarry.— Signal ingratitude.— 
 
 Is Æschines the guest or the paid servant of Alex¬ 
 ander?— Æschines’ true colleagues.— Seized by the 
 throat by the consciousness of his misdeeds. . 321-325 
 
 IV. The Athenian pamphleteer compelled to strike 
 hard.— The Just of Aristophanes a convert to univer¬ 
 sal depravity. — Ancient patience; Phocion; Peri¬ 
 cles.— An emperor a man of talent.— An opinion of 
 the Duke de Montausier. — Disparagement of the 
 wretched condition of certain persons.— The senate of 
 
 Capua. . . .. 325-329 
 
 Be human! be pitiless! — Why the audience did not un¬ 
 derstand the Athenian pamphleteer literally.— [An¬ 
 tony a prudent lawer].— Black or white.— Hatred 
 avowed against Æschines. — Æschines dares not de- 
 clare his own.— A page of Æschines as eloquent as 
 
 deceit can be.— Demosthenes’ reply.— [Invective in 
 Roman literature]. 329-337 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 GREEK ELOQUENCE IN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 I. Persistence of the genius of races.— Homer’s Greeks.— 
 Falsehoods upon falsehoods.— Double'physiognomy 
 of the Odyssey.— Useful fictions, agreeable fictions.— 
 Plato and hypocrisy — Themistocles.— [Attic wisdom 
 and Lacedaemonian apothegms.] — Illusive proce¬ 
 dures, diversions, short histories, oracles.— The art 
 of enlarging and diminishing objects.— Simonides’ 
 mules.— Alcibiades and Midias.— How art discred¬ 
 ited itself. . 338-343 
 
504 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 II. Argument of mutilated persons.— Ulysses and Pisis- 
 tratus.— Isocrates in open act.— The natural weapon 
 of the accused.— A distinction by Francis de Sales.— 
 
 The theory of lying.— Danger of scientific analyses; 
 too disinterested.— Aristotle gives an inventory with¬ 
 out values.— Malice of the Athenian bar.— Jugglers 
 of the tribune.— Logographers sought and dishon¬ 
 ored.— Mercenaries of the pen and pirates.— Plato’s 
 law.— Falsehoods of Theopompus.— [The capitularies 
 of Charlemagne and the Memorial of Saint-Helena.] — 
 Solemn oaths and perjuries.— An instructive distinc¬ 
 tion.— Two associates.— Judicial and political elo¬ 
 quence closely united at Athens: (cf. the preface). 343-352 
 
 III. At the school of sophists.— Probabilities and para¬ 
 doxes.— Feats of force.— The archives of Athens and 
 falsifiers.—• Contradictions and retorts.—Where is the 
 deceiver ? — [Malpractices charged against Demos¬ 
 thenes; affairs of state and money matters.]—Im¬ 
 postures circumstantiated by means of lies.— [A 
 fault of accent; a little comedy of Menander.] —Pub¬ 
 lic notoriety.— The art of mock praise at Rome.— 
 Quintilian’s code of false narrations and theory of 
 colors.— [Imaginative tales in Cicero’s orations]. 352-358 
 
 Romantic episode of the female captive of Olynthus.— 
 Æscliines adorns this recital.— The art of rendering 
 an adversary odious.— Parade of false testimony.— 
 Whoever wishes to prove too much proves nothing.— 
 Eubulus and Ulpian.— Moral sense of the Greeks 
 comes from their aesthetic sense.— Calumnies brought 
 down to facts.— Effrontery and candor. . . 358-365 
 
 IV. Honorable amend in Plutus.— Rhetoric in the face 
 of the philosopher of the Gorgias and the poet of the 
 Clouds. — [An illiterate pedagogue.] — Orators judged 
 by themselves.— A compromising ally.— Political 
 friendships.— Demosthenes as a man and a po¬ 
 lemic.— Genius compels.— Cato’s motto and his con- 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 505 
 
 tradictors. (Quintilian).— Civic virtue distinguished 
 from private virtue.— Leptines’ adversary.— Peri¬ 
 cles, Plutarch, Aristotle.— Demosthenes and Pho- 
 cion.— An adopted ancestor of Brutus. . . 365-371 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 I. DEMOSTHENES AS A MORALIST.-II. RELATIONS OF JUSTICE AND 
 
 POLITICS.-III. RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 
 
 I.-DEMOSTHENES AS A MORALIST. 
 
 Was Demosthenes a disciple of Plato? — Inspirations 
 from- Plato.— New Academ} r and Lyceum.— [At what 
 school was the perfect orator formed?] — Moral grav¬ 
 ity of Demosthenes’ eloquence.— Fruit of meditation 
 upon human vicissitudes.— The benefit of adversity: 
 Elevation of thought.— The necessity of freemen; the 
 necessity of the slave.— Demosthenes achieved the 
 task of which Aristotle, the moralist, seems to have 
 despaired.— Plato’s prophecy half disproved. 372-378 
 
 II.-RELATIONS BETWEEN JUSTICE AND POLITICS. 
 
 Justice, an angular stone.—Reconciling the useful and the 
 honorable.—The refuse basket. (Socrates).— Hobbes. 
 
 — Justice resides in the defense of the oppressed.— 
 Public opinion. — Civil justice; Hellenic justice.— 
 Might makes right.— Foreign policy of Athens in 
 Thucydides and Demosthenes.— A congress. . 378-383 
 
 Is there a legitimate distinction between social and in¬ 
 ternational justice? [Two chapters from Balzac’s 
 Prince .] — Justice of universal peace. — There are 
 judges at Berlin.— In what Demosthenes failed.— So¬ 
 cial contract of the human family. 383-386 
 
 The sentiment of right weak in Greece.— The violences 
 of Athens judged by Isocrates. — Eternal contradic¬ 
 tion: Helvetius, Kant, Leibnitz, approve God but do 
 
506 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 not imitate him.— [A philosopher - king in his 
 writings.] — Plato’s Republic. — His method com¬ 
 pared with that of the Stagirite.— How Aristotle’s 
 mind looks upon the gravest questions.— Slavery be¬ 
 fore ancient philosophy.— Speculative theorists and 
 statesmen.- . 386-392 
 
 Difference between ancient and modern views regarding 
 moral obligations.—Why Cicero's De Officiis is a 
 treatise on social morality.— Religious and civil du¬ 
 ties confounded in the ancient city.— Saint Louis and 
 the treaty of Abbeville.— Excellence and character 
 of political justice.— An entirely political conception 
 of justice in Plato.— Traces of the predominance of 
 social predispositions in ancient legislation.— Our mil¬ 
 itary justice.— Law of Pittacus concerning crimes 
 committed during intoxication. .... 392-396 
 
 Essential unity and absolute character of morality.— 
 Comparative rank of duties.—The statesman’s duty. 
 
 — Dangers of monarchical powers.— The light of 
 liberty purifies. — Why Demosthenes for a moment 
 lost sight of moral law.— [Pernicious influence of 
 war.] — Sovereign law. . 396-398 
 
 III.-RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT IN DEMOSTHENES. 
 
 Doubts about Providence arising in moments of anger. 
 
 — Demosthenes’ sentiments on fortune. — Identical 
 objection of M. de Meaux and Demosthenes.— Pro¬ 
 fession of faith to the Corinthians and Melians.— 
 Power is of divine right.—Indecision of Demosthenes’ 
 mind on questions of religious morality.— Pagan 
 theology difficult to harmonize with good sense and 
 moral sense.— How pagan dogmas lead to a belief in 
 fortune. 398-404 
 
 Demosthenes sincerely religious.— The priestess Theoris. 
 
 — A perfidious sophism refuted.— Did Demosthenes 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 507 
 
 believe in oracles and auguries? — A premeditated 
 dream.— [An apparition of Minerva;—the family 
 
 compact]. . 404-407 
 
 Divination.— Epimenides of Crete.— Demosthenes a pu¬ 
 pil of Thucydides.— [Various prodigies.] — Religious 
 sentiment in art; in public and private life; in the 
 eloquence of the ancients.— Why Demosthenes was 
 touched with it.— Destiny and liberty. . . 407-411 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE TRIAL ON THE CROWN. 
 
 I.-DEMOSTHENES' ACCUSER. 
 
 Political passions at Athens after Chæronea. — Interest 
 
 ♦ 
 
 and grandeur of the debate.— Ctesiphon’s accuser is 
 condemned beforehand to the reproach of disloyal 
 malignity.— [Subject of the trial.] — The moment 
 chosen by Æschines to attack Demosthenes.— The mod¬ 
 ern Thersites.—“ Littleness of soul ” in Æschines. — 
 
 Real and oratorical sentiments.— [Æschines’ decla¬ 
 rations honorable to his adversary.] — Improbable and 
 contradictory imputations.412-417 
 
 Æschines wanting in sincerity.— [Hermogenes’ testi¬ 
 mony.— Demosthenes and Paulus Æmilius.] — Source 
 of eloquence in the two rivals.— The subject pro¬ 
 duced eloquence.— A political metamorphosis.— [Dif¬ 
 ficult apology.] — Æschines yielded to the torrent.— 
 Eulogy of ancestors by Æschines and Demosthenes.— 
 Why Demosthenes bore away the palm. . . 417-422 
 
 II.-PIETY TOWARD THE GODS, AND TOWARD HIS COUNTRY. 
 
 Effect of great disasters on popular imagination.— Eux- 
 enippus’ dream. — Strong religious impressions. 
 (Diodorus and Justin).— Punishment for sacrilege.— 
 
508 
 
 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Philip derived advantages from the moral state of 
 Greece.— Æschines aided him therein.— Recollections 
 of maternal education.— The tyrant should manifest 
 his piety. (Aristotle).— The protectorate of religion.— 
 Avowals of a philanthropist.— [The courtesan Rho¬ 
 dope.]— Æschines and Lucretius.— Accusations of 
 Impiety at Athens.—Aspasia, Phryne.— Demosthenes’ 
 entire life is a life of impiety.— His impiety ruined 
 
 his country. 422-430 
 
 His oration to the Amphictyonie council.--Religious 
 wars of antiquity.— [Roman tolerance.]—Athens 
 remains apart from the holy league.— Catastrophes 
 provoked by Demosthenes’ sacrilege. . . . 430-438 
 
 Badly adjusted mask.— Æschines and the oracle.— Æs¬ 
 chines sings with Philip the Pæan which celebrates 
 the destruction of Phocis.— Knavish or depraved.— 
 
 The account of the session of the Amphictyonie coun¬ 
 cil by Æschines justifies Demosthenes’ accusations.— 
 Æschines’ mandate.— Socrates the sophist. . . 438-447 
 
 Snares and deadly engines; glorification of Chæronea 
 during the lifetime of Alexander.— Phalecus and the 
 fire from heaven.— Demosthenes evades a burning 
 subject.— Indulgent sympathy of Athens toward the 
 Phocidians:— The accused becomes the accuser. 447-449 
 
 III.-DEMOSTHENES A BAD COUNSELLOR. 
 
 Faith of the Geeeks in predestination.— [Destiny an ex¬ 
 cellent pilot.] — Appearances condemn Demosthe¬ 
 nes.—A woful fatality weighs on the whole world.— 
 Various causes of the calamities of Greece.— Patriotic 
 
 concession to popular prejudices. 449-454 
 
 Contrast between the destiny of Æschines and Demosthe¬ 
 nes.— Deceptions and bitterness.— Tragic figure.— 
 [Prometheus].— In what Demosthenes was happy.— 
 After the disaster. 454-458 
 
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 509 
 
 IV.-GRECIAN ELOQUENCE EXTINGUISHED WITH DEMOSTHENES. 
 
 Attitude of Athens in the face of its conquerors.— Two 
 decrees; uncle and nephew.— Hymn to Demetrius.— 
 What is lost in losing liberty.— Disappearance of 
 eloquence and Greek genius. — The orator of the 
 Philippics justified. 458-464 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 POLITICAL, MORAL AND LITERARY CONCLUSION. 
 
 I. Essential immutability of human character.— [The 
 
 question of the East in 340 b.c.] —Political eloquence 
 of the Macedonian epoch, and of the French revolu¬ 
 tion.— Patriotic, moral and religious impressions.— 
 Constituent assembly and convention.— Character 
 of their eloquence.— Invective in Athens and the 
 pamphlet in France.— Athenian eloquence is not 
 murderous.— [C. Desmoulins; license of the Greek 
 comedy and freedom of the press].— Sceptics and 
 enthusiasts.— Nothing great without faith . . 465-472 
 
 II. The Athens of Demosthenes knew neither social nor 
 
 patriotic passions.— Political and social progress [a 
 good constitution after the taste of the Socratics].— 
 Ostracism, the law of humanity.— The citizen very 
 eminent in the Athenian and in the modern democ¬ 
 racy.— Riches, social danger.— The question of labor 
 and capital.— The grantees of the mines. (Hyperi- 
 des).— [Project of industrial and financial associations 
 between private persons and the state]. (Xenophon).— 
 Superiorities of modern democracy. . . . 472-478 
 
 III. Moral progress.— Rule for correctly judging an an¬ 
 cient.— Aristotle’s summary.— The Athenians more 
 indulgent than the moderns toward Demosthenes.— 
 Effect of perspective.— Demosthenes is admired to¬ 
 day not in the same manner but more warmly.— 
 
510 POLITICAL ELOQUENCE IN GREECE. 
 
 Not by the narrow view of ancient criticism.— Pro¬ 
 gramme of a letter to Philip.— The flute of T. Grac¬ 
 chus. [The theory of the thumb].— Attic and modern 
 simplicity.— The modern tribune.— Contempora¬ 
 
 neous political eloquence.— Fragile and imperishable 
 beauties.— Demosthenes the orator and statesman.— 
 [Counsel and execution.— Men in opposition to, and 
 friends to, the government.] —The genius and soul 
 of Demosthenes.—What Athens owes to him.— How 
 nations die away or become renewed . . . . 478-488 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PA <3 ISS,. RX3 
 
 Author Bred if, L. 
 
 >04846 
 
 Demosthenes, tr. by 
 
 M.J. .MacMahon 
 
 -“•■J'* -—.—• 1 . 
 
 Chicago, Griggs, 1881 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 iÿ.~r.ÜT?WS NAME | 
 
 Feb. 19, 1 
 
 951 743 
 
 FEB 2'i'Sl 
 
 / »7v / 
 
 ^ / /; 
 
 
 _<£& a hi” 1 
 
 / 
 
 \ \ I 
 
 £'«■5 4 o | 
 
 
 y * * . I 
 
 / /' /■ . 1 
 
 
 f 
 
 >«7r 
 
 \ 7 
 
 
 . « « » ♦ V - 1 ’ 44 
 
 t t » J • | 
 
 c.t 
 
 r:x 
 
 XI 
 
 T 
 
 »** r 
 
 r 
 
 * T ' ■» i r' 
 
 ; ** V 5. '-1 Hi '< J «C O 
 
 * I 
 
name 
 
 à 
 

 Boston College Library 
 
 Chestnut Hill 67, Mass. 
 
 ' .. 
 
 Books make kept for two weeks unless a shorter 
 time is specified. 
 
 Two cents a day is charged for each 2-week book 
 kept overtime; 25 cents a day for each overnight 
 book. 
 
 If you cannot find what you want, inquire at the 
 delivery desk for assistance.