[86] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 333 A. After reciting the advice which Dion and he had given to Dionysius the younger, he proceeds to say—?t???? ??? e??a?, t??t?? ?e??????, p??? ????? d????sas?a? ?a???d?????? t?? ?p? G?????? a?t??? ?e?????? d???e?a?, ???? ???, ?spe? ??? t???a?t???, ? pat?? a?t?? f???? ?t??at? f??e?? t??? a??????, etc.

[87] Diodor. xv. 24.

[88] Strabo, vi. p. 261; Pliny, H. N. iii. 10. The latter calls the isthmus twenty miles broad, and says that Dionysius wished (intercisam) to cut it through: Strabo says that he proposed to wall it across (d?ate????e??), which is more probable.

[89] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 2, 4, 33; vii i. 20-28. Diodor. xv. 70.

[90] Diodor. xxii. p. 304.

[91] Diodor. xv. 73; xvi. 5.

[92] Diodor. xv. 74.

[93] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 15.

[94] Polyb. xv. 35. ??? ?a? ??p???? S??p???? fas?, t?? p??t?? ?atap??e?sa?ta ?a???d??????, ???t????ta, t??a? ?p??a??e? p?a?at???t?t??? ??d?a? ?e?????a? ?a? s?? ?? t?????t?t???, e?pe??, t??? pe?? ??a?????a ?a? ?????s??? t??? S??e???ta?.

[95] Plutarch, Dion, c. 7.

[96] The example of Dionysius—his long career of success and quiet death—is among those cited by Cotta in Cicero (De Nat. Deor. iii. 33, 81, 85) to refute the doctrine of Balbus, as to the providence of the gods and their moral government over human affairs.

[97] IsokratÊs, Or. v. (Philipp.) s. 73. ?????s??? ... ?p????sa? ??a???a? ?????? ?a? a?????, ?a? t???sa? ?pa?ta p??tte?? t? f????ta p??? t?? d??a?? ta?t??, etc.

[98] Thucyd. vi. 55. ???? ?a? d?? t? p??te??? ?????e?, t??? ?? p???ta?? f?e???, t??? d? ?p???????? ??????, p???? t? pe????t? t?? ?sfa???? ????t?se (Hippias).

On the liberality of the elder Dionysius to his mercenaries, see an allusion in Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 348 A.

The extension and improvement of engines for warlike purposes, under Dionysius, was noticed as a sort of epoch (AthenÆus, De Machinis ap. Mathemat. Veteres, ed. Paris, p. 3).

[99] Cornelius Nepos, De Regibus, c. 2. “Dionysius prior, et manu fortis, et belli peritus fuit, et, id quod in tyranno non facile reperitur, minime libidinosus, non luxuriosus, non avarus, nullius rei denique cupidus, nisi singularis perpetuique imperii, ob eamque rem crudelis. Nam dum id studuit munire, nullius pepercit vitÆ, quem ejus insidiatorem putaret.” To the same purpose Cicero, Tusc. Disp. v. 20.

[100] Aristotel. Politic. v. 9, 5.

[101] Pseudo-Aristotel. Œconomic. ii. c. 21, 42; Cicero, De Nat. Deorum, iii. 34, 83, 84; Valerius Maxim. i. 1.

[102] Plutarch, Dion, c. 28; Plutarch, De Curiositate, p. 523 A; Aristotel. Politic. v. 9, 3. The titles of these spies—a? p?ta????de? ?a???e?a?—as we read in Aristotle; or ?? p?ta???e??—as we find in Plutarch—may perhaps both be correct.

[103] Cicero in Verrem, v. 55, 143.

[104] Plutarch, De Fortun Alexandr. Magni, p. 338 B. What were the crimes of Dionysius which Pausanias had read and describes by the general words ?????s??? t? ???s??tata—and which he accuses Philistus of having intentionally omitted in his history—we cannot now tell (Pausan. i. 13, 2: compare Plutarch, Dion, c. 36). An author named Amyntianus, contemporary with Pausanias, and among those perused by Photius (Codex 131), had composed parallel lives of Dionysius and the Emperor Domitian.

[105] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 A; Aristotel. Politic. v. 5, 6.

[106] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 D. ?????s??? d? e?? ?a? p???? ?????sa? p?sa? S??e??a? ?p? s?f?a?, p?ste??? ??de??, ???? ?s???, etc.

This brief, but significant expression of Plato, attests the excessive mistrust which haunted Dionysius, as a general fact; which is illustrated by the anecdotes of Cicero, Tuscul. Disput. v. 20, 23; and De Officiis, ii. 7; Plutarch, Dion, c. 9; Diodor. xiv. 2.

The well-known anecdote of DamoklÊs, and the sword which Dionysius caused to be suspended over his head by a horsehair, in the midst of the enjoyments of the banquet, as an illustration how little was the value of grandeur in the midst of terror—is recounted by Cicero.

[107] Plutarch, Dion, c. 3; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 6.

[108] This sentiment, pronounced by Plato, IsokratÊs, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, etc., is nowhere so forcibly laid out as in the dialogue of Xenophon called Hiero—of which indeed it forms the text and theme. Whoever reads this picture of the position of a Grecian t??a????, will see that it was scarcely possible for a man so placed to be other than a cruel and oppressive ruler.

[109] See the citation from Plato, in a note immediately preceding.

[110] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 315 E. (to the younger Dionysius). Fas? d? ??? ?????? ???e?? se p??? t??a? t?? pa?? se p?ese???t??, ?? ??a s?? p?t? ?????t?? ????sa? ??? ?????t?? t?? te ??????da? p??e?? ?? S??e??? ?????e??, ?a? S??a???s???? ?p????f?sa?, t?? ????? ??t? t??a???d?? e?? as??e?a? etast?sa?ta, ta?t? ??a s? ?? t?te d?e????sa, s?? sf?d?a p??????????, ??? d? ????a d?d?s???? d??? a?t? ta?ta, ?a? t??? d?a???as? t??? s??? t?? s?? ????? ?fa????e?? se.

Ibid. p. 319 C. ?? e d??a??e ?????, ?? ??? e??? se p??e?? ??????da? ?????sa? ?p? a????? ?????e??, ??d? S??a???s???? ?p????f?sa? ... ?? ??? ?? ????e???, s? d? ??? ??e?e? p??tte?? a?t?.

Again, see Epistol. vii. p. 331 F. 332 B. 334 D. 336 A.-D.—and the brief notice given by Photius (Codex, 93) of the lost historical works of Arrian, respecting Dion and Timoleon.

Epistol. viii. p. 357 A. (What Dion intended to do, had he not been prevented by death)—?a? et? ta?ta S??e??a? ?? t?? ????? ?at???sa, t??? ?? a?????? ?? ??? ????s?? ?fe??e???, ?s?? ? ?p?? t?? ?????? ??e??e??a? d?ep????sa? p??? t?? t??a???da, t??? d? ?p??s?e? ????t?? t?? ????????? t?p?? e?? t?? ???a?a? ?a? pat??a? ????se?? ?at????sa?. Compare Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 2. a? d? p?e?sta? p??e?? ?p? a????? ???d?? ?a? st?at??t?? ??s??? ?ate????t?.

The ??a??? to whom Plato alludes in this last passage, are not the Carthaginians (none of whom could be expected to come in and fight for the purpose of putting down the despotism at Syracuse), but the Campanian and other mercenaries provided for by the elder Dionysius on the lands of the extruded Greeks. These men would have the strongest interest in upholding the despotism, if the maintenance of their own properties was connected with it. Dion thought it prudent to conciliate this powerful force by promising confirmation of their properties to such of them as would act upon the side of freedom.

[111] Both Diodorus (xvi. 9) and Cornelius Nepos (Dion, c. 5) speak of one hundred thousand foot and ten thousand horse. The former speaks of four hundred ships of war; the latter of five hundred.

The numbers of foot and horse appear evidently exaggerated. Both authors must have copied from the same original; possibly Ephorus.

[112] Plutarch, Dion, c. 6; Theopompus, Fr. 204, ed. Didot. ap. AthenÆum, x. p. 435; Diodor. xvi. 6; Cornel. Nepos (Dion, c. 1).

The Scholiast on Plato’s fourth Epistle gives information respecting the personal relations and marriages of the elder Dionysius, not wholly agreeing with what is stated in the sixth chapter of Plutarch’s Life of Dion.

[113] Plutarch, Dion, c. 3. The age of the younger Dionysius is nowhere positively specified. But in the year 356 B.C.—or 355 B.C., at the latest—he had a son, ApollokratÊs, old enough to be entrusted with the command of Ortygia, when he himself evacuated it for the first time (Plutarch, Dion, c. 37). We cannot suppose ApollokratÊs to have been less than sixteen years of age at the moment when he was entrusted with such a function, having his mother and sisters under his charge (c. 50). ApollokratÊs therefore must have been born at least as early as 372 B.C.; perhaps even earlier. Suppose Dionysius the younger to have been twenty years of age when ApollokratÊs was born; he would thus be in his twenty-fifth year in the beginning of 367 B.C., when Dionysius the elder died. The expressions of Plato, as to the youth of Dionysius the younger at that juncture, are not unsuitable to such an age.

[114] Aristotel. Polit. v. 5, 6.

[115] Plato Epistol. vii. p. 347 A. Compare the offer of Dion to maintain fifty triremes at his own expense (Plutarch, Dion, c. 6.)

[116] Dion was fifty-five years of age at the time of his death, in the fourth year after his departure from Peloponnesus (Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 10).

His death took place seemingly about 354 B.C. He would thus be born about 408 B.C.

[117] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 326 D. ?????ta d? e ? ta?t? ?e??e??? a? ??? e?da???, ?ta???t???? te ?a? S??a???s??? t?ape??? p?????, ??da? ??da?? ??es?e, d?? te t?? ???a? ?p?p??e??? ??? ?a? ?d?p?te ????e??? ???? ???t??, etc.

[118] Cicero, De Finibus, v. 20; De Republic. i. 10. Jamblichus (Vit. PythagorÆ, c. 199) calls Dion a member of the Pythagorean brotherhood, which may be doubted; but his assertion that Dion procured for Plato, though only by means of a large price (one hundred minÆ), the possession of a book composed by the Pythagorean Philolaus, seems not improbable. The ancient Pythagoreans wrote nothing. Philolaus (seemingly about contemporary with Sokrates) was the first Pythagorean who left any written memorial. That this book could only be obtained by the intervention of an influential Syracusan—and even by him only for a large price—is easy to believe.

See the instructive Dissertation of Gruppe, Ueber die Fragmente des Archytas und der Älteren Pythagoreer, p. 24, 26, 48, etc.

[119] See a remarkable passage, Plato, Epist. vii p. 328 F.

[120] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 335 F. ????a ??? ??? saf?? ??da, ?? ???? te pe?? ?????p?? ?????p?? d??s?????es?a?, ?t? t?? ????? e? ?at?s?e?, ?? ??? ?? p?te ?p? ???? ?e s??a t?? ????? ?t??pet?, ? ?p? t?—S??a???sa? ?? p??t??, t?? pat??da t?? ?a?t??, ?pe? t?? d???e?a? a?t?? ?p???a?e ?a? fa?d???a? ??e??e??? ?? s??at? ?at?st?se, t? et? t??t? ?? p?s? ????? ???s?se ????? t??? p??s????s? te ?a? ???st??? t??? p???ta?—t? te ?fe??? t??t??? p?????e?t? ?? p???a?, p?sa? S??e??a? ?at?????e?? ?a? ??e????a? ?p? t?? a????? p??e??, t??? ?? ???????, t??? d? ?e????e??? ???? ???????, etc.

Compare the beginning of the same epistle, p. 324 A.

[121] Plato, Epist. iv. p. 320 F. (addressed to Dion). ... ?? ??? ?p? p??t?? ???e??? pa?as?e????? t?? te ????????? ??e???? ???a??? ?p?de????, ?a? t?? ????? ?a? e?t?? ????? p?p?te ?d??e? ??e? ?a? p???te?? d?e?e??e??, etc.

[122] Plutarch, Kleomenes, c. 2-11.

[123] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 327 A. ???? ?? ??? d? ??? e?a??? ?? p??? te t???a, ?a? p??? t??? t?te ?p? ??? ?e??????? ??????, ??t?? ????? ?p????se ?a? sf?d?a, ?? ??de?? p?p?te ?? ??? p??s?t???? ????, ?a? t?? ?p????p?? ??? ??? ?????se d?afe???t?? t?? p????? ?ta???t?? ?a? S??e???t??, ??et?? pe?? p?e????? ?d???? t?? te ????? t??f?? p????e???? ??e? ?pa???ste??? t??? pe?? t? t??a????? ???a ??s?? ???, ???? t?? ?a??t?? t?? pe?? ?????s??? ?e??????.

Plutarch, Dion, c. 4. ?? p??t?? ??e?sat? ????? ?a? f???s?f?a? ??e?????? p??? ??et??, ??ef????? t?? ?????, etc.

[124] See the story in Jamblichus (Vit. PythagorÆ, c. 189) of a company of Syracusan troops under Eurymenes the brother of Dion, sent to lay in ambuscade for some Pythagoreans between Tarentum and Metapontum. The story has not the air of truth; but the state of circumstances, which it supposes, illustrates the relation between Dionysius and the cities in the Tarentine Gulf.

[125] Plutarch, Dion, c. 5, 6; Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 1, 2.

[126] Plutarch, Dion, c. 17, 49. Respecting the rarity of the vote of Spartan citizenship, see a remarkable passage of Herodotus, ix. 33-35.

Plutarch states that the Spartans voted their citizenship to Dion during his exile, while he was in Peloponnesus after the year 367 B.C., at enmity with the younger Dionysius then despot of Syracuse; whom (according to Plutarch) the Spartans took the risk of offending, in order that they might testify their extreme admiration for Dion.

I cannot but think that Plutarch is mistaken as to the time of this grant. In and after 367 B.C. the Spartans were under great depression, playing the losing game against Thebes. It is scarcely conceivable that they should be imprudent enough to alienate a valuable ally for the sake of gratuitously honoring an exile whom he hated and had banished. Whereas if we suppose the vote to have been passed during the lifetime of the elder Dionysius, it would count as a compliment to him as well as to Dion, and would thus be an act of political prudence as well as of genuine respect. Plutarch speaks as if he supposed that Dion was never in Peloponnesus until the time of his exile, which is, in my judgment, highly improbable.

[127] Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 2; Plutarch, Dion, c. 6.

[128] Diodor. xv. 74.

[129] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 338 E. ? d? ??te ????? ?st?? ?f??? p??? t?? t?? a????e?? d??a??, f???t??? d? ?a?ast??, etc. Compare p. 330 A. p. 328 B.; also Epist. iii. p. 316 C. p. 317 E.

Plutarch, Dion, c. 7-9.

[130] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 E. ?pe?d? t? pa?? t?? pat??? a?t? s??ee??e? ??t?? ??????t? ?? pa?de?a?, ??????t? d? s????s??? t?? p??s????s?? ?e?????a?, etc.

[131] Plutarch Dion, c. 6.

[132] Plutarch, Dion, c. 7. ? ?? ??? ?????s??? ?pe?f??? t?? e?a??????a? ??a?ase ?a? t?? p?????a? ???p?se?.

[133] Dionysius II. was engaged at war at the time when Plato first visited him at Syracuse, within the year immediately after his accession (Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 317 A). We may reasonably presume that this was the war with Carthage.

Compare Diodorus (xvi. 5), who mentions that the younger Dionysius also carried on war for some little time, in a languid manner, against the Lucanians; and that he founded two cities on the coast of Apulia in the Adriatic. I think it probable that these two last-mentioned foundations were acts of Dionysius I., not of Dionysius II. They were not likely to be undertaken by a young prince of backward disposition, at his first accession.

[134] Tacitus, Histor. ii. 49. “Othoni sepulcrum exstructum est, modicum, et mansurum.”

A person named TimÆus was immortalized as the constructor of the funeral pile: see AthenÆus, v. p. 206. Both GÖller (TimÆi Fragm. 95) and M. Didot (TimÆi Fr. 126) have referred this passage to TimÆus the historian, and have supposed it to relate to the description given by TimÆus of the funeral-pile. But the passage in AthenÆus seems to me to indicate TimÆus as the builder, not the describer, of this famous p???.

It is he who is meant, probably, in the passage of Cicero (De Natur Deor. iii. 35)—(Dionysius) “in suo lectulo mortuus in Tympanidis rogum illatus est, eamque potestatem quam ipse per scelus erat nactus, quasi justam et legitimam hereditatis loco filio tradidit.” This seems at least the best way of explaining a passage which perplexes the editors: see the note of Davis.

[135] Plutarch (De Exilio. p. 637) and Cornelius Nepos (Dion, c. 3) represent that Philistus was recalled at the persuasion of the enemies of Dion, as a counterpoise and corrective to the ascendency of the latter over Dionysius the younger. Though Philistus afterwards actually performed this part, I doubt whether such was the motive which caused him to be recalled. He seems to have come back before the obsequies of Dionysius the elder; that is, very early after the commencement of the new reign. Philistus had described, in his history, these obsequies in a manner so elaborate and copious, that this passage in his work excited the special notice of the ancient critics (see Philisti Fragment. 42, ed. Didot; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 34). I venture to think that this proves him to have been present at the obsequies; which would of course be very impressive to him, since they were among the first things which he saw after his long exile.

[136] Plutarch, Dion, c. 11. ?a?ta p??????? t?? ?????? pa?a?????t??, ?a? t?? ????? t?? ???t???? ?st?? ??st??a? ?p?spe????t??, etc.

[137] Plutarch, Dion, c. 10, 11; Plato, Epist. vii. p. 327 C.

[138] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 328 A. p. 335 E.; Plato, Republic, vi. p. 499 C. D.

[139] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 327 E. ... ? d? ?a? ??? e? d?ap???a?t? ?? ?????s?? ?? ?pe?e???se, e???a? ??p?da? e??e?, ??e? sfa??? ?a? ?a??t?? ?a? t?? ??? ?e????t?? ?a???, ??? ?? e?da???a ?a? ???????? ?? p?s? t? ???? ?atas?e??sa?.

[140] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 333 B. ?a?t?? p??? ????a S??a??s??? t?te ?pa???, ?pe? ?a? ?????s???, ?te a?t?? ?pe?e??e? pa?de?sa? ?a? ????a? as???a t?? ????? ?????, ??t? ??????e?? a?t? t?? ??? pa?t??.

[141] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 327 E.; Plutarch. Dion, c. 11. ?s?e? ???? t?? ?????s??? ???? ?a? pe??a??? t?? te ????? ?a? t?? s????s?a? t?? ???t????. ????? ??? ????a?e p???? ?? ?f??ta ???ata pa?? t?? ?????s???, p???a? d? ?p?s???e?? t?? ??????, ???a? d? ?? ?ta??a? pa?? t?? ???a???????, etc.

[142] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 328.

[143] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 328. ?a?t? ?? t? d?a???? ?a? t??? ?p??a ?????e?, ??? ? t???? ?d??a???, ???? a?s????e??? ?? ?a?t?? t? ???st??, ? d??a?? p?te ?a?t? pa?t?pas? ????? ???? ?te???? e??a? t??, ????? d? ??de??? ?? p?te ???? ?????as?a?, ???d??e?se?? d? p??d???a? p??t?? ?? t?? ?????? ?e??a? ?? ???d????? ??t?? ?e????t?? ?? s??????? e?t? ??? p???? t?, e?t? ??pes?? ?p? ?????s??? ?a? t?? ????? ?????? ????? pa?? ??? fe????, ?a? ??????t?, e?p??, etc.

[144] This is contained in the words ??? ? t???? ?d??a???—before cited.

[145] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 E. ta?ta e?p?? e?s???? t?? pe?? S??e??a? p????? ?a? ?t???a?, etc.

Xenokrates seems to have accompanied Plato to Sicily (Diogen. Laert. iv. 2, 1).

[146] Plutarch, De Adulator, et Amici Discrimine, p. 52 C.

[147] Plutarch, Dion, c. 13. ?? pa?s? ?ata??e??? ???;

[148] Plutarch, Dion, c. 14. ????? d? p??sep?????t? d?s?e?a??e??, e? p??te??? ?? ????a??? ?a?t??a?? ?a? pe???a?? d???es? de??? p?e?sa?te? ?p????t? ?a? d?ef????sa? p??te??? ? ?ae?? S??a???sa?, ???? d? d?? ???? s?f?st?? ?ata????s? t?? ?????s??? t??a???da, etc.

Plato is here described as a Sophist, in the language of those who did not like him. Plato, the great authority who is always quoted in disparagement of the persons called Sophists, is as much entitled to the name as they, and is called so equally by unfriendly commentators. I drew particular attention to this fact in my sixty-eighth chapter (Vol. VIII.), where I endeavored to show that there was no school, sect, or body of persons distinguished by uniformity of doctrine or practice, properly called Sophists, and that the name was common to all literary men or teachers, when spoken of in an unfriendly spirit.

[149] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 330 B. ??? d? p??ta ?p?e???, t?? p??t?? d?????a? f???tt?? ?pe? ?f?????, e?p?? e?? ?p????a? ????? t?? f???s?f?? ???? (Dionysius)—? d? ?????se? ??t?te????.

[150] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 332 E. ? d? ?a? ?????s?? s??e???e??e? ??? ?a? ????, ?pe?d? t? pa?? t?? pat??? a?t? s??ee??e?, ??t?? ??????t? ?? pa?de?a?, ??????t? d? s????s??? t?? p??s????s?? ?e?????a?, p??t?? ?p? ta?ta ???sa?ta f????? ?????? a?t? t?? ???e??? ?a ?a? ??????t?? ?a? s?f????? p??? ??et?? ?t?sas?a?, ???sta d? a?t?? a?t?, t??t?? ??? a?t?? ?a?ast?? ??de? ?e?????a?? ?????te? ??? ??a???? ??t??—?? ??? ?? ?sfa???—?? ??t? ?? p?? ???? a?t?? te ?a? ??e????? ?? ?? ??e?? ????ta? s?se?, ? ta?t? d? t?ap?e??? t??a?t?a p??ta ?p?te?e?? p??e??e?? d? ?? ????e?, ?a? ?a?t?? ?f???a ?a? s?f???a p???s?e???, e? t?? ????????a? S??e??a? p??e?? ?at????se?e ????? te ???d?se?e ?a? p???te?a??, etc.

Compare also p. 331 F.

[151] Horat. Satir. ii. 1, 17.

[152] Plato, Epist. iii. 315 E. F?s? d? ??? ?????? ???e?? se p??? t??a? t?? pa?? se p?ese???t??, ?? ??a s?? p?t? ?????t?? ????sa? ??? ?????t?? t?? te ??????da? p??e?? ?? S??e??? ?????e??, ?a? S??a???s???? ?p????f?sa?, t?? ????? ??t? t??a???d?? e?? as??e?a? etast?sa?ta, ta?t? ??a s? ?? t?te, ?? s? f??, d?e????sa—??? d? ????a d?d?s???? d??? a?t?, ?a? t??? d?a???as? t??? s??? t?? s?? ????? ?fa????e?? se....

Ibid. p. 319 B. e?pe? d? ?a? ??? ?p??st?? ?e???, e? ???a?, ?? ?a?de????ta e ????e?e? p??e?? p??ta ta?ta, ? ? p??e??. ?f?? ??? ?????sta ????e?sa? se.

Cornelius Nepos (Dion, c. 3) gives to Plato the credit, which belongs altogether to Dion, of having inspired Dionysius with these ideas.

[153] Plutarch, De Adulator, et Amici Discrimine, p. 52 E. We may set against this, however, a passage in one of the other treatises of Plutarch (Philosophand. cum Principibus, p. 779 ad finem), in which he observes, that Plato, coming to Sicily with the hope of converting his political doctrines into laws through the agency of Dionysius, found the latter already corrupted by power, unsusceptible of cure, and deaf to admonition.

[154] Plato, PhÆdon, c. 88. p. 89 D. ?????? a?s????; ?a? d????, ?t? ??e? t????? t?? pe?? t?????pe?a ? t????t?? ???s?a? ?p??e??e? t??? ?????p???;

He is expounding the causes and growth of misanthropic dispositions; one of the most striking passages in his dialogues.

[155] Plutarch, Dion, c. 14, Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 333 C. ? d? (Dionysius) t??? d?a?????s? (?p?ste?e) ?a? ?????s?? ?? ?p????e??? t? t??a???d? ???? p??tt?? p??ta ?sa ?p?atte? ?? t? t?te ?????, ??a ? ?? (Dionysius) pa?de?? d? t?? ???? ?????e?? ?e??? t?? ????? ?p?t???a? ??e???, ? d? (Dion) sfete??sa?t?, ?a? ?????s??? ?????? ?? t?? ????? d???.

[156] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 329 C. ????? d?, ?? ??? de? ????e??, e???? st?se?? t? pe?? ?????s??? est? ??pa?ta ?a? d?a???? p??? t?? t??a???da ?????? p???? ????? ?? ??? ?a?? ?s?? ?d?????, s???? d? ???? te ?, etc.

[157] The story is found in Plutarch (Dion, c. 14), who refers to TimÆus as his authority. It is confirmed in the main by Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 329 D. ??? d? s?ed?? ?s?? tet??t? ????a ?????s???, a?t??e??? ?p????e?e?? t? t??a???d?, s????? e?? p????? ???sa?, ???a?e? ?t???.

Diodorus (xvi. 6) states that Dionysius sought to put Dion to death, and that he only escaped by flight. But the version of Plato and Plutarch is to be preferred.

Justin (xxi. 1, 2) gives an account, different from all, of the reign and proceedings of the younger Dionysius. I cannot imagine what authority he followed. He does not even name Dion.

[158] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 315 F.; Epist. vii. p. 329 D.; p. 340 A. Plutarch, Dion, c. 15.

[159] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 329, 330.

[160] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 338 C.

[161] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 317 B. C.

[162] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 338-346; Plutarch, Dion, c. 19. Æschines, the companion of Sokrates along with Plato, is said to have passed a long time at Syracuse with Dionysius, until the expulsion of that despot (Diogen. Laert. ii. 63).

[163] Plutarch, De Fortun Alex. Magn. p. 338 B. ????d?? ?? ?t??? F???? ?????as? ?ast??.

[164] See a passage in Plato, Epistol. ii. p. 314 E.

[165] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 318 A.; vii. p. 346, 347. Plutarch, Dion, c. 15, 16.

[166] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 15—on the authority of Aristoxenus.

[167] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 A. B.

[169] Plutarch, Dion, c. 21; Cornel. Nepos, Dion, c. 4.

[170] Plutarch, Dion, c. 17; AthenÆus, xi. p. 508. Plato appears also to have received, when at Athens, pecuniary assistance remitted by Dionysius from Syracuse, towards expenses of a similar kind, as well as towards furnishing a dowry for certain poor nieces. Dion and Dionysius had both aided him (Plato, Epistol. xiii. p. 361).

An author named OnÊtor affirmed that Dionysius had given to Plato the prodigious sum of eighty talents; a story obviously exaggerated (Diogenes Laert. iii. 9).

[171] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 F.

[172] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350. This is the account which Plato gives after the death of Dion, when affairs had taken a disastrous turn, about the extent of his own interference in the enterprise. But Dionysius supposed him to have been more decided in his countenance of the expedition; and Plato’s letter addressed to Dion himself, after the victory of the latter at Syracuse, seems to bear out that supposition.

Compare Epistol. iii. p. 315 E.; iv. p. 320 A.

[173] Plutarch, Dion, c. 22. Eudemus was afterwards slain in one of the combats at Syracuse (Aristotle apud Ciceron. Tusc. Disp. i. 25, 53).

[174] Plutarch, Dion, c. 23-25.

[175] Aristotel. Politic. v. 8, 17.

[176] See Orat. adv. Leptinem, s. 179. p. 506: an oration delivered about two years afterwards; not long after the victory of Dion.

Compare Diodor. xvi. 9; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 2.

[177] Plutarch, Dion, c. 22. Speusippus, from Athens, corresponded both with Dion and with Dionysius at Syracuse; at least there was a correspondence between them, read as genuine by Diogenes Laertius (iv. 1, 2, 5).

[178] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 318 C.

[179] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 348 B. ?? d? ?f????t? e???? p??? t? te???, pa???? t??a ??a??sa?te? ??a??? ?a? p??e????? ?? d? pe??de?? ?????s??? ?e??e???, etc.

[180] Plato, Epistol. iii. p. 318; vii. p. 348, 349.

[181] Plato, Epist. vii. p. 348 A. ... ?pe?e???se? ??????s??t????? p??e?? pa?? t? t?? pat??? ???, etc.

[182] Plutarch, Dion, c. 32; Diodor. xvi. 6-16.

[183] Aristotel. Politic. v. 8, 14; Plutarch, Dion, c. 7. These habits must have probably grown upon him since the second departure of Plato, who does not notice them in his letters.

[184] Plutarch, Dion, c. 23. ???? pa???a??? ?d?, etc.

[185] Plutarch, Dion, c. 22; Diodor. xvi. 10.

[186] Thucyd. vii. 50. See Volume VII. of this History, Chap. lx. p. 314.

[187] Plutarch, Dion, c. 24.

[188] Plutarch, Dion, c. 26; Diodor. xvi. 10, 11.

[189] Plutarch, Dion, c. 25.

[190] Thucyd. vi. 104.

[191] Diodor. xvi. 10.

[192] Plutarch, Dion, c. 26, 27; Diodor. xvi. 9.

[193] Plutarch, (Dion, c. 27) gives the numbers who joined him at about five thousand men, which is very credible. Diodorus gives the number exaggerated, at twenty thousand (xvi. 9).

[194] Plutarch, Dion, c. 27. These picturesque details about the march of Dion are the more worthy of notice, as Plutarch had before him the narrative of Timonides, a companion of Dion, and actually engaged in the expedition. Timonides wrote an account of what passed to Speusippus at Athens, doubtless for the information of Plato and their friends in the Academy (Plutarch, Dion, c. 31-35).

Diogenes Laertius mentions also a person named Simonides who wrote to Speusippus, t?? ?st???a? ?? a?? ?atatet??e? t?? p???e?? ?????? te ?a? ?????? (iv. 1, 5). Probably Simonides may be a misnomer for Timonides.

Arrian, the author of the Anabasis of Alexander, had written narratives of the exploits both of Dion and Timoleon. Unfortunately these have not been preserved; indeed Photius himself seems never to have seen them (Photius, Codex, 92).

[195] Plutarch, Dion, c. 29. ?pe? d? e?s???e? ? ???? ?at? t?? ?e??t?da? p??a?, etc.

Most of the best critics here concur in thinking, that the reading ought to be t?? ?ee??t?da? p??a?. The statue and sacred ground of Apollo Temenites was the most remarkable feature in this portion of Syracuse, and would naturally be selected to furnish a name for the gates. No meaning can be assigned for the phrase ?e??t?da?.

[196] Plutarch, Dion, c. 27, 28, 29. Diodorus (xvi. 10) also mentions the striking fact of the wreaths worn by this approaching army.

[197] Plutarch, Dion, c. 27.

[198] Plutarch, De Curiositate, p. 523 A.

[199] Plutarch, Dion. c. 28; Diodor. xvi. 10.

[200] Cicero in Verr. iv. 53. “Altera autem est urbs Syracusis, cui nomen Acradina est: in qu forum maximum, pulcherrimÆ porticus, ornatissimum prytaneum, amplissima est curia, templumque egregium Jovis Olympii; cÆterÆque urbis partes, un tot vi perpetuÂ, multisque transversis, divisÆ, privatis Ædificiis continentur.”

[201] Plutarch, Dion, c. 29: Diodor. xvi. 11. Compare the manifestations of the inhabitants of SkionÊ towards Brasidas (Thucyd. iv. 121).

[202] Plutarch, Dion, c. 29; Diodor. xvi. 10, 11. The description which Plutarch gives of the position of this sun-dial is distinct, and the harangue which Dion delivered, while standing upon it, is an impressive fact:—?? d? ?p? t?? ????p???? ?a? t? pe?t?p??a, ?????s??? ?atas?e??sa?t??, ????t??p??? ?atafa??? ?a? ??????. ?p? t??t? p??s?? ?d??????se, ?a? pa????se t??? p???ta? ??t??es?a? t?? ??e??e??a?.

The sun-dial was thus under the acropolis, that is, in the low ground immediately adjoining to Ortygia; near the place where the elder Dionysius is stated to have placed his large porticos and market-house (Diodor. xiv. 7), and where the younger Dionysius erected the funeral monument to his father (xv. 74). In order to arrive at the sun-dial, Dion must have descended from the height of Achradina. Now Plutarch mentions that Dion went up through Achradina (???e? d?? t?? ???ad????). It is plain that he must have come down again from Achradina, though Plutarch does not specially mention it. And if he brought his men close under the walls of the enemy’s garrison, this can hardly have been for any other reason than that which I have assigned in the text.

Plutarch indicates the separate localities with tolerable clearness, but he does not give a perspicuous description of the whole march. Thus, he says that Dion, “wishing to harangue the people himself, went up through Achradina,” (?????e??? d? ?a? d?? ?a?t?? p??sa???e?sa? t??? ?????p???, ???e? d?? t?? ???ad????), while the place from which Dion did harangue the people, was down under the acropolis of Ortygia.

Diodorus is still less clear about the localities, nor does he say anything about the sun-dial or the exact spot from whence Dion spoke, though he mentions the march of Dion through Achradina.

It seems probable that what Plutarch calls t? pe?t?p??a are the same as what Diodorus (xv. 74) indicates in the words ta?? as????a?? ?a?????a?? p??a??.

[203] Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 5.

[204] Plutarch, Dion, c. 29.

[205] Plutarch, Dion, c. 29; Diodor. xvi. 12. Plutarch says, t?? d? ????p???? ?pete???se—Diodorus is more specific—??? d? S??a??s??? ?ates?e?a??t?? ?? ?a??ss?? e?? ???assa? d?ate???sata, etc. These are valuable words as indicating the line and the two terminations of Dion’s blockading cross-wall.

[206] Plutarch, Dion, c. 29.

[207] This return of Dionysius, seven days after the coming of Dion, is specified both by Plutarch and Diodorus (Plutarch, Dion, c. 26-29; Diodor. xvi. 11).

[208] Diodor. xvi. 16.

[209] Plutarch, Dion, c. 30. ?p??sa? ????t??. It is rare that we read of this proceeding with soldiers in antiquity. Diodor. xvi. 11, 12. t? ??e??? t?? ?pa??e????.

[210] Diodor. xvi. 12. ? d? ???? ??e?p?st?? pa?esp??d?????, et? t?? ???st?? st?at??t?? ?p??ta t??? p??e????? ?a? s????a? ????, p???? ?p??e? f???? ?? stad??. ????? d? d?ast?at?, t?? d?ate????? ?s?, ???? ??s??, s???d?ae p????? st?at??t?? e?? st???? t?p??.

The text here is not quite clear (see Wesseling’s note); but we gather from the passage information about the topography of Syracuse.

[211] Plutarch, Dion, c. 30; Diodor. xvi. 12, 13.

[212] Diodor. xvi. 13.

[213] Diodor. xvi. 16. Plutarch states that Herakleides brought only seven triremes. But the force stated by Diodorus (given in my text) appears more probable. It is difficult otherwise to explain the number of ships which the Syracusans presently appear as possessing. Moreover the great importance, which Herakleides steps into, as opposed to Dion, is more easily accounted for.

[214] Plutarch, Dion, c. 35. About the Athenian seamen in Ortygia, see a remarkable passage of Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 350 A. When Plato was at Syracuse, in danger from the mercenaries, the Athenian seamen, there employed, gave warning to him as their countryman.

[215] Diodor. xvi. 16.

[216] Diodor. xvi. 16.

[217] See a Fragment of the fortieth Book of the Philippica of Theopompus (Theopomp. Fragm. 212, ed. Didot), which seems to refer to this point of time.

[218] Diodor. xvi. 16; Plutarch, Dion, c. 35.

[219] Plato, Epist. iv. p. 321 B. ... ?????? d? ?a? ?t? d??e?? t?s?? ??deest???? t?? p??s????t?? ?e?ape?t???? e??a?? ? ??? ?a??a??t? se ?t? d?? t?? ???s?e?? t??? ?????p??? ?a? t? p??tte?? ?st??, ? d? a???de?a ????? ????????.

[220] Plutarch, Dion, c. 32.

[221] Plutarch, Dion, c. 33. It would seem that this Herakleides is the person alluded to in the fragment from the fortieth Book of the Philippica of Theopompus (Theop. Fr. 212, ed. Didot):—

???st?ta? d? t?? p??e?? ?sa? t?? ?? S??a???s??? ?????? ?a? ??a??e?d??, t?? d? ?s??f???? ?????a?? ? ??a???.

Probably also, AthÊnis is the same person named as Athanis or Athanas by Diodorus and Plutarch, (Diodor. xv. 94; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 23-37). He wrote a history of Syracusan affairs during the period of Dion and Timoleon, beginning from 362 B.C., and continuing the history of Philistus. See Historicorum GrÆc. Fragm. ed. Didot, vol. ii. p. 81.

[222] Plutarch, Dion, c. 31.

[223] Plutarch, Dion, c. 32.

[224] Plutarch, Dion, c. 34.

[225] Plutarch, Dion, c. 37; Diodor. xvi. 17.

[226] Plutarch, Dion, c. 37; Diodor. xvi. 17.

[227] Plutarch, Dion, c. 38. ?????? es???t??, etc.

[228] Plutarch, Dion, c. 38.

[229] Plutarch, Dion, c. 39; Diodor. xvi. 17.

[230] Plutarch, Dion, c. 40.

[231] Plutarch, Dion, c. 41; Diodor. xvi. 18, 19.

[232] Plutarch, Dion, c. 45.

[233] Diodor. xvi. 20. d?a??sa? ????? t?? e?? S??a???ssa? ?d??, ??e p??? t? ???p??a, etc. Plutarch, Dion, c. 45. e?s?a?e d?? t?? p???? e?? t?? ??at?ped?? ?e??????, etc.

[234] Plutarch, Dion, c. 45. ??????? ?????? p???? ?a? d?a???? t?? ??e???a?, ?p?? p???a???e? ?a p??sf????t? f?e??te???.

[235] Plutarch, Dion, c. 46. pa?ateta????? pa?? t? te???sa ?a?ep?? ???? ?a? d?se??ast?? t?? p??s?d??.

To a person who, after penetrating into the interior of the wall of EpipolÆ, stood on the slope, and looked down eastward, the outer wall of Tycha, Achradina, and Neapolis, might be said to form one te???sa; not indeed in one and the same line or direction, yet continuous from the northern to the southern brink of EpipolÆ.

[236] Plutarch, Dion, c. 46. ?? d? p??s???a? t??? p??e????, ?? ?e?s? ?? ?????? p??? ??????? ????et? ???, d?? t?? ste??t?ta ?a? t?? ???a??a? t?? t?p??, etc.

[237] Plutarch, Dion, c. 45, 46; Diodor. xvi. 20.

[238] Plutarch, Dion, c. 47. ? d? ???? pa?a????e??? a?t??? ??e?e?, etc.

[239] Plutarch, Dion, c. 47.

[240] See Vol. VIII. Ch. lxiv. p. 165 of this History.

[241] Plutarch, Dion, c. 48.

[242] Diodor. xvi. 20.

[243] Plutarch, Dion, c. 48.

[244] Plutarch, Dion, c. 48. ?a? d?? a?t?? ?p???a ?a? sp???? ?? ta?? S??a???sa??, etc.

[245] Plutarch, Dion, c. 49.

[246] Plutarch, Dion, c. 50.

[247] Plutarch, Dion, c. 50.

[248] Plutarch, Dion, c. 51.

[249] Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 5.

[250] Juvenal, Satir. x. 381.

[251] Plutarch, Dion, c. 52.

[252] Plutarch, Dion, c. 52. ??? ??t?? pe?? t?? ????a? ????? ?a? t?? p??? t?? d??? ?te???? ?f????e??e? ?d?? ?fe?e?? ?d? ?a??sa?, ?a?t?? t?? p?a??t?? a?t? ????t?? ??de?? ??t??, ?a? ???t???? ?p?t???t??, etc.

[253] Plutarch, Dion, c. 52.

[254] Plutarch, Dion, c. 53; Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 334, 336; viii. p. 356.

[255] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 335 F. p. 351 A.; Epistol. viii. p. 357 A.

[256] Plutarch, Dion, c. 53.

[257] Plutarch, Dion. c. 53. ?pe?ta ?at????e? t?? ?????? ?t? t?? ???a? ?? ?at?s?a?e, ?a? t? d?? t?? ?????s??? t?f?? ?????? ??sa? ?a? t?? ?e???? ??a?e?? ??? ?p?t?e?e, etc.

Compare Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 22.

[258] Plutarch, Dion, c. 53; Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 6.

[259] Cornel. Nepos, Dion, c. 7.

[260] Cornelius Nepos, Dion. c. 7. “Insuetus male audiendi,” etc.

[261] Plutarch, Dion, c. 56. ???? ? ?? ????, ?p? t??? ?at? t?? ??a??e?d?? ????e???, ?a? t?? f???? ??e????, ?? t??a t?? ??? ?a? t?? p???e?? a?t? ????da p???e?????, d?s?e?a???? ?e? ?a? a????e??? e?pe?, ?t? p??????? ?d? ???s?e?? ?t???? ?st? ?a? pa???e?? t? ??????? sf?tte?? a?t??, e? ??? de?se? ? ???? t??? ??????? ???? ?a? t??? f????? f??att?e???.

Compare Plutarch, Apophthegm. p. 176 F.

[262] Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 333 F.: compare Plutarch. Dion. c. 17, 28, 54.

AthenÆus, on the contrary, states that Kallippus was a pupil of Plato, and fellow pupil with Dion in the school (AthenÆus, xi. p. 508).

The statement of Plato hardly goes so far as to negative the supposition that Kallippus may have frequented his school and received instruction there, for a time greater or less. But it refutes the idea, that the friendship of Dion and Kallippus arose out of these philosophical tastes common to both; which AthenÆus seems to have intended to convey.

[263] Plutarch, Dion, c. 54; Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 8.

[264] Plutarch, Dion. c. 56.

[265] Plato alludes to the two brothers whom Dion made his friends at Athens, and who ultimately slew him; but without mentioning the name of either (Plato, Epistol. vii. p. 333 F.).

The third Athenian—whose fidelity he emphatically contrasts with the falsehood of these two—appears to mean, himself—Plato. Compare pp. 333 and 334.

[266] Plutarch, Dion, c. 57; Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 9; Diodor. xvi. 31.

[267] Herodotus, v. 66. ?ss??e??? d? ? ??e?s????? t?? d??? p??seta????eta?.

[268] Cicero de Officiis, ii. 7. “Acriores morsus intermissÆ libertatis quam retentÆ.”

[269] Cornelius Nepos, Dion, c. 10.

[270] Plutarch, Dion, c. 56, 57.

[271] Plutarch, Dion, c. 58.

[272] Plutarch, Dion, c. 58.

[273] Plutarch, Dion, c. 58; Diodor. xvi. 31-36.

[274] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 11; Plutarch, compar. Timoleon and Paul Emil, c. 2.

[275] This seems to result from Plutarch, Dion, c. 58, compared with Diodor. xvi. 36.

[276] Plato, Epistol. viii. p. 353, 355, 356.

[277] Plato, Epist. viii. 356 B. ??e?? d? pat??da ?a? ?e??? ??e?ape?s?a? ?a? t?f???, etc.

[278] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 1.

[279] Plato, Epistol. viii. p. 353 F. ... d????s?a? d? ?p? t?? ?????? t??t?? ?a? t? t??a?????? ?pa? ?a? t? d??t???? ?????, ??e? d?, ??? pe? t?? e???t?? ?????ta? t? ?a? ?pe??t??, s?ed?? e?? ????a? t?? ????????? f???? S??e??a p?sa, F??????? ? ?p???? etaa???sa e?? t??a d??aste?a? ?a? ???t??. ???t?? d? ??? p?s? p?????? p??ta? t??? ?????a? t??e?? f??a???.

[280] Plato, Epistol. viii. p. 356.

[281] Herodot. iv. 161.

[282] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 1.

[283] Aristotle and Theopompus, ap. AthenÆum, x. p. 435, 436; Theopomp. Fragm. 146, 204, 213, ed. Didot.

[284] Aristotel. Politic. v. 6, 7.

[285] Strabo, vi. p. 258.

[286] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 11; Compar. Timoleon and Paul. Emil. c. 2; Theopompus ap. AthenÆ. xii. p. 536; Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. PrÆcept. p. 821 D. About the two citadels in Lokri, see Livy, xxix. 6.

It may have been probably a predatory fleet in the service of the younger Dionysius, which Livy mentions to have been ravaging about this time the coast of Latium, coÖperating with the Gauls against portions of the Roman territory (Livy, vii. 25, 26).

[287] It would appear that relations of amity, or amicable dependence, still subsisted between Dionysius the younger and the Tarentines. There was seen, in the prytaneum or government-house of Tarentum, a splendid chandelier with three hundred and sixty-five burners, a present from Dionysius (Euphorion, ap. AthenÆum, xv. p. 700).

[288] Strabo, vi. p. 259, 260; AthenÆus, xii. p. 541.

[289] Diodor. xvi. 67.

[290] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 2.

[291] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 3.

[292] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 3. ???? ?e?? t????, ?? ????e?, e?? ???? ?a???t?? t? ?????p?, etc.

[293] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 3 ... f???pat??? d? ?a? p???? d?afe???t??, ?sa ? sf?d?a ?s?t??a???? e??a? ?a? ?s?p??????.

[295] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 4. At what time this battle took place cannot be made out.

[296] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 4. ?pe? d? ?? ?????????, ded??te? ? p????e? ??a ?a? p??te??? ?p? t?? s????? ?p?a???te? t?? p????, etc.

The Corinthians were carrying on war, in conjunction with Athens and Sparta, against Thebes, when (in 366 B.C.) the Athenians laid their plan for seizing the city. The Corinthians, having heard of it in time, took measures to frustrate it. See Xenophon, Hellen. vii. 4, 4-5.

[297] Aristotel. Politic, v. 5, 9.

[298] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 4. s?????? ??e??? ????t??? t?? p??t?? p???t??, ???de??e? a?t?? ?a?t?? t??a????.

Diodorus (xvi. 65) coincides in the main fact—but differs in several details.

[299] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 4. a???? ???? p??? t?? ?de?f??, etc.

[300] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 4; Cornelius Nepos, Timol. c. 1; Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. PrÆcept. p. 808 A. That Telekleides was present and took part in the deed—though Plutarch directly names only Æschylus and Orthagoras—seems to be implied in an indirect allusion afterwards (c. 7), where Telekleides says to Timoleon after his nomination to the Sicilian command, ?? ??? ?a??? ?????s?? t??a???? ????????a? d???e?? ?? d? fa????, ?de?f??.

The presence of the prophet seems to show, that they had just been offering sacrifice, to ascertain the will of the gods respecting what they were about to do.

Nepos says that Timoleon was not actually present at the moment of his brother’s death, but stood out of the room to prevent assistance from arriving.

Diodorus (xvi. 65) states that Timoleon slew his brother in the market place. But the account of Plutarch appears preferable.

[301] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 5.

[302] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 7.

[303] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 7. Diodorus (xvi. 65) states this striking antithesis as if it was put by the senate to Timoleon, on conferring upon him the new command. He represents the application from Syracuse as having come to Corinth shortly after the death of Timophanes, and while the trial of Timoleon was yet pending. He says that the senate nominated Timoleon to the command, in order to escape the necessity of pronouncing sentence one way or the other.

I follow the account of Plutarch, as preferable, in recognizing a long interval between the death of Timophanes and the application from Syracuse an interval of much mental suffering to Timoleon.

[304] Herodot. vii. 155.

[305] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 8, 11, 12, 30; Diodor, xvi. 66; Plutarch, Ser. Num. Vind. p. 552. In the Aristotelian treatise, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, s. 9, Timoleon is said to have had nine ships.

[306] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 7.

[307] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 8; Diodor. xvi. 66.

[308] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 9; Diodor. xvi. 68.

[309] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 10.

[310] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 10, 11.

[311] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 11.

[312] Diodor. xvi. 67.

[313] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 13-24; Diodor. xvi. 72.

[314] Diodor. xvi. 82.

[315] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 11.

[316] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 12; Diodor. xvi. 68. Diodorus and Plutarch agree in the numbers both of killed and of prisoners on the side of Hiketas.

[317] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 12.

[318] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 13; Diodor. xvi. 69.

[319] Diodor. xvi. 68, 69. That Timoleon marched up to Syracuse, is stated by Diodorus, though not by Plutarch. I follow Diodorus so far; because it makes the subsequent proceedings in regard to Dionysius more clear and intelligible.

But Diodorus adds two further matters, which cannot be correct. He affirms that Timoleon pursued Hiketas at a running pace (d??a???) immediately from the field of battle at Adranum to Syracuse; and that he then got possession of the portion of Syracuse called EpipolÆ.

Now it was with some difficulty that Timoleon could get his troops even up to the field of battle at Adranum, without some previous repose; so long and fatiguing was the march which they had undergone from Tauromenium. It is therefore impossible that they can have been either inclined or competent to pursue (at a rapid pace) Hiketas immediately from the field of battle at Adranum to Syracuse.

Next, it will appear from subsequent operations, that Timoleon did not, on this occasion, get possession of any other portion of Syracuse than the Islet Ortygia, surrendered to him by Dionysius. He did not enter EpipolÆ until afterwards.

[320] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 13. ?pe?????? ?d? ta?? ??p?s? ?a? ????? ?p???p?? ??p??????e?s?a?, etc.

[321] Tacitus, Histor. iii. 70. Respecting the last days of the Emperor Vitellius, “Ipse, neque jubendi neque vetandi potens, non jam Imperator, sed tantum belli causa erat.”

[322] See, among other illustrations of this fact, the striking remark of Solon (Plutarch, Solon, c. 14).

[323] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 13; Diodor. xvi. 70. Diodorus appears to me to misdate these facts; placing the capitulation of Dionysius and the surrender of Ortygia to Timoleon, after the capture of the other portion of Syracuse by Timoleon. I follow Plutarch’s chronology, which places the capitulation of Ortygia first.

[324] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 16.

[325] Theopompus stated that Dionysius had gone from Sicily to Corinth in a merchant ship (??? st???????). TimÆus contradicted this assertion seemingly with his habitual asperity, and stated that Dionysius had been sent in a ship of war (??? a???). See TimÆus, Fragment 133; Theopompus, Fragm. 216, ed. Didot.

Diodorus (xvi. 70) copies Theopompus.

Polybius (xii. 4 a) censures TimÆus for cavilling at such small inaccuracies, as if the difference between the two were not worth noticing. Probably the language of TimÆus may have deserved blame as ill-mannered; but the matter of fact appears to me to have been perfectly worth correcting. To send Dionysius in a trireme, was treating him as prisoner in a respectful manner, which Timoleon was doubtless bound to do; and which he would be inclined to do on his own account—seeing that he had a strong interest in making the entry of Dionysius as a captive into Corinth, an impressive sight. Moreover the trireme would reach Corinth more speedily than the merchantman.

That Dionysius should go in a merchant-ship, was one additional evidence of fallen fortune; and this seems to have been the reason why it was taken up by Theopompus—from the passion, prevalent among so many Greek authors, for exaggerating contrasts.

[326] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 13, 14, 15.

[327] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 14; Diodor. xvi. 70. The remarks of Tacitus upon the last hours of the Emperor Vitellius have their application to the Greek feeling on this occasion (Histor. iii. 68):—“Nec quisquam adeo rerum humanarum immemor, quem non commoveret illa facies; Romanum principem, et generis humani paulo ante dominum, relict fortunÆ suÆ sede, exire de imperio. Nihil tale viderant, nihil audierant,” etc.

[328] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 14; Theopomp. Fragm. 217, ed. Didot.; Justin xxi. 5.

[329] TimÆus, ap. Polybium. xii. 24.

[330] Plutarch, Timol. c. 14; Cicero, Tuscul. Disp. iii. 12, 7. His remark, that Dionysius opened the school from anxiety still to have the pleasure of exercising authority, can hardly be meant as serious.

We cannot suppose that Dionysius in his exile at Corinth suffered under any want of a comfortable income: for it is mentioned, that all his movable furniture (?p?s?e??) was bought by his namesake Dionysius, the fortunate despot of the Pontic Herakleia; and this furniture was so magnificent, that the acquisition of it is counted among the peculiar marks of ornament and dignity to the Herakleotic dynasty:—see the Fragments of the historian Memnon of Herakleia, ch. iv. p. 10, ed. Orell. apud Photium Cod. 224.

[331] Aristoxenus, Fragm. 15, ed. Didot. ap. AthenÆum, p. 545. de?te??? d?, f?s?, t?? ??te??? t??a???? ?e?? t?? ??, ?a?pe? p??? ?e?p?e???.

One sees that the word t??a???? was used even by those who intended no unfriendly sense—applied by an admiring envoy to his master.

[332] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 15. Aristoxenus heard from Dionysius at Corinth the remarkable anecdote about the faithful attachment of the two Pythagorean friends, Damon and Phintias. Dionysius had been strongly impressed with the incident, and was fond of relating it (p??????? ??? d???e?t?, Aristoxen. Fragm. 9, ed. Didot; apud Jamblichum Vit. Pythag. s. 233).

[333] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 16.

[334] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 13.

[335] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 18.

[336] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 16.

[337] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 18. ... ? d? ????????? ????, ?at?d?? ?p? t?? ???a? t??? ?p??e?e?????? t?? p??e??? ????? ?a? ?e??? f???tt??ta?, ??a?f??? ???pese d?espa?????? a?t???? ?a? t??? ?? ??e???, t??? d? t?e??e???, ????t?se ?a? ?at?s?e t?? ?e?????? ???ad????, ? ???t?st?? ?d??e? ?a? ???a?st?tat?? ?p???e?? t?? S??a???s??? ???? p??e??, t??p?? t??a s???e????? ?a? s?????s???? ?? p?e????? p??e??. ??p???sa? d? ?a? s?t?? ?a? ????t?? ??? ?f??e t?? t?p??, ??d? ??e????se p???? ?p? t?? ???a?, ???? f?a??e??? t?? pe?????? t?? ???ad???? ?a? s????a? t??? ???as? p??? t?? ????p????, d?ef??atte.

[338] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 19.

[339] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 20.

[340] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 20.

[341] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 21. The account given by Plutarch of Timoleon’s attack is very intelligible. He states that the side of EpipolÆ fronting southwards or towards the river Anapus was the strongest.

Saverio Cavallari (Zur Topographie von Syrakus, p. 22) confirms this, by remarking that the northern side of EpipolÆ, towards Trogilus, is the weakest, and easiest for access or attack.

We thus see that EpipolÆ was the last portion of Syracuse which Timoleon mastered—not the first portion, as Diodorus states (xvi. 69).

[342] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 21.

[343] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 20, 21. Diodorus also implies the same verdict (xvi. 69), though his account is brief as well as obscure.

[344] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 21. ?? ?? ????a? t?? p???? (Syracuse) ?at? ???a? ?a? ?e??s?a? ta???? ?p??e????? ??pes??t?? t?? p??e???, d??a??? ??a?e??a? t? t?? a?????? ??d?a?a??? ?a? t? de???t?t? t?? st?at????? t? d? ? ?p??a?e?? t??a ?d? t?????a? t?? ?????????, ?d??? ????? a?t?? ? ???????t?? ?pede??at? t???, ?a??pe? d?a??????? p??? t?? ??et?? t?? ??d???, ??a t?? ?pa???????? a?t?? t? a?a????e?a ????? ?? p???a??e??? ?a????s??.

[345] Homer, Odyss. iii. 219 (Nestor addressing Telemachus).

[346] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 36. et? t?? ?a??? p??? t? ??d??? ????sa (? ???????t?? st?at???a) fa??eta?, t??? e? ?a? d??a??? ???????????, ?? t???? ?????, ???? ??et?? e?t????s??.

[347] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 36; Cornelius Nepos, Timoleon, c. 4; Plutarch, De Sui Laude, p. 542 E.

[348] Solon, Fragm. 26, ed. Schneid.; Plutarch, Solon, c. 14.

[349] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 22. Ge??e??? d? t?? ????? ??????, ??? ?pa?e ????? ta?t? p????, ??d? ?fe?sat? t?? t?p?? d?? t? ?????? ?a? t?? p???t??e?a? t?? ?atas?e???, ???? t?? ??e???? d?aa???sa?, e?t? ?p???sasa? ?p???a? f??a??e???, ??????e t?? S??a??s??? t?? ????e??? pa?e??a? et? s?d???? ?a? s??ef?ptes?a? t?? t??a?????? ????t??. ?? d? p??te? ????sa?, ????? ??e??e??a? p???s?e??? ea??t?t?? t? ?????a ?a? t?? ???a? ??e????, ?? ???? t?? ???a?, ???? ?a? t?? ????a? ?a? t? ??ata t?? t??????? ???t?e?a? ?a? ?at?s?a?a?. ????? d? t?? t?p?? s???a???a?, ?????d??se t? d??ast???a, ?a????e??? t??? p???ta??, ?a? t?? t??a???d?? ?pe?t??a? p???? t?? d????at?a?.

Compare Cornelius Nepos, Timoleon, c. 3.

[350] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 23; Diodor. xvi. 83.

[351] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 23.

[352] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 24.

[353] Diodor. xiii. 35; xvi. 81.

[354] Diodor. xvi. 70.

[355] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 23; Dion Chrysostom, Orat. xxxvii. p. 460.

[356] Compare the case of the Corinthian proclamation respecting Epidamnus, Thucyd. i. 27; the LacedÆmonian foundation of Herakleia, Thucyd. iii. 93; the proclamation of the Battiad Arkesilaus at Samos, for a new body of settlers to KyrÊnÊ (Herodot. iv. 163).

[357] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 23. Diodorus states only five thousand (xvi. 82) as coming from Corinth.

[358] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 23. To justify his statement of this large total, Plutarch here mentions (I wish he did so oftener) the author from whom he copied it—Athanis, or Athanas. That author was a native Syracusan, who wrote a history of Syracusan affairs from the termination of the history of Philistus in 363 or 362 B.C., down to the death of Timoleon in 337 B.C.; thus including all the proceedings of Dion and Timoleon. It is deeply to be lamented that nothing remains of his work (Diodor. xv. 94; Fragment. Historic. GrÆc. ed. Didot, vol. ii. p. 81). His name seems to be mentioned in Theopompus (Fr. 212, ed. Didot) as joint commander of the Syracusan troops, along with Herakleides.

[359] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 23. ?a? ?e??????? a?t??? ??a??s?????? t? p?????, ?? ??a??? e????e, t?? ?? ???a? d???e?e, t?? d? ????a? ?p?d?t? ?????? ta???t??, ?a ?? ?p??e?p?e??? t??? ???a???? S??a???s???? ????e?s?a? t?? a?t??, ?a d? ????t?? e?p???a? t? d?? ??a??e??? ??t?? pe????? ?a? p??? t???a ?a? p??? t?? p??e??, ?ste, etc.

Diodorus (xvi. 82) affirms that forty thousand new settlers were admitted e?? t?? S??a???s?a? t?? ?d?a??et??, and that ten thousand were settled in the fine and fertile territory of Agyrium. This latter measure was taken certainly, after the despot of Agyrium had been put down by Timoleon. We should have been glad to have an explanation of t?? S??a???s?a? t?? ?d?a??et??: in the absence of information, conjecture as to the meaning is vain.

[360] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 24.

[361] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 30. Diodor. (xvi. 72) does not mention that Hiketas submitted at all. He states that Timoleon was repulsed in attacking Leontini; and that Hiketas afterwards attacked Syracuse, but was repulsed with loss, during the absence of Timoleon in his expedition against Leptines.

[362] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 24; Diodor. xvi. 73.

[363] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 25; Diodor. xvi. 77. They agree in the main about the numerical items, and seem to have copied from the same authority.

[364] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 27; Diodor. xvi. 80.

[365] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 25; Diodor. xvi. 78. Diodorus gives the total of Timoleon’s force at twelve thousand men; Plutarch at only six thousand. The larger total appears to me most probable, under the circumstances. Plutarch seems to have taken account only of the paid force who were with Timoleon at Syracuse, and not to have enumerated that other division, which, having been sent to ravage the Carthaginian province, had been compelled to retire and rejoin Timoleon when the great Carthaginian host landed.

Diodorus and Plutarch follow in the main the same authorities respecting this campaign.

[366] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 30.

[367] The anecdote about the parsley is given both in Plutarch (Timol. c. 26) and Diodorus (xvi. 79).

The upper portion of the river KrimÊsus, near which this battle was fought, was in the mountainous region called by Diodorus ? Se??????t?a d?s????a: through which lay the road between Selinus and Panormus (Diodor. xxiii. Frag. p. 333, ed. Wess.).

[368] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 27. ?sta???? ?????? ??a?—?????t? ??? Ta????????, etc.

[369] Of these war-chariots they are said to have had not less than two thousand, in the unsuccessful battle which they fought against Agathokles in Africa, near Carthage (Diodor. xx. 10).

After the time of Pyrrhus, they came to employ tame elephants trained for war.

[370] It appears from Polybius that TimÆus ascribed to Timoleon, immediately before this battle, an harangue which Polybius pronounces to be absurd and unsuitable (TimÆus, Fr. 134, ed. Didot; Polyb. xii. 26 a).

[371] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 27. ??a?a?? t?? ?sp?da ?a? ??sa? ?pes?a? ?a? ?a??e?? t??? p????? ?d??e? ?pe?f?e? f??? ?a? e????? ?e???s?a? t?? s???????, e?te t? p??e? pa?? t?? ????a ?a? t?? ?????s?as?? ??t? d?ate???e???, e?te da?????? t????, ?? t??? p?????? t?te pa??st?, s??ep?f?e??a????.

[372] Diodor. xvi. 79. ?e??e?????t? ??? ??e?p?st?? t?? p??e???, ?? ???? d?? t?? ?d?a? ??d?a?a??a?, ???? ?a? d?? t?? t?? ?e?? s??e???a?.

[373] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 27, 28; Diodor. xvi. 79, 80.

[374] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 29; Diodor. xvi. 80, 81.

[375] Diodor. xvi. 81. ??sa?t? d? a?t??? ?at?p????? ?a? d??? ?ate??e?, ?ste ? t???? e?? t?? ?a?? ?a??e??, ?d? ?p?p?e?? e?? t?? ?????, ?? d?? t?? t?? ?e?? ????t???t?ta p??? a?t??? ?p? t?? ?????? pe?????? ?atap???s??????. Compare the account of the religious terror of the Carthaginians, after their defeat by Agathokles (Diodor. xx. 14).

So, in the argument between Andokides and his accusers, before the Dikastery at Athens—the accusers contend that Andokides clearly does not believe in the gods, because, after the great impiety which he has committed, he has still not been afraid afterwards to make sea voyages (Lysias, cont. Andokid. s. 19).

On the other hand, Andokides himself argues triumphantly, from the fact of his having passed safely through sea voyages in the winter, that he is not an object of displeasure to the gods.

“If the gods thought that I had wronged them, they would not have omitted to punish me, when they caught me in the greatest danger. For what danger can be greater than a sea voyage in winter-time? The gods had then both my life and my property in their power; and yet they preserved me. Was it not then open to them so to manage, as that I should not even obtain interment for my body?....Have the gods then preserved me from the dangers of sea and pirates, merely to let me perish at Athens by the act of my villanous accuser Kephisius? No, Dikasts; the dangers of accusation and trial are human; but the dangers encountered at sea are divine. If, therefore, we are to surmise about the sentiments of the gods, I think they will be extremely displeased and angry, if they see a man, whom they themselves have preserved, destroyed by others.” (Andokides, De Mysteriis, s. 137-139). ??? ?? ??? ????a? ????a? ????e?? t??? t????t??? ???d????? ?????p?????, t??? d? ?at? ???assa? ?e????. ??pe? ??? de? t? t?? ?e?? ?p???e??, p??? ?? a?t??? ??a? ??? ?????es?a? ?a? ??a?a?te??, e? t??? ?f? ?a?t?? s????????, ?p? ????? ?p????????? ???e?.

Compare Plutarch, Paul. Emil. c. 36. ???sta ?at? p???? ?ded?e?? t?? eta???? t?? da?????, etc.

[376] Claudian, De Tertio Consulatu Honorii, v. 93.

Compare a passage in the speech of Thrasybulus, Xenoph. Hellen. ii. 4, 14.

[377] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 29; Diodor. xvi. 80.

[378] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 30; Diodor. xvi. 82.

[379] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 30. ?? ?? ?a? ???sta t?? ???????t?? e?t???a? s???? ?e??s?a? d??????.... ??? ?? ??? p??? ???????ta t?? ?e?? e???e?a?, ??? ?tt?? ?? a?? p??s?????se p???es?? ? pe?? ?? ?at?????, ?a???es?a? s???a??e?.

Compare Plutarch, De Ser Num. Vind. p. 552 F.

[380] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 31.

[381] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 33.

[382] Diodor. xv. 17. Minoa (Herakleia) was a Carthaginian possession when Dion landed (Plutarch, Dion, c. 25).

Cornelius Nepos (Timoleon, c. 2) states erroneously, that the Carthaginians were completely expelled from Sicily by Timoleon.

[383] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 34; Diodor. xvi. 82.

[384] Diodor. xiii. 114.

[385] Cornelius Nepos (Timoleon, c. 2) calls Mamerkus an Italian general who had come into Sicily to aid the despots. It is possible enough that he may have been an Italiot Greek; for he must have been a Greek, from the manner in which Plutarch speaks of his poetical compositions.

[386] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 37.

[387] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 31.

[388] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 34.

[389] Diodor. xvi. 82.

[390] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 37. ?? d? ?pa????e? e?? S??a???sa?, e???? ?p???s?a? t?? ??a???a? ?a? pa?a?te?s?a? t??? p???ta?, t?? p?a??t?? e?? t? ?????st?? ????t?? t????.

[391] Plutarch, l. c. e???? ?p???s?a? t?? ??a???a?: compare c. 22.

[392] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 36.

[393] Plato, Epistol. viii. p. 353 F.

[394] Diodor. xvi. 65, 82; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 35.

[395] Eight years elapsed from the time when Timoleon departed with his expedition from Corinth to the time of his death; from 345-344 B.C. to 337-336 B.C. (Diodorus, xvi. 90; Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 37).

The battle of the KrimÊsus is assigned by Diodorus to 340 B.C. But as to the other military achievements of Timoleon in Sicily, Diodorus and Plutarch are neither precise, nor in accordance with each other.

[397] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 35. ??? ?? ???? ?sf??e?a? ?? p????? t?s??t?? ?a? ?a????? ?d???????? pa?e??e?, ???? ?a? t???a pa?as?e??sa? ?a? s?p??????e?? ?spe? ????st?? ??ap?t?. ?a? t?? ????? d? d?a?e????? ????? p??? a?t??, ?? p????? t?? ??s??, ?? ???? ??s??, ?? ???a? ?at????s??, ?? p???te?a? d??ta???, ?d??e? ?a??? ??e??, ?? ??e???? ? p??s??a?t? ?d? ?ata??s?se?e?, ?spe? ???? s??te?????? d???????? ?p??e?? t??a ????? ?e?f??? ?a? p??p??sa?.

Compare Cornelius Nepos, Timoleon, c. 3.

[398] Diodor. xvi. 70; Cicero in Verrem, ii. 51.

[399] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 38.

[400] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 38. ?p? d? t?? ????a? ?e??? ?d??s?e??? ??t?at?a? ???se?, a?t?? d? t?? ????a? ?e?? ?a???? ?a?????se?.

Cornelius Nepos, Timoleon, c. 4; Plutarch, Reip. Gerend. PrÆcept. p. 816 D.

The idea of ??t?at?a is not the same as that of ????, though the word is sometimes translated as if it were. It is more nearly the same as ??a?? ????—though still, as it seems to me, not exactly the same.

[401] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 38; Cornel. Nepos, Timoleon, c. 4.

[402] It occurs in Cornelius Nepos prior to Plutarch, and was probably copied by both from the same authority.

[403] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 37; Cornelius Nepos, Timoleon, c. 5.

[404] Xenoph. Œconomic. xxi. 12. ?? ??? p??? ?? d??e? ???? t??t? t? ??a??? ?????p???? e??a?, ???? ?e???, t? ??e???t?? ???e??? saf?? d? d?d?ta? t??? ???????? s?f??s??? tete?es?????. ?? d? ????t?? t??a??e?? d?d?as??, ?? ??? d??e?, ??? ?? ????ta? ?????? e??a? ??te?e??, ?spe? ? ???ta??? ?? ?d?? ???eta? t?? ?e? ?????? d?at??e??, f???e??? ? d?? ?p?????.

[405] Diodor. xvi. 83.

[406] Plutarch. Timoleon, c. 39. ?? t??a?t? d? ????t??f??e??? t?? et? e????a?, ?spe? pat?? ??????, ?? ????? p??f?se?? t? ????? s??efa?a???? ?te?e?t?se?.

[407] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 39; Diodor, xvi. 90.

[408] Plutarch. Timoleon, c. 36. ? ???sta ?????e?? ?p? ???????t?? ?pae????da?, etc.

Polybius reckons Hermokrates, Timoleon, and Pyrrhus, to be the most complete men of action (p?a?at???t?t???) of all those who had played a conspicuous part in Sicilian affairs (Polyb. xii. 25. ed. Didot).

[409] Demosthenes, Orat. pro Megalopolit. p. 203, 204, s. 6-10; p. 206. s. 18—and indeed the whole Oration, which is an instructive exposition of policy.

[410] Xen. Hellen. vii. 4, 6, 10.

[411] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 23; vii 5, 4. Diodor. xv. 62. The Akarnanians had been allies of Thebes at the time of the first expedition of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus; whether they remained so at the time of his last expedition, is not certain. But as the Theban ascendency over Thessaly was much greater at the last of those two periods than at the first, we may be sure that they had not lost their hold upon the Lokrians and Malians who (as well as the Phokians) lay between Boeotia and Thessaly.

[412] Vol. X. Ch. lxxvii. p. 161; Ch. lxxviii. p. 195; Ch. lxxx. p. 312.

[413] Orchomenus was conterminous with the Phokian territory (Pausanias, ix. 39, 1.)

[414] Isokrates, Or. viii. De Pace, s. 21; Demosthenes adv. Leptinem, p. 490. s. 121; pro Megalopol. p. 208. s. 29; Philippic ii. p. 69. s. 15.

[415] Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 5, 4; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 35. Wachsmuth states, in my judgment, erroneously, that Thebes was disappointed in her attempt to establish ascendency in Thessaly (Hellenisch. AlterthÜmer, vol. ii. x. p. 338).

[416] Plato, Kriton, p. 53 D; Xenoph. Memorab. i. 2. 24; Demosthen. Olynth. i. p. 15. s. 23; Demosth. cont. Aristokratem, p. 658. s. 133.

“Pergit ire (the Roman consul Quinctius Flamininus) in Thessaliam: ubi non liberandÆ modo civitates erant, sed ex omni colluvione et confusione in aliquam tolerabilem formam redigendÆ. Nec enim temporum modo vitiis, ac violenti et licenti regi (i. e. the Macedonian) turbati erant; sed inquieto etiam ingenio gentis, nec comitia, nec conventum nec concilium ullum, non per seditionem et tumultum, jam inde a principio ad nostram usque Ætatem, traducentis” (Livy, xxxiv. 51).

[417] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 19.

[418] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4, 32.

[419] Demosthenes adv. Polyklem. p. 1207. s. 5, 6; Diodor. xv. 61-95. See my previous Volume X. Ch. lxxx. p. 370.

[420] I concur with Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hellen. ad. ann. 359 B.C., and Appendix, c. 15) in thinking that this is the probable date of the assassination of Alexander of PherÆ; which event is mentioned by Didorus (xvi. 14) under the year 357-356 B.C., yet in conjunction with a series of subsequent events, and in a manner scarcely constraining us to believe that he meant to affirm the assassination itself as having actually taken place in that year.

To the arguments adduced by Mr. Clinton, another may be added, borrowed from the expression of Plutarch (Pelopidas, c. 35) ?????? ?ste???. He states that the assassination of Alexander occurred “a little while” after the period when the Thebans, avenging the death of Pelopidas, reduced that despot to submission. Now this reduction cannot be placed later than 363 B.C. That interval therefore which Plutarch calls “a little while,” will be three years, if we place the assassination in 359 B.C., six years, if we place it in 357-356 B.C. Three years is a more suitable interpretation of the words than six years.

[421] Xenoph. Hiero, i. 38; ii. 10; iii. 8.

[422] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4, 36, 37; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 35; Conon, ap. Photium, Narr. 50. Codex, 186; Cicero, de Offic. ii. 7. The details of the assassination, given in these authors, differ. I have principally followed Xenophon, and have admitted nothing positively inconsistent with his statements.

[423] Justin, vii. 5; Diodor. xvi. 2. The allusion in the speech of Philotas immediately prior to his execution (Curtius, vi. 43. p. 591, MÜtzell) supports the affirmation of Justin—that Perdikkas was assassinated.

[424] Antipater (the general of Philip and viceroy of his son Alexander in Macedonia) is said to have left an historical work, ?e?d????? p???e?? ????????? (Suidas, v. ??t?pat???), which can hardly refer to any other Perdikkas than the one now before us.

[425] AthenÆus, xi. p. 506 E. ???t??, ?? Spe?s?pp?? f?s? f??tat?? ??ta ???e???, etc.

[426] Diogenes Laert. v. 1, 1.

[427] AthenÆus, xi. p. 506 E. p. 508 E. The fourth among the letters of Plato (alluded to by Diogenes Laert. iii. 62) is addressed to Perdikkas partly in recommendation and praise of EuphrÆus. There appears nothing to prove it to be spurious; but whether it be spurious or genuine, the fact that Plato corresponded with Perdikkas is sufficiently probable.

[428] Justin, vi. 9; vii. 5. “Philippus obses triennio Thebis habitus,” etc.

Compare Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 26; Diodor. xv. 67; xvi. 2; and the copious note of Wesseling upon the latter passage. The two passages of Diodorus are not very consistent; in the latter, he states that Philip had been deposited at Thebes by the Illyrians, to whom he had been made over as a hostage by his father Amyntas. This is highly improbable; as well for other reasons (assigned by Wesseling), as because the Illyrians, if they ever received him as a hostage, would not send him to Thebes, but keep him in their own possession. The memorable interview described by Æschines—between the Athenian general Iphikrates and the Macedonian queen EurydikÊ with her two youthful sons Perdikkas and Philip—must have taken place some time before the death of Ptolemy Alorites, and before the accession of Perdikkas. The expressions of Æschines do not, perhaps, necessarily compel us to suppose the interview to have taken place immediately after the death of Alexander (Æschines, Fal. Leg. p. 31, 32): yet it is difficult to reconcile the statement of the orator with the recognition of three years’ continuous residence at Thebes. Flathe (Geschichte Makedoniens, vol. i. p. 39-47) supposes Æschines to have allowed himself an oratorical misrepresentation, when he states that Philip was present in Macedonia at the interview with Iphikrates. This is an unsatisfactory mode of escaping from the difficulty; but the chronological statements, as they now stand, can hardly be all correct. It is possible that Philip may have gone again back to Thebes, or may have been sent back, after the interview with Iphikrates; we might thus obtain a space of three years for his stay, at two several times, in that city. We are not to suppose that his condition at Thebes was one of durance and ill-treatment. See Mr. Clinton, Fast. Hell. App. iv. p. 229.

[429] AthenÆus, xi. p. 506. d?at??f?? d? ??ta??a d??a?? (Philippus), etc. About Derdas, see Xenoph. Hellen. v. 2, 38.

[430] It was in after times a frequent practice with the Roman Senate, when imposing terms of peace on kings half-conquered, to require hostages for fidelity, with a young prince of the royal blood among the number; and it commonly happened that the latter, after a few years’ residence at Rome, returned home an altered man on many points.

See the case of Demetrius, younger son of the last Philip of Macedon, and younger brother of Perseus (Livy, xxxiii. 13; xxxix. 53; xl. 5), of the young Parthian princes, Vonones (Tacitus, Annal. ii. 1, 2), Phraates (Tacit. Annal. vi. 32), Meherdates (Tacit. Ann. xii. 10, 11).

[431] Even in the opinion of very competent judges: see Æschines, Fals. Leg. c. 18. p. 253.

[432] Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 26. ????t?? ?e?????a? ?d??e? ?pae????d??, t? pe?? t??? p?????? ?a? t?? st?at???a? d?ast????? ?s?? ?ata???sa?, ? ????? ?? t?? t?? ??d??? ??et?? ?????, etc.

[433] Justin, vii. 4. Menelaus, the father of Amyntas and grandfather of Philip, is stated to have been an illegitimate son; while Amyntas himself is said to have been originally an attendant or slave of Æropus (Ælian, V. H. xii. 43). Our information respecting the relations of the successive kings, and pretenders to the throne, in Macedonia, is obscure and unsatisfactory. Justin (l. c.) agrees with Ælian in calling the father of Amyntas Menelaus; but Dexippus (ap. Syncellum, p. 263) calls him AridÆus; while Diodorus (xiv. 92) calls him Tharraleus.

[434] Justin, xxix. 1.

[435] Diodor xvi. 2; Justin, vii. 5; Quint. Curt. vi. 48, 26.

[436] Justin, vii. 5. Amyntas lived through the reign of Philip, and was afterwards put to death by Alexander, on the charge of conspiracy. See Justin, xii 6; Quintus Curtius, vi. 34, 17; with the note of MÜtzell.

[437] Justin, viii. 3. “Post hÆc Olynthios aggreditur (Philip): receperant enim per misericordiam, post cÆdem unius, duos fratres ejus, quos Philippus, ex noverc genitos, velut participes regni, interficere gestiebat.”

[438] Arrian, Exp. Alex. iv. 11. ?? ??, ???? ??? ?a?ed???? ?????te? d?et??esa? (Alexander and his ancestors before him).

[439] The trial of Philotas, who is accused by Alexander for conspiracy before an assembly of the Macedonian soldiers near to head-quarters, is the example most insisted on of the prevalence of this custom, of public trial in criminal accusations. Quintus Curtius says (vi. 32. 25), “De capitalibus rebus vetusto Macedonum more inquirebat exercitus; in pace erat vulgi: et nihil potestas regum valebat, nisi prius valuisset auctoritas.” Compare Arrian, iii. 26; Diodor. xvii. 79, 80.

That this was an ancient Macedonian custom, in reference to conspicuous persons accused of treason, we may readily believe; and that an officer of the great rank and military reputation of Philotas, if suspected of treason, could hardly be dealt with in any other way. If he was condemned, all his relatives and kinsmen, whether implicated or not, became involved in the same condemnation. Several among the kinsmen of Philotas either fled or killed themselves; and Alexander then issued an edict pardoning them all, except Parmenio; who was in Media, and whom he sent secret orders instantly to despatch. If the proceedings against Philotas, as described by Curtius, are to be taken as correct, it is rather an appeal made by Alexander to the soldiery, for their consent to his killing a dangerous enemy, than an investigation of guilt or innocence.

Olympias, during the intestine contests which followed after the death of Alexander, seems to have put to death as many illustrious Macedonians as she chose, without any form of trial. But when her enemy Kassander got the upper hand, subdued and captured her, he did not venture to put her to death without obtaining the consent of a Macedonian assembly (Diodor. xix. 11, 51; Justin, xiv. 6; Pausanias, i. 11, 2). These Macedonian assemblies, insofar as we read of them, appear to be summoned chiefly as mere instruments to sanction some predetermined purpose of the king or the military leader predominant at the time. Flathe (Geschicht. Makedon. p. 43-45) greatly overrates, in my judgment, the rights and powers enjoyed by the Macedonian people.

[440] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 6, 16.

[441] Diodor. xvi. 2, 3.

[442] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 660. s. 144.

[443] Diodor. xvi. 3; Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 660 ut sup. t?? ?et???? t???? p???t??, etc. Justin, vii 6.

[444] Diodor. xvi. 3.

[445] Diodor. xvi. 4.

[446] See the remarks of Niebuhr, on these migrations of Gallic tribes from the west, and their effect upon the prior population established between the Danube and the Ægean Sea (Niehbuhr, VortrÄge Über alte Geschichte, vol. iii. p. 225, 281; also the earlier work of the same author—Kleine Schriften, Untersuchungen Über die Geschichte der Skythen, p. 375).

[447] Theopompus, Fragm. 35, ed. Didot; Cicero de Officiis, ii. 11; Diodor. xvi. 4.

[448] Arrian, vii. 9, 2, 3.

[449] Diodor. xvi. 4-8. Frontinus (Strategem. ii. 3, 2) mentions a battle gained by Philip against the Illyrians; wherein, observing that their chosen troops were in the centre, he placed his own greatest strength in his right wing, attacked and beat their left wing; then came upon their centre in flank and defeated their whole army. Whether this be the battle alluded to, we cannot say. The tactics employed are the same as those of Epaminondas at Leuktra and Mantinea; strengthening one wing peculiarly for the offensive, and keeping back the rest of the army upon the defensive.

[450] See Vol. X. Ch. lxxx. p. 379 seqq.

[451] Demosthenes, Orat. de Chersonese, p. 98, s. 34. f??e ???, p??? ????, e? ????? ??? ?pa?t?se?a? ?? ?????e? ?? ???? pa?e??ate ?a???? d?? ?????a?, etc.

[452] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 23. ???e?? ?p? pas?? t?? p??e??: also vii. 5, 4. ????t??? ???? p??ta? ?a? ????a? (Epaminondas), etc.

Winiewski, in his instructive commentary upon the historical facts of the Oration of Demosthenes de CoronÂ, states erroneously that Euboea continued in the dependence of Athens without interruption from 377 to 358 B.C. (Winiewski, Commentarii Historici et Chronologici in Demosthenis Orationem de CoronÂ, p. 30).

[453] Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 4, 1; Diodor. xv. 76; Demosthen. de CoronÂ, p. 259. s. 123.

[454] Demosthenes, Orat. de Chersones. p. 108. s. 80. t??? ????a? s??e??, ?te T?a??? ?ated??????t? a?t???, etc.: compare Demosthen. de CoronÂ, p. 259. s. 123. T?a??? sfete???????? t?? ????a?, etc.; and Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 397. c. 31. ?pe?d? d???sa? e?? ????a? T?a???, ?atad????sas?a? t?? p??e?? pe???e???, etc.

[455] Demosthen. Orat. de Chersones. p. 108. s. 80. ??p? ??, ???e?es?e, ?f? (Timotheus), T?a???? ????te? ?? ??s?, t? ???ses?e, ?a? t? de? p??e??; ??? ?p??sete t?? ???assa?, ? ??d?e? ????a???, t??????; ??? ??ast??te? ?d? p??e?ses?e e?? t?? ?e??a??; ?? ?a????ete t?? ?a??;

[456] See, in illustration of these delays, Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 50 s. 42.

Any citizen who thought that he had been called upon out of his fair turn to serve a trierarchy or other expensive duty, and that another citizen had been unduly spared, might tender to this latter an exchange of properties, offering to undertake the duty if the other’s property were made over to him. The person, to whom tender was made, was compelled to do one of three things; either, 1. to show, at legal process, that it was not his turn, and that he was not liable; 2. or to relieve the citizen tendering from the trierarchy just imposed upon him; 3. or to accept the exchange, receiving the other’s property, and making over his own property in return; in which case the citizen tendering undertook the trierarchy.

This obligatory exchange of properties, with the legal process attached to it, was called Antidosis.

[457] That Timotheus was commander, is not distinctly stated by Demosthenes, but may be inferred from Plutarch, De Glori Athen. p. 350 F. ?? ? ????e?? ????a? ??e??????, which, in the case of a military man like Timotheus, can hardly allude merely to the speech which he made in the assembly. Diokles is mentioned by Demosthenes as having concluded the convention with the Thebans; but this does not necessarily imply that he was commander: see Demosth. cont. Meidiam, p. 570 s. 219.

About Philinus as colleague of Demosthenes in the trierarchy, see Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, p. 566. s. 204.

[458] Diodorus (xvi. 7) states that the contest in Euboea lasted for some considerable time.

Demosthenes talks of the expedition as having reached its destination in three days, Æschines in five days; the latter states also that within thirty days the Thebans were vanquished and expelled (Demosthenes cont. Androtion. p. 597. s. 17; Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 397. c. 31).

About Chares and the mercenaries, see Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 678. s. 206.

[459] Demosthenes cont. Androtion. p. 616. s. 89; cont. Timokrat. p. 756. s. 205.

[460] Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 401, 403, 404. c. 32. 33; Demosthenes pro Megalopolitan. p. 204. s. 16.

[461] See Vol. X. Ch. lxxx. p. 381, 382.

[462] Demosthenes, De Rhodior. Libertat. p. 194. s. 17. pa??? a?t??? (the Rhodians) ????s? ?a? e?t??s?? a?t?? ??? ?? ?s?? s?a?e??, etc.

[463] Diodor. xv. 95.

[464] Demosthenes, Philip, i. 46. s. 28. ?? ?? d? a?t? ?a?? a?t? t? ?e???? ??? st?ate?eta?, t??? f????? ???? ?a? t??? s??????, ?? d? ?????? e????? t?? d???t?? ?e???as??. ?a? pa?a???a?ta ?p? t?? t?? p??e?? p??e??, p??? ??t?a??? ? pa?ta??? ????? ???eta? p????ta? ? d? st?at???? ???????e?? e???t??? ?? ??? ?st?? ???e?? ? d?d??ta ?s???.

Ibid. p. 53. s. 51. ?p?? d? ?? st?at???? ?a? ??f?sa ?e??? ?a? t?? ?p? t?? ?at?? ??p?da? ??p???te, ??d?? ??? t?? de??t?? ????eta?, ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?ata?e??s??, ?? d? s?a??? te???s? t? d?e? t??? t????t??? ?p?st?????.

Ibid. p. 53. s. 53. ??? d? e?? t???? ??e? t? p???ata a?s?????, ?ste t?? st?at???? ??ast?? d?? ?a? t??? ????eta? pa?? ??? pe?? ?a??t??, p??? d? t??? ??????? ??de?? ??d? ?pa? a?t?? ?????sas?a? pe?? ?a??t?? t???, ???? t?? t?? ??d?ap?d?st?? ?a? ??p?d?t?? ???at?? ????? a?????ta? t?? p??s????t??.

Compare Olynthiac ii. p. 26. s. 28; De Chersoneso, p. 95. s. 24-27, cont. Aristokrat. p. 639. s. 69; De Republ. Ordinand. pe?? S??t??e??, p. 167. s. 7. Also Æschines de Fals. Legat. p. 264. c. 24; Isokrates, De Pace, s. 57. 160.

[465] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 3, 18; vi. 5, 2.

[466] Demosthenes, De Rhodior. Libertat. p. 191. s. 3. ?t??sa?t? ??? ??? ?p????e?e?? a?t??? ???? ?a? ?????t??? ?a? ??d???, ?a? d?? ta?ta s???st?sa? ?f? ??? t?? te?e?ta??? t??t??? p??e??? fa??seta? d? ? ?? p??ta?e?sa? ta?ta ?a? pe?sa? ?a?s????, f???? e??a? f?s??? ??d???, t?? ??e??e??a? a?t?? ?f???????.

[467] Demosthen. de Rhodior. Libert. p. 195. s. 17. p. 198 s. 34; de Pace, p. 63. s. 25; Diodor. xvi. 7.

[468] Demosthen. de Pace, p. 63. s. 25. (??e?) t?? ???a t?? ??s??? ?ata?a??e??, ???? ?a? ??? ?a? ??d??, ?a? ???a?t???? ?at??e?? t? p???a, etc.

Compare Demosthenes adv. Polykl. p. 1207 s. 6. p. 1211. s. 22; adv. Leptinem, p. 475. s. 68.

[469] Thucyd. viii. 15.

[470] The account of this event comes to us in a meagre and defective manner, Diodorus xvi. 7; Cornelius Nepos, Chabrias, c. 4; Plutarch, Phokion, c. 6.

Demosthenes, in an harangue delivered three years afterwards, mentions the death of Chabrias, and eulogizes his conduct at Chios among his other glorious deeds; but gives no particulars (Demosth. cont. Leptin. p. 481, 482).

Cornelius Nepos says that Chabrias was not commander, but only serving as a private soldier on shipboard. I think this less probable than the statement of Diodorus, that he was joint-commander with Chares.

[471] It appears that there was a great and general scarcity of corn during this year 357 B.C. Demosthenes adv. Leptinem, p. 467. s. 38. p??p???s? s?t?de?a? pa?? p?s?? ?????p??? ?e??????, etc. That oration was delivered in 355 B.C.

[472] I follow chiefly the account given of these transactions by Diodorus, meagre and unsatisfactory as it is (xvi. 21). Nepos (Timotheus, c. 3) differs from Diodorus on several points. He states that both Samos and the Hellespont had revolted from Athens; and that the locality in which Chares made his attack, contrary to the judgment of his two colleagues, was near Samos—not in the Hellespont. He affirms farther that Menestheus, son of Iphikrates, was named as colleague of Chares; and that Iphikrates and Timotheus were appointed as advisers of Menestheus.

As to the last assertion—that Timotheus only served as adviser to his junior relative and not as a general formally named—this is not probable in itself; nor seemingly consistent with Isokrates (Or. xv. De Permutat. s. 137), who represents Timotheus as afterwards passing through the usual trial of accountability. Nor can Nepos be correct in saying that Samos had now revolted: for we find it still in possession of Athens after the Social War, and we know that a fresh batch of Athenian Kleruchs were afterwards sent there.

On the other hand, I think Nepos is probably right in his assertion, that the Hellespont now revolted (“descierat Hellespontus”). This is a fact in itself noway improbable, and helping us to understand how it happened that Chares conquered Sestos afterwards in 353 B.C. (Diodor. xvi. 34), and that the Athenians are said to have then recovered the Chersonesus from Kersobleptes.

PolyÆnus (iii. 9, 29) has a story representing the reluctance of Iphikrates to fight, as having been manifested near Embata; a locality not agreeing either with Nepos or with Diodorus. Embata was on the continent of Asia, in the territory of ErythrÆ.

See respecting the relations of Athens with Sestos, my last preceding volume, Vol. X. Ch. lxxx. p. 380 note.

Our evidence respecting this period is so very defective, that nothing like certainty is attainable.

[473] Deinarchus cont. Philokl. s. 17. ??at?? ta???t?? t??sa?te? (????e??), ?t? ???at? a?t?? ???st?f?? ?f? pa?? ???? e???f??a? ?a? ??d???: compare Deinarch. cont. Demosthen. s. 15, where the same charge of bribery is alluded to, though a?t?? ?f? is put in place of a?t?? ???st?f?? ?f?, seemingly by mistake of the transcriber.

[474] See Aristotel. Rhetoric. ii. 24; iii. 10. Quintilian, Inst. Or. v. 12, 10.

[475] Isokrates, Or. xv. (Permutat.) s. 137. e? t?sa?ta? ?? p??e?? ????ta, ?de?a? d? ?p???sa?ta, pe?? p??d?s?a? ?????e (? p???? ????e??), ?a? p???? e? d?d??t?? e????a? a?t??, ?a? t?? ?? p???e?? ?f????t??? ??ade??????, t?? d? ?p?? t?? ????t?? ????? ?e?es????, t??t??? ?? ?p???se, ????e?? d? t?s??t??? ?????se ???as??, ?s??? ??d??a p?p?te t?? p???e?e??????.

[476] Isokrates, Or. xv. (Permutat.) s. 146. ?a?ta d? ?????? ????? ?? ?fas?? e ???e??, ?? ?? ???? t? ?? t?? f?s?? etaa?e??, etc.

Isokrates goes at some length into the subject from s. 137 to s. 147. The discourse was composed seemingly in 353 B.C., about one year after the death of Timotheus, and four years after the trial here described.

[477] Demosthenes cont. Meidiam, p. 534, 535; Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 2. 39.

[478] Dionysius Halikarnass., Judicium de LysiÂ, p. 481; Justin, vi. 5. Aristotle in his Rhetorica borrows several illustrations on rhetorical points from the speeches of Iphikrates; but none from any speeches of Timotheus.

[479] PolyÆnus, iii. 9, 29. That this may have been done with the privity and even by the contrivance of Iphikrates, is probable enough. But it seems to me that any obvious purpose of intimidating the Dikastery would have been likely to do him more harm than good.

[480] Rehdantz (VitÆ Iphicratis, ChabriÆ, et Timothei, p. 224 seqq.), while collecting and discussing instructively all the facts respecting these two commanders, places the date of this memorable trial in the year 354 B.C.; three years after the events to which it relates, and two years after the peace which concluded the Social War. Mr. Clinton (Fast. Hellenici, B.C. 354) gives the same statement. I dissent from their opinion on the date and think that the trial must have occurred very soon after the abortive battle in the Hellespont—that is in 357 B.C. (or 356 B.C.), while the Social War was still going on.

Rehdantz and Mr. Clinton rely on the statement of Dionysius Halikarnass. (De Dinarcho Judicium, p. 667). Speaking of an oration falsely ascribed to Deinarchus, Dionysius says, that it was spoken before the maturity of that orator—e???ta? ??? ?p? t?? st?at???? ??????? ???t??, ?at? t?? ?????? t?? t?? et? ?e?es???? st?at???a?, ?f? ? t?? e????a? ?p?s???, ????. ????e?? d? t?? e????a? ?p?s???e? ?p? ???t???, t?? et? ?a???st?at??, ?te ?a?.... These are the last words in the MS., so that the sentence stands defective; Mr. Clinton supplies ?te?e?t?se?, which is very probable.

The archonship of Diotimus is in 354-353 B.C.; so that Dionysius here states the trial to have taken place in 354 B.C. But on the other hand, the same Dionysius, in another passage, states the same trial to have taken place while the Social War was yet going on; that is, some time between 358 and 355 B.C. De Lysi Judicium, p. 480. ?? ??? t? s?a???? p???? t?? e?sa??e??a? ?f????t?? ?????sta?, ?a? t?? e????a? ?p?s???e t?? st?at???a?, ?? ?? a?t?? t?? ????? ????eta? ?atafa???? ??t?? d? ? p??e?? p?pte? ?at? ??a?????a ?a? ??p???? ?????ta?. The archonships of Agathokles and Elpines cover the interval between Midsummer 357 B.C. and Midsummer 355 B.C.

It is plain that these two passages of Dionysius contradict each other. Rehdantz and Mr. Clinton notice the contradiction, but treat the passage first cited as containing the truth, and the other as erroneous. I cannot but think that the passage last cited is entitled to most credit, and that the true date of the trial was 357-356 B.C., not 354 B.C. When Dionysius asserts that the trial took place while the Social War was yet going on, he adds, “as is evident from the speech itself—?? ?? a?t?? ????eta? t?? ????? ?atafa???.” Here therefore there was no possibility of being misled by erroneous tables; the evidence is direct and complete; whereas he does not tell us on what authority he made the other assertion, about the archonship of Diotimus. Next, it is surely improbable that the abortive combat in the Hellespont, and the fierce quarrel between Chares and his colleagues, probably accompanied with great excitement in the fleet, could have remained without judicial settlement for three years. Lastly, assuming the statement about the archonship of Diotimus to be a mistake, we can easily see how the mistake arose. Dionysius has confounded the year in which Timotheus died, with the year of his trial. He seems to have died in 354 B.C. I will add that the text in this passage is not beyond suspicion.

[482] Diodor. xvi. 22. Demosthenes (Philippic. i. p. 46. s. 28) has an emphatic passage, alluding to this proceeding on the part of Chares; which he represents as a necessary result of the remissness of the Athenians, who would neither serve personally themselves, nor supply their general with money to pay his foreign troops—and as a measure which the general could not avoid.

... ?? ?? d? a?t? ?a?? a?t? t? ?e???? ??? st?ate?eta?, t??? f????? ???? ?a? t??? s??????, ?? d? ?????? e????? t?? d???t?? ?e???as??, ?a? pa?a???a?ta ?p? t?? t?? p??e?? p??e??, p??? ??t?a??? ?a? pa?ta??? ????? ???eta? p????ta? ? d? st?at???? ???????e?? e???t??—?? ??? ?st?? ???e??, ? d?d??ta ?s???. Compare the Scholia on the same oration, a passage which occurs somewhat earlier, p. 44. s. 22.

It seems evident, from this passage, that the Athenians were at first displeased with such diversion from the regular purpose of the war, though the payment from Artabazus afterwards partially reconciled them to it; which is somewhat different from the statement of Diodorus.

From an inscription (cited in Rehdantz, VitÆ Iphicratis, ChabriÆ, etc., p. 158) we make out that Chares, Charidemus, and Phokion, were about this time in joint-command of the Athenian fleet near Lesbos, and that they were in some negotiation as to pecuniary supplies with the Persian Orontes on the mainland. But the inscription is so mutilated, that no distinct matter of fact can be ascertained.

[483] Diodor. xvi. 22. I place little reliance on the Argument prefixed to the Oration of Isokrates De Pace. As far as I am able to understand the facts of this obscure period, it appears to me that the author of that Argument has joined them together erroneously, and misconceived the situation.

The assertion of Demosthenes, in the Oration against Leptines (p. 481. s. 90), respecting the behavior of the Chians towards the memory of Chabrias, seems rather to imply that the peace with Chios had been concluded before that oration was delivered. It was delivered in the very year of the peace 355 B.C.

[484] Demosthenes adv. Leptinem, p. 464. s. 26, 27; and De CoronÂ, p. 305 s. 293.

[485] Diodor. xvi. 8.

[486] Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 11. s. 8 ... e? ???, ??? ???e? ???e?s? e??????te? ?a? pa??sa? ?f?p???t?? ???a? ?a? St?at????? ?p? t??t? t? ?a, ?e?e???te? ??? p?e?? ?a? pa?a?a??e?? t?? p????, t?? a?t?? pa?e???e?? ?p?? ??? a?t?? p?????a? ??pe? ?p?? t?? ?????? s?t???a?, e??et? ?? ?f?p???? t?te ?a? p??t?? t?? et? ta?ta ?? ?te ?pa??a????? p?a??t??.

[487] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 659. s. 138. ... ???e??? e?d?te?, ?t? F???pp??, ?te ?? ?f?p???? ?p??????e?, ??? ??? pa?ad?, p??????e?? ?f?? ?pe?d? d? ??ae, ?a? ??te?da?a? p??safe??et?.

Also the Oration De Halonneso, p. 83. s. 28. ... t?? d? ?p?st????, ?? p??? ??? ?pe?e? (Philip) ?t? ?f?p???? ?p??????e?, ?p?????sta?, ?? ? ?????e? t?? ?f?p???? ?et??a? e??a?? ?f? ??? ??p???????sa? ??? ?p?d?se?? ?? ??sa? ?et??a?, ???? ?? t?? ????t??.

[488] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 660. s. 144.

[489] Diodor. xvi. 8, with the passage from Libanius cited in Wesseling’s note. Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 10. s. 5.

Hierax and Stratokles were the Amphipolitan envoys despatched to Athens to ask for aid against Philip. An Inscription yet remains, recording the sentence of perpetual banishment of Philo and Stratokles. See Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. No. 2008.

[490] Thucyd. i. 61, 137; Diodor. xiii. 49. Pydna had been acquired to Athens by Timotheus.

[491] This secret negotiation, about the exchange of Pydna for Amphipolis, is alluded to briefly by Demosthenes, and appears to have been fully noticed by Theopompus (Demosthenes, Olynth. ii. p. 19. s. 6. with the comments of Ulpian; Theopompus, Fr. 189, ed. Didot).

[492] Demosthenes, Philipp. ii. p. 71. s. 22.

[493] Demosthen. adv. Leptinem, p. 476. s. 71. ... f??e d? ???e??? ??et?s?e?, ?? p??d??te? t?? ??d?a? ?a? t???a ????a t? F???pp? t? p?t? ?pa????te? ??? ?d?????; ? p?s? p??d???? t??t?, ?t? ta?? pa?? ??e???? d??e?a??, ?? d?? ta?ta ?ses?a? sf?s?? ?????t?;

Compare Olynthiac i. p. 10. s. 5.

This discourse was pronounced in 355 B.C., thus affording confirmatory evidence of the date assigned to the surrender of Pydna and PotidÆa.

What the “other places” here alluded to by Demosthenes are (besides Pydna and PotidÆa), we do not know. It appears by Diodorus (xvi. 31) that MethÔnÊ was not taken till 354-353 B.C.

[494] The conquests of Philip are always enumerated by Demosthenes in this order, Amphipolis, Pydna, PotidÆa, MethÔnÊ, etc., Olynthiac i. p. 11. s. 9. p. 12. s. 13; Philippic i. p. 41. s. 6; De CoronÂ, p. 248. s. 85.

See Ulpian ad Demosthenem, Olynth. i. p. 10. s. 5; also Diodor. xvi. 8 and Wesseling’s note.

[495] In the public vote of gratitude passed many years afterwards by the Athenian assembly towards Demosthenes, his merits are recited; and among them we find this contribution towards the relief of captives at Pydna, MethÔnÊ, and Olynthus (Plutarch, Vit. X. Orator, p. 851).

[496] Compare Demosthenes, Olynthiac i. p. 11. s. 9; Philippic i. p. 50. s. 40 (where he mentions the expedition to PotidÆa as having come too late, but does not mention any expedition for relief of Pydna.)

[497] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 656. s. 128. p??? ??? p??e??, ???ata p???? ??a??sa? (Philip, in the siege of PotidÆa). In this oration (delivered B.C. 352) Demosthenes treats the capture of PotidÆa as mainly the work of Philip; in the second Olynthiac, he speaks as if Philip had been a secondary agent, a useful adjunct to the Olynthians in the siege, p???? a? p??? ??t?da?a? ????????? ?f??? t? t??t? s??af?te???—i. e. the Macedonian power was p??s???? t?? ?? s????.... The first representation, delivered two or three years before the second, is doubtless the more correct.

[498] Demosthenes, Philipp. ii. p. 71. s. 22. ??t?da?a? d? ?d?d??, t??? ????a??? ?p?????? ??????? (Philip gave it to the Olynthians), ?a? t?? ?? ?????? p??? ??? a?t?? ?????t?, t?? ???a? d? ??e????? ?ded??e? ?a?p??s?a?. The passage in the Oratio de Halonneso (p. 79. s. 10) alludes to this same extrusion and expropriation of the Athenian Kleruchs, though Voemel and Franke (erroneously, I think) suppose it to allude to the treatment of these Kleruchs by Philip some years afterwards, when he took PotidÆa for himself. We may be sure that no Athenian Kleruchs were permitted to stay at PotidÆa even after the first capture.

[499] The general description given in the first Philippic of Demosthenes of the ?p?st???? from Athens, may doubtless be applied to the expedition for the relief of PotidÆa—Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 46. s. 28. p. 53, s. 52. and the general tenor of the harangue.

[500] Diodorus (xvi. 8), in mentioning the capture of PotidÆa, considers it an evidence of the kind disposition of Philip, and of his great respect for the dignity of Athens (f??a????p?? p??se?e???e???) that he spared the persons of these Athenians in the place, and permitted them to depart. But it was a great wrong, under the circumstances, that he should expel and expropriate them, when no offence had been given to him, and when there was no formal war (Demosth. Or. de Halonneso, p. 79. s. 10).

Diodorus states also that Philip gave Pydna, as well as PotidÆa, to the Olynthians; which is not correct.

[501] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 41. s. 6 ... e????? p?te ?e?? ??d?a? ?a? ??t?da?a? ?a? ?e?????, ?a? p??ta t?? t?p?? t??t?? ???e??? ?????, etc.

[502] Demosthenes, Philipp. ii. p. 70. s. 22.

[503] Diodor. xvi. 4-8; Harpokration v. ??t??. Herodot. ix. 74.

[504] Diodor. xvi. 22; Plutarch, Alexand. c. 3.

[505] Justin, vii. 6.

[506] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 2. 3. The BacchÆ of Euripides contains a powerful description of these exciting ceremonies.

[507] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 2. ? d? ???p??? ????? ?t???? ????sasa t?? ?at????, ?a? t??? ?????s?as??? ??????sa a?a????te???, ?fe?? e?????? ?e?????e?? ?fe???et? t??? ???s???, etc.

Compare Duris apud AthenÆum, xiii. p. 560.

[508] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 3; Justin, xii. 19.

[509] Æschines, De Fals. Legat. p. 280. c. 36. For particulars respecting the Amphiktyonic assembly see the treatise of Tittman, Ueber den Amphiktyonischen Bund, p. 37, 45, seqq.

[510] Diodor. xvi. 23-29; Justin, viii. 1.

[511] Æschines, De Fals. Leg. p. 279. c. 35.

[512] Compare Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 23, and vii. 5, 4. About the feud of the Thessalians and Phokians, see Herodot. vii. 176, viii. 27; Æschines, De Fals. Leg. p. 289. c. 43—of the Lokrians and Phokians, Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 5, 3; Pausanias, iii. 9, 4.

[513] Diodor. xvi. 23; Justin, viii. 1; Pausanias, x. 2, 1; Duris ap. AthenÆum, xiii. p. 560. Justin says, “Causa et origo hujus mali, Thebani fuere; qui cum rerum potirentur, secundam fortunam imbecillo animo ferentes, victos armis LacedÆmonios et Phocenses, quasi parva supplicia cÆdibus et rapinis luissent, apud commune GrÆciÆ concilium superbe accusaverunt LacedÆmoniis crimini datum, quod arcem Thebanam induciarum tempore occupassent; Phocensibus, quod Boeotiam depopulati essent; prorsus quasi post arma et bellum locum legibus reliquissent.”

[514] Diodor. xvi. 23, 24; Pausanias, x. 2, 1.

[515] That this design, imputed to the Thebans, was a part of the case made out by the Phokians for themselves, we may feel assured from the passage in Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 347. s. 22. Demosthenes charges Æschines with having made false promises and statements to the Athenian assembly, on returning from his embassy in 346 B.C. Æschines told the Athenians (so Demosthenes affirms) that he had persuaded Philip to act altogether in the interest and policy of Athens; that the Athenians would very presently see Thebes besieged by Philip, and the Boeotian towns restored; and furthermore, t? ?e? d? t? ???ata e?sp?att?e?a, ?? pa?? F?????, ???? pa?? T?a??? t?? ???e?s??t?? t?? ?at?????? t?? ?e??? d?d?s?e?? ??? a?t?? ?f? t?? F???pp?? ?t? ??d?? ?tt?? ?se??as?? ?? e???e???te? t?? ta?? ?e?s? p?a???t??, ?a? d?? ta?ta ???a?? ?a?t? t??? T?a???? ?p??e???????a?.

How far Æschines really promised to the Athenians that which Demosthenes here alleges him to have promised—is a matter to be investigated when we arrive at the transactions of the year 346 B.C. But it seems to me clear that the imputation (true or false) against the Thebans, of having been themselves in conspiracy to seize the temple, must have emanated first from the Phokians, as part of the justification of their own proceedings. If the Thebans ever conceived such an idea, it must have been before the actual occupation of the temple by the Phokians, if they were falsely charged with conceiving it, the false charge would also be preferred at the time. Demosthenes would hardly invent it twelve years after the Phokian occupation.

[516] Herodot. i. 54.

[517] Strabo, ix. p. 423.

[518] Thucyd. i. 12.

[519] Thucyd. v. 18.

[520] Justin (viii. 1) takes no notice of this first position of the Phokians in regard to the temple of Delphi. He treats them as if they had been despoilers of the temple even at first; “velut deo irascentes.”

[521] Diodor. xvi. 24. Hesychius (v. ?af???da?) mentions another phratry or gens at Delphi, called LaphriadÆ. See Wilhelm GÖtte, Das Delphische Orakel, p. 83. Leipsic, 1839.

It is stated by Pausanias, that the Phokians were bent upon dealing with Delphi and its inhabitants in the harshest manner; intending to kill all the men of military age, to sell the remaining population as slaves, and to raze the whole town to the ground. Archidamus, king of Sparta, (according to Pausanias) induced the Phokians to abandon this resolution (Pausan. iii. 10, 4).

At what moment the Phokians ever determined on this step—or, indeed, whether they ever really determined on it—we cannot feel any certainty. Nor can we decide confidently, whether Pausanias borrowed the statement from Theopompus, whom he quotes a little before.

[522] Didorus xvi. 27. ????? d? ?a? p??? t?? ???a? t?? ?p?s??t?ta? t?? ?at? t?? ????da p??e?? ?p?ste??e?, ?p??????e???, ?t? ?ate???pta? t??? ?e?f???, ?? t??? ?e???? ???as?? ?p????e???, ???? t?? t?? ?e??? p??stas?a? ?f?s?t??? e??a? ??? F????? a?t?? ?d?a? ?? t??? pa?a???? ??????? ?p?dede??????. ??? d? ????t?? t?? ????? ?f? p?s? t??? ????s?? ?p?d?se??, ?a? t?? te sta??? ?a? t?? ?????? t?? ??a???t?? ?t???? e??a? pa?ad?d??a? t??? ????????? ??et??e??. ????? d?, ?? t?? d?? ?????? ? f????? p???? F??e?s?, ???sta ?? ??a?e??, e? d? ? ?e, t?? ?s???a? ??e??.

In reference to the engagement taken by Philomelus, that he would exhibit and verify, before any general Hellenic examiners, all the valuable property in the Delphian temple, by weight and number of articles—the reader will find interesting matter of comparison in the Attic Inscriptions. No. 137-142, vol. i. of Boeckh’s Corpus Inscriptt. GrÆcarum—with Boeckh’s valuable commentary. These are the records of the numerous gold and silver donatives, preserved in the Parthenon, handed over by the treasurers of the goddess annually appointed, to their successors at the end of the year, from one Panathenaic festival to the next. The weight of each article is formally recorded, and the new articles received each year (?p?te?a) are specified. Where an article is transferred without being weighed (?sta???), the fact is noticed. That the precious donatives in the Delphian temple also, were carefully weighed, we may judge by the statement of Herodotus, that the golden lion dedicated by Kroesus had lost a fraction of its weight in the conflagration of the building (Herodot. i. 50).

Pausanias (x. 2, 1) does not advert to the difference between the first and the second part of the proceedings of Philomelus; first, the seizure of the temple, without any spoliation of the treasure, but simply upon the plea that the Phokians had the best right to administer its affairs; next, the seizure of the treasure and donatives of the temple—which he came to afterwards, when he found it necessary for defence.

[523] Diodor. xvi. 25, 26, 27.

[524] Diodor. xvi. 25.

[525] Diodor. xvi. 28.

[526] Diodor. xvi. 28. ??f?sa???? d? t?? ?f??t????? t?? p??? F??e?? p??e??, p???? ta?a?? ?a? d??stas?? ?? ?a?? ???? t?? ????da. ?? ?? ??? ?????a? ???e?? t? ?e?, ?a? t??? F??e??, ?? ?e??s?????, ?????e??? ?? d? p??? t?? t?? F????? ???e?a? ?p?????a?.

[527] Diodor. xvi. 32. about Onomarchus—p???a?? ??? ?a? e???a?? d??a?? ?p? t?? ?f??t????? ?? ?ataded??as???? ????? t??? ??????, etc.

Onomarchus is denominated the colleague of Philomelus, cap. 31, and his brother, cap. 61.

[528] Even in 374 B.C., three years before the battle of Leuktra, the Phokians had been unable to defend themselves against Thebes without aid from Sparta (Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 1).

[529] Diodor. xvi. 30. ??a????et? (Philomelus) t??? ?e???? ??a??as?? ?p?a?e?? t?? ?e??a? ?a? s???? t? a?te???. A similar proposition had been started by the Corinthian envoys in the congress at Sparta, shortly before the Peloponnesian war; they suggested as one of their ways and means the borrowing from the treasures of Delphi and Olympia, to be afterwards repaid (Thucyd. i. 121). Perikles made the like proposition in the Athenian assembly; “for purposes of security,” the property of the temples might be employed to defray the cost of war, subject to the obligation of replacing the whole afterwards (???sa????? te ?p? s?t???? ?f? ????a? ? ???ss? ??t??atast?sa? p????, Thucyd. ii. 13). After the disaster before Syracuse, and during the years of struggle intervening before the close of the war, the Athenians were driven by financial distress to appropriate to public purposes many of the rich donatives in the Parthenon, which they were never afterwards able to replace. Of this abstraction, proof is found in the Inscriptions published by Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 137-142, which contain the official records of the successive Boards of Treasurers of AthÊnÊ. It is stated in an instructive recent Dissertation, by J. L. Ussing (De Parthenone ejusque partibus Disputatio, p. 3. Copenhagen, 1849), “MultÆ in arce Athenarum inventÆ sunt tabulÆ QuÆstorum MinervÆ, in quibus quotannis inscribebant, quÆnam vasa aurea aliÆque res pretiosÆ in Æde MinervÆ dedicata extarent. Harum longe maxima pars ante Euclidem archontem scripta est...: Nec tamen una tabula templi dona continebat universa, sed separatim quÆ in Pronao, quÆ in Hecatompedo, quÆ in Parthenone (the part of the temple specially so called), servabantur, separatim suis quÆque lapidibus consignata erant. Singulari quadam fortuna contigit, ut inde ab anno 434 B.C., ad 407 B.C., tam multa fragmenta tabularum servata sint, ut hos donorum catalogos aliquatenus restituere possimus. In quo etiam ad historiam illius temporis pertinet, quod florentibus Athenarum rebus opes DeÆ semper augeri, fractis autem bello Siculo, inde ab anno 412 B.C., eas paulatim deminui videmus.... Urgente pecuniÆ inopia Athenienses ad Deam confugiebant, et jam ante annum 406 B.C., pleraque Pronai dona ablata esse videmus. Proximis annis sine dubio nec Hecatompedo nec Parthenoni pepercerunt; nec mirum est, post bellum Peloponnesiacum ex antiquis illis donis fere nulla comparere.”

[530] Theopompus, Frag. 182, ed. Didot; AthenÆ. xiii. p. 605, vi. p. 232; Ephorus, Frag. 155, ed. Didot; Diodor. xvi. 64.

[531] Isokrates, Orat. v. (ad Philippum) s. 60. te?e?t??te? d? p??? F???a? p??e?? ????e??a? (the Thebans), ?? t?? te p??e?? ?? ????? ????? ??at?s??te?, t?? te t?p?? ?pa?ta t?? pe??????ta ?atas??s??te?, t?? te ????t?? t?? ?? ?e?f??? pe???e??s?e??? ta?? ?? t?? ?d??? dap??a??.

[532] Diodor. xvi. 31; Pausan. x. 2, 1. The dates and duration of these events are only known to us in a loose and superficial manner from the narrative of Diodorus.

[533] Diodor. xvi. 32. ?? d? F??e??—?pa?????? e?? ?e?f??? ?a? s??e????te? et? t?? s????? e?? ?????? ?????s?a?, ????e???t? pe?? t?? p?????.

[534] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 286. c. 41. t?? ?? F??e?s? t???????, etc. Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 661. s. 147. Fa????? ? F??e?? ? t?? ????? d??ast??, etc.

[535] Diodor. xvi. 33. The numerous iron spits, dedicated by the courtezan RhodÔpis at Delphi, may probably have been applied to this military purpose. Herodotus (ii. 135) saw them at Delphi; in the time of Plutarch, the guide of the Temple only showed the place in which they had once stood (Plutarch, De PythiÆ Oraculis, p. 400).

[536] Theopompus, Frag. 255, ed. Didot; Pausanias, iii. 10, 2; iv. 5, 1. As Archidamus is said to have furnished fifteen talents privately to Philomelus (Diodor. xvi. 24), he may, perhaps, have received now repayment out of the temple property.

[537] Diodor. xvi. 33.

[538] Diodor. xvi. 33. His account of the operations of Onomarchus is, as usual, very meagre—e?? d? t?? p??e?a? ?a???, T?????? ?? ??p???????sa? ????d?ap?d?sat?, ?f?sse?? d? ?atap????e???, t?? d? ?? ????e?s? p??e?? p????sa?, t?? ???a? a?t?? ?d??se?.

That Thronium, with AlpÔnus and NikÆa, were the three places which commanded the pass of ThermopylÆ—and that all the three were in possession of the Phokians immediately before they were conquered by Philip of Macedon in 346 B.C.—we know from Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 286. c. 41.

... p??se?? p??? ??? (the Athenians) ????? ?? F?????, ???e?? a?t??? ?e?e???te?, ?a? ?pa??e???e??? pa?ad?se?? ??p???? ?a? T?????? ?a? ???a?a?, t? t?? pa??d?? t?? e?? ???a? ????a ????a.

In order to conquer Thronium, Onomarchus must have marched through and mastered the Epiknemidian Lokrians; and though no place except Thronium is specified by Diodorus, it seems plain that Onomarchus can not have conquered Thronium alone.

[539] Diodor. xvi. 34.

[540] Diodor. xvi. 52.

[541] Diodor. xvi. 34.

[542] PolyÆnus, iv. 2, 22, seems to belong to this juncture.

[543] We derive what is here stated from the comparison of two passages, put together as well as the uncertainty of their tenor admits, Diodor. xvi. 34, with Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. p. 681. s. 219 (s. 183, in Weber’s edition, whose note ought to be consulted). Demosthenes says, F???pp?? ??? e?? ?a???e?a? ?????t?? ?pe?e (Kersobleptes) p??? a?t?? ?p??????d??, p?ste?? d??? ??e??? ?a? ?a??e?? ?a? e? ? ??at?? t?? ???a? ??d???? ?pe?pe F???pp? ? ?p?a??e??, ??d?? ?? ?? ?? ?s? p??ee?? ??? p??? ?a?d?a???? ?d? ?a? ?e?s???pt??. ?a? ?t? ta?t? ????? ????, ?a? t?? ????t?? ?p?st????.

The mention of Pammenes, as being within reach of communication with Kersobleptes—the mention of Chares as being at the Chersonese, and sending home despatches—and the notice of Philip as being at Maroneia—all conspire to connect this passage with the year 353-352 B.C., and with the facts referred to that year by Diodorus, xvi. 34. There is an interval of five years between the presence of Chares here alluded to, and the presence of Chares noticed before in the same oration, p. 678. s. 206, immediately after the successful expedition to Euboea in 358 B.C. During these five years, Kersobleptes had acted in a hostile manner towards Athens in the neighborhood of the Chersonese (p. 680. s. 214), and also towards the two rival Thracian princes, friends of Athens. At the same time Sestos had again revolted; the forces of Athens being engaged in the Social War, from 358 to 355 B.C. In 353 B.C. Chares is at the Hellespont, recovers Sestos, and again defeats the intrigues of Kersobleptes, who makes cession to Athens of a portion of territory which he still held in the Chersonese. Diodorus ascribes this cession of Kersobleptes to the motive of aversion towards Philip and good-will towards the Athenians. Possibly these may have been the motives pretended by Kersobleptes, to whom a certain party at Athens gave credit for more favorable dispositions than the Demosthenic oration against Aristokrates recognizes—as we may see from that oration itself. But I rather apprehend that Diodorus, in describing Kersobleptes as hostile to Philip, and friendly to Athens, has applied to the year 353 B.C. a state of relations which did not become true until a later date, nearer to the time when peace was made between Philip and the Athenians in 346 B.C.

[544] Dionysius, Hal. Judic. de Dinarcho, p. 664; Strabo. xiv. p. 638.

[545] Diodor. xvi, 14. This passage relates to the year 357-356 B.C., and possibly Philip may have begun to meddle in the Thessalian party-disputes even as early as that year; but his effective interference comes two or three years later. See the general order of Philip’s aggressions indicated by Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 12. s. 13.

[546] Diodor. xvi. 22.

[547] See a striking passage in Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 48. s. 35. There was another place called MethÔnÊ—the Thracian MethÔnÊ—situated in the Chalkidic or Thracian peninsula, near Olynthus and Apollonia—of which we shall hear presently.

[548] Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 50. s. 40; Olynth. i. p. 11. s. 9.

[549] Diodorus (xvi. 31-34) mentions the capture of MethÔnÊ by Philip twice, in two successive years: first, in 354-353 B.C.; again, more copiously, in 353-352 B.C. In my judgment, the earlier of the two dates is the more probable. In 353-352 B.C., Philip carried on his war in Thrace, near Abdera and Maroneia—and also his war against Onomarchus in Thessaly; which transactions seem enough to fill up the time. From the language of Demosthenes (Olynth. i. p. 12. s. 13), we see that Philip did not attack Thessaly until after the capture of MethÔnÊ. Diodorus as well as Strabo (vii. p. 330), and Justin (vii. 6) state that Philip was wounded and lost the sight of one eye in this siege. But this seems to have happened afterwards, near the Thracian MethÔnÊ.

Compare Justin, vii. 6; PolyÆnus, iv. 2. 15. Under the year 354-353 B.C., Diodorus mentions not only the capture of MethÔnÊ by Philip, but also the capture of PagÆ. ?a??? d? ?e???s?e???, ?????ase? ?p?ta???a?. PagÆ is unknown, anywhere near Macedonia and Thessaly. Wesseling and Mr. Clinton suppose PagasÆ in Thessaly to be meant. But it seems to me impossible that Philip, who had no considerable power at sea, can have taken PagasÆ, before his wars in Thessaly, and before he had become master of PherÆ, which events did not occur until one year or two years afterwards. PagasÆ is the port of PherÆ, and Lykophron the despot of PherÆ was still powerful and unconquered. If, therefore, the word intended by Diodorus be ?a?as?? instead of ?a???, I think the matter of fact asserted cannot be correct.

[550] This fact is mentioned in the public vote of gratitude passed by the Athenian people to Demosthenes (Plutarch, VitÆ X. Orat. p. 851).

[551] Thucyd. vi. 7. ?e????? t?? ????? ?a?ed????, etc.

[552] Such is the description of Athenian feeling, as it then stood, given by Demosthenes twenty-four years afterwards in the Oration De CoronÂ, p. 230. s. 21.

??? ??? F?????? s?st??t?? p?????, p??t?? ?? ?e?? ??t? d???e?s?e, ?ste F???a? ?? ???es?a? s????a?, ?a?pe? ?? d??a?a p?????ta? ????te?, T?a???? d? ?t???? ?? ?f?s???a? pa???s??, ??? ?????? ??d? ?d???? a?t??? ??????e???, etc.

[553] Diodor. xvi. 58. ?????e??? t? ?e??t???? f????ata s?ste??a? t?? ????t??, etc., an expression used in reference to Philip a few years afterwards, but more animated and emphatic than we usually find in Diodorus, who, perhaps, borrowed it from Theopompus.

[554] The birth-year of Demosthenes is matter of notorious controversy. No one of the statements respecting it rests upon evidence thoroughly convincing.

The question has been examined with much care and ability both by Mr. Clinton (Fasti Hellen. Appen. xx.) and by Dr. Thirlwall (Histor. G. vol. v. Appen. i. p. 485 seq.); by BÖhnecke (Forschungen, p. 1-94) more copiously than cautiously, but still with much instruction; also by K. F. Hermann (De Anno Natali Demosthenis), and many other critics.

In adopting the year Olymp. 99. 3 (the archonship of Evander, 382-381 B.C.), I agree with the conclusion of Mr. Clinton and of K. F. Hermann; differing from Dr. Thirlwall, who prefers the previous year (Olymp. 99. 2)—and from BÖhnecke, who vindicates the year affirmed by Dionysius (Olymp. 99. 4).

Mr. Clinton fixes the first month of Olymp. 99. 3, as the month in which Demosthenes was born. This appears to me greater precision than the evidence warrants.

[555] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 4; Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 78. c. 57; Demosth. cont. Aphob. B. p. 835. According to Æschines, Gylon was put on his trial for having betrayed NymphÆum to the enemy; but not appearing, was sentenced to death in his absence, and became an exile. He then went to Bosphorus (PantikapÆum), obtained the favor of the king (probably Satyrus—see Mr. Clinton’s Appendix on the kings of Bosphorus—Fasti Hellenic. Append. xiii, p. 282), together with the grant of a district called Kepi, and married the daughter of a rich man there; by whom he had two daughters. In after-days, he sent these two daughters to Athens, where one of them, KleobulÊ, was married to the elder Demosthenes. Æschines has probably exaggerated the gravity of the sentence against Gylon, who seems only to have been fined. The guardians of Demosthenes assert no more than that Gylon was fined, and died with the fine unpaid, while Demosthenes asserts that the fine was paid.

Upon the facts here stated by Æschines, a few explanatory remarks will be useful. Demosthenes being born 382-381 B.C., this would probably throw the birth of his mother KleobulÊ to some period near the close of the Peloponnesian war, 405-404 B.C. We see, therefore, that the establishment of Gylon in the kingdom of Bosphorus, and his nuptial connection there formed, must have taken place during the closing years of the Peloponnesian war; between 412 B.C. (the year after the Athenian catastrophe at Syracuse) and 405 B.C.

These were years of great misfortune to Athens. After the disaster at Syracuse, she could no longer maintain ascendency over, or grant protection to, a distant tributary like NymphÆum in the Tauric Chersonese. It was therefore natural that the Athenian citizens there settled, engaged probably in the export trade of corn to Athens, should seek security by making the best bargain they could with the neighboring kings of Bosphorus. In this transaction Gylon seems to have stood conspicuously forward, gaining both favor and profit to himself. And when, after the close of the war, the corn-trade again became comparatively unimpeded, he was in a situation to carry it on upon a large and lucrative scale. Another example of Greeks who gained favor, held office, and made fortunes, under Satyrus in the Bosphorus, is given in the Oratio (xvii.) Trapezitica of Isokrates, s. 3, 14. Compare also the case of Mantitheus the Athenian (Lysias pro Mantitheo, Or. xvi. s. 4), who was sent by his father to reside with Satyrus for some time, before the close of the Peloponnesian war; which shows that Satyrus was at that time, when NymphÆum was probably placed under his protection, in friendly relations with Athens.

I may remark that the woman whom Gylon married, though Æschines calls her a Scythian woman, may be supposed more probably to have been the daughter of some Greek (not an Athenian) resident in Bosphorus.

[557] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 5; Vit. X Orator. p. 844; Hermippus ap. Aul. Gell. iii. 13. Nothing positive can be made out respecting this famous trial; neither the date, nor the exact point in question, nor the manner in which Kallistratus was concerned in it—nor who were his opponents. Many conjectures have been proposed, differing materially one from the other, and all uncertain.

These conjectures are brought together and examined in Rehdantz, VitÆ Iphicratis, ChabriÆ, et Timothei, p. 111-114.

In the month of November, 361 B.C., Kallistratus was in exile at MethÔnÊ in the Thermaic Gulf. He had been twice condemned to death by the Athenians (Demosth. cont. Polykl. p. 1221). But when these condemnations took place, we do not know.

[558] Plutarch. Demosth. c. 4. Such a view of the necessity of a power of public speaking, is put forward by Kallikles in the Gorgias of Plato, p. 486, 511. c. 90, 142. t?? ??t?????? t?? ?? t??? d??ast?????? d?as????sa?, etc. Compare Aristot. Rhetoric, i. 1, 3. ?t?p??, e? t? s?at? ?? a?s???? ? d??as?a? ???e?? ?a?t?, ???? d?, ??? a?s????? ? ????? ?d??? ?st?? ?????p?? t?? t?? s?at?? ??e?a?.

The comparison of Aristotle is instructive as to the point of view of a free Greek. “If it be disgraceful not to be able to protect yourself by your bodily force, it is equally so not to be able to protect yourself by your powers of speaking; which is in a more peculiar manner the privilege of man.” See also Tacitus, Dialog. de Orator. c. 5.

[559] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 4; Æschines cont. Timarch. p. 17, 18. c. 27, with Scholia, De Fal. Leg. p. 41. c. 31. e? ??? t?? s?? t? ???? ta?ta ??a??s??a pe?????e??? ?a? t??? a?a???? ??t???s????, ?? ??? t??? ?at? t?? f???? ?????? ???fe??, pe??e????a?, d??? e?? t?? ?e??a? t?? d??ast??, ??a? ?? a?t??? e?t?? ? p??e?p?? ta?ta p???se?e?, ?p???se?? e?te ???a???? e?te ??d??? e???fas?? ?s??ta. Compare Æsch. Fal. Leg. p. 45.

The foundation of the nickname Batalus is not clear, and was differently understood by different persons; compare also Libanius, Vita Demosth. p. 294, ap Westermann, Scriptores Biographici. But it can hardly have been a very discreditable foundation, since Demosthenes takes the name to himself, De CoronÂ, p. 289.

[560] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 30.

[561] Position of Demosthenes, pat?? t????a??????—???s?a ???p??, ?at? ???da???, etc. (Lucian, Encomium Demosth. vol. iii. p. 499, ed. Reitz.)

[562] See the account given by Demosthenes (cont. Meidiam, p. 539, 540) of the manner in which Meidias and Thrasylochus first began their persecution of him, while the suit against his guardians was still going on. These guardians attempted to get rid of the suit by inducing Thrasylochus to force upon him an exchange of properties (Antidosis), tendered by Thrasylochus, who had just been put down for a trierarchy. If the exchange had been effected, Thrasylochus would have given the guardians a release. Demosthenes could only avoid it by consenting to incur the cost of the trierarchy—20 minÆ.

[563] Demosthenes both studied attentively the dialogues, and heard the discourse, of Plato (Cicero, Brutus, 31, 121; Orator. 4, 15; Plutarch, Vit. X Orator. p. 844). Tacitus, Dialog. de Orator. c. 32.

[564] Dionys. Hal. De Thucydide Judicium, p. 944; De Admirab. Vi. Dicend. Demosthen. p. 982, 983.

[565] These and other details are given in Plutarch’s Life of Demosthenes, c. 4, 9. They depend upon good evidence; for he cites Demetrius the Phalerean, who heard them himself from Demosthenes in the latter years of his life. The subterranean chamber where Demosthenes practised, was shown at Athens even in the time of Plutarch.

Cicero (who also refers to Demetrius Phalereus), De Divinat. ii. 46, 96. Libanius, Zosimus, and Photius, give generally the same statements, with some variations.

[566] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 9. ?pe? t??a? ?e ?a? ???s?? ?? ?e????te? ?p? a?t?? ????? t?? ??af??t?? ????? e????? e? t? de? p?ste?e?? ??at?s???e? ?a? ???t??? t? Fa???e? ?a? t??? ???????. ?? ??at?s????? ?? f?s?? a?t?? ?? t??? ?????? p???a??? ?e?????a? pa??a????, ? d? Fa???e?? t?? ?et??? ??e???? ????? ??sa? p?te p??? t?? d??? ?spe? ?????s???ta. Again, c. 11. ???? ?? ??? p?????? ?p??????e??? ??es?e ?a?ast??, ?? d? ?a????te? tape???? ?????t? ?a? ??e???? a?t?? t? p??sa ?a? a?a???, ?? ?a? ???t???? ? Fa???e?? ?st??.

This sentence is illustrated by a passage in Quintilian, i. 8. 2. “Sit autem in primis lectio virilis, et cum suavitate quadam gravis: et non quidem prosÆ similis—quia carmen est, et se poetÆ canere testantur—non tamen in canticum dissoluta, nec plasmate (ut nunc a plerisque fit) effeminata.”

The meaning of plasma, in the technical language of rhetoricians contemporary with Quintilian, seems different from that which it bears in Dionysius, p. 1060-1061. But whether Plutarch has exactly rendered to us what Demetrius Phalereus said of Demosthenes—whether Demetrius spoke of the modulation of Demosthenes as being low and vulgar—I cannot but doubt. Æschines urges very different reproaches against him—overmuch labor and affectation, but combined with bitterness and malignity (adv. Ktesiph. p. 78-86). He denounces the character of Demosthenes as low and vulgar—but not his oratorical delivery. The expression ?spe? ?????s???, which Plutarch cites from Demetrius Phalereus, hardly suits well with tape???? ?a? ??e????.

[567] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 11. ??s???a d? f?s?? ???pp??, ???t????ta pe?? t?? p??a? ??t???? ?a? t?? ?a?? a?t??, e?pe??, ?? ?????? ?? ?? t?? ??a?ase? ??e????? e???s?? ?a? e?a??p?ep?? t? d?? d?a?e???????, ??a????s??e??? d? ?? ???s?????? ????? p??? t? ?atas?e?? ?a? d???e? d?af????s??.

[568] Dionys. Hal. De Adm. Vi Dicend. Demosth. p. 1022, a very remarkable passage.

[569] Æschines cont. Timarch. p. 16, 24.

[570] Æschines cont. Timarchum, p. 13, 17, 25, cont. Ktesiphont. p. 78. ?e?? d? t?? ?a?? ???a? d?a?ta? t?? ?st??; ?? t????????? ???????f?? ??ef???, t? pat??a ?ata?e??st?? p???e???, etc.

See also Demosthenes, De Fals. Legat. p. 417-420.

Compare the shame of the rich youth Hippokrates, in the Platonic dialogue called Protagoras, when the idea is broached that he is about to visit Protagoras for the purpose of becoming himself a sophist (Plato, Protagor. p. 154 F, 163 A, cap. 8-19).

[571] Ælian, V. H. iii. 47; Plutarch, Phokion, c. 10; Cornelius Nepos, Phokion, c. 1.

[572] I introduce here this reservation as to time, not as meaning to affirm the contrary with regard to the period after Philip’s death, but as wishing to postpone for the present the consideration of the later charges against Demosthenes—the receipt of money from Persia, and the abstraction from the treasures of Harpalus. I shall examine these points at the proper time.

[573] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 8. ?????e?ta? ???, ?t? p??te ?a? tessa?????ta st?at???a? ??ae? ??d? ?pa? ???a??es???? pa?at????, ???? ?p??ta etapep????? a?t?? ?e? ?a? ?e???t?????t??, ?ste ?a???e?? t??? ??? e? f??????ta? t?? d???, ?t? p?e?sta t?? F??????? ??t???????t?? a?t? ?a? ?d?? e?p??t?? p?p?te ?d? p???a?t?? p??? ?????, ?spe? ?????s? t??? as??e?? t??? ???a?? ???s?a? et? t? ?at? ?e???? ?d??, ????t? ??t?? t??? ?? ????t????? ?a? ??a???? ?? pa?d??? ??e? d?a??????, ?p? d? t?? ????? ?e? ??f?? ?a? sp??d???? t?? a?st???tat?? ?a? f?????tat?? ????e? t?? p???t?? ?a? ???? ? ????? ta?? ????ses?? a?t?? ?a? ??a?? ??t?tass?e???.

[574] Tacit. Dialog. de Clar. Orator. c. 2. “Aper, communi eruditione imbutus, contemnebat potius literas quam nesciebat.”

[575] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 4, 14.

[576] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 5. ? t?? ??? ????? ??p?? p??est??.

[577] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 5. e?pe??—?t? ??t?? ?? ???st?? e?? ???s?????, e?pe?? d? de???tat?? ? F?????.

[578] So Tacitus, after reporting the exact reply of the tribune Subrias Flavius, when examined as an accomplice in the conspiracy against Nero—“Ipsa retuli verba: quia non, ut SenecÆ, vulgata erant; nec minus nosci decebat sensus militaris viri incomptos sed validos.”

[579] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 4, 5.

[580] Cornelius Nepos (Phocion, c. 1) found in his authors no account of the military exploits of Phokion but much about his personal integrity.

[581] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 8. ??t? d? s??t??a? ?a?t?? ?p???te?et? ?? ?e? p??? e?????? ?a? ?s???a?, etc.

[582] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16. See the first repartee there ascribed to Phokion.

[583] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 7.

[584] See the replies of Phokion in Plutarch, Phokion, c. 23.

[585] I have more than once referred to the memorable picture of the Athenian character, in contrast with the Spartan, drawn by the Corinthian envoy at Sparta in 432 B.C. (Thucyd. i. 70, 71). Among the many attributes, indicative of exuberant energy and activity, I select those which were most required, and most found wanting, as the means of keeping back Philip.

1. ?a?? d??a?? t???ta?, ?a? pa?? ????? ???d??e?ta?, ?a? ?? t??? de????? e???p?de?.

2. ?????? p??? ??? e???t?? ?a? ?p?d??ta? p??? ??d??t?t??? (in opposition to you, Spartans).

3. ???? ?? s?as?? ????t???t?t??? ?p?? t?? p??e?? ????ta?, t? ???? d? ???e??t?t? ?? t? p??sse?? t? ?p?? a?t??, etc.

4. ?a? ta?ta et? p???? p??ta ?a? ???d???? d?? ???? t?? a????? ?????s?, ?a? ?p??a???s?? ?????sta t?? ?pa????t??, d?? t? ?e? ?t?s?a? ?a? ?te ???t?? ???? t? ??e?s?a? ? t? t? d???ta p???a?, ??f???? te ??? ?ss?? ?s???a? ?p?????a ? ?s????a? ?p?p????, etc.

To the same purpose Perikles expresses himself in his funeral oration of the ensuing year; extolling the vigor and courage of his countrymen, as alike forward and indefatigable—yet as combined also with a love of public discussion, and a taste for all the refinements of peaceful and intellectual life (Thucyd. ii. 40, 41).

[586] Thucyd. ii. 40, 41, 43. t?? p??e?? d??a?? ?a?? ???a? ???? ?e?????? ?a? ??ast?? ?????????? a?t??, ?a? ?ta? ??? e???? d??? e??a?, ??????????? ?t? t????te? ?a? ?????s???te? t? d???ta ?a? ?? t??? ?????? a?s????e??? ??d?e? a?t? ??t?sa?t?, etc.

Compare ii. 63—the last speech of Perikles.

[587] Thucyd. i. 80, 81, 141.

[588] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 2, 21. The allied cities furnished money instead of men in the expedition of Mnasippus to Korkyra (Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 2, 16).

[589] Thucyd. i. 99.

[590] Isokrates, Orat. v. (Philipp.) s. 112. ... ?? ??e????? d? t??? ??????? ??? ?? ?e????? ??d??, ?st? ??a??a??e??? ?e?????e?? ?? t?? p??e??, p???? ?????s??? e?? t?? d?d???a? t??? s???????s? d??e??, ? t?? e?? t??? st?at??ta? ?s??f????.

About the liberal rewards of Cyrus to the generals Klearchus, Proxenus, and others, for getting together the army, and to the soldiers themselves also, see Xenoph. Anabas. i. 1, 9; i. 3, 4; iii. 1, 4; vi. 8, 48.

[591] See the mention of the mercenary Greeks in the service of the satrapess Mania in Æolis—of the satraps, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, and of the Spartan Agesilaus—Iphikrates and others, Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 1, 13; iii. 3, 15; iv. 2, 5; iv. 3, 15; iv. 4, 14; iv. 8, 35; vii. 5, 10.

Compare Harpokration—?e????? ?? ???????—and Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 46.

[592] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 5.

[593] Isokrates pours forth this complaint in many places: in the fourth or Panegyrical Oration (B.C. 380); in the eighth or Oratio de Pace (356 B.C.); in the fifth or Oratio ad Philippum (346 B.C.). The latest of these discourses is delivered in the strongest language. See Orat. Panegyr. s. 195 t??? d? ?p? ????? et? pa?d?? ?a? ???a???? ???s?a?, p?????? d? d?? ??de?a? t?? ?a?? ???a? ?p?????e?? (i. e. to become an ?p???????, or paid soldier in foreign service) ??a??a??????? ?p?? t?? ?????? t??? f????? a??????? ?p????s?e??. See also Orat. De Pace (viii.) s. 53, 56, 58; Orat. ad. Philipp. (v.) s. 112. ??t? ??? ??e? t? t?? ????d??, ?ste ???? e??a? s?st?sa? st?at?ped?? e???? ?a? ??e?tt?? ?? t?? p?a?????? ? t?? p???te??????, etc.... also s. 142, 149; Orat. de Permutat. (xv.) s. 122. ?? t??? st?at?p?d??? t??? p?a??????? ?atatet??????, etc. A melancholy picture of the like evils is also presented in the ninth Epistle of Isokrates, to Archidamus, s. 9, 12. Compare Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. p. 665. s. 162.

For an example of a disappointed lover who seeks distraction by taking foreign military service, see Theokritus, xiv. 58.

[594] Isokrates ad Philipp. (v.) s. 142-144. p??? d? t??t??? ?t?sa? p??e?? ?p? t??t? t? t?p?, ?a? ?at????sa? t??? ??? ?? p?a??????? d?? ??de?a? t?? ?a?? ???a? ?a? ??a???????? ??? ?? ??t???s??. ??? e? ? pa?s?e? ????????????, ??? a?t??? ??a??? p???sa?te?, ??s??s?? ??? t?s??t?? ?e??e??? t? p?????, ?ste ?d?? ?tt?? a?t??? e??a? f?e???? t??? ????s?? ? t??? a??????, etc.

[595] Thucyd. ii. 41 (the funeral harangue of Perikles)—???e??? te ???? t?? te p???? p?sa? t?? ????d?? pa?de?s?? e??a?, ?a? ?a?? ??ast?? d??e?? ?? ?? t?? a?t?? ??d?a pa?? ??? ?p? p?e?st? ?? e?d? ?a? et? ?a??t?? ???st? ?? e?t?ap???? t? s?a a?ta??e? pa???es?a?.

[596] The remarkable organization of the Macedonian army, with its systematic combination of different arms and sorts of troops—was the work of Philip. Alexander found it ready made to his hands, in the very first months of his reign. It must doubtless have been gradually formed; year after year improved by Philip; and we should be glad to be enabled to trace the steps of his progress. But unfortunately we are left without any information about the military measures of Philip, beyond bare facts and results. Accordingly I am compelled to postpone what is to be said about the Macedonian military organization until the reign of Alexander, about whose operations we have valuable details.

[597] Herodot. viii. 137.

[598] This poor condition of the Macedonian population at the accession of Philip, is set forth in the striking speech made thirty-six years afterwards by Alexander the Great (in 323 B.C., a few months before his death) to his soldiers, satiated with conquest and plunder, but discontented with his increasing insolence and Orientalism.

Arrian, Exp. Alex. vii. 9. F???pp?? ??? pa?a?a?? ??? p?a??ta? ?a? ?p?????, ?? d?f???a?? t??? p?????? ????ta? ??? t? ??? p??ata ?at? ????a, ?a? pe?? t??t?? ?a??? a??????? ????????? ?a? ???a????? ?a? t??? ?????? T????, ??a?da? ?? ??? ??t? t?? d?f?e??? f??e?? ?d??e, ?at??a?e d? ?? t?? ???? ?? t? ped?a, etc.

Other points are added in the version given by Quintus Curtius of the same speech (x. 10)—“En tandem! Illyriorum paulo ante et Persarum tributariis, Asia et tot gentium spolia fastidio sunt. Modo sub Philippo seminudis, amicula ex purpura sordent: aurum et argentum oculi ferre non possunt; lignea enim vasa desiderant, et ex cratibus scuta et rubiginem gladiorum.”

[599] Thucydides (ii. 100) recognizes the goodness of the Macedonian cavalry: so also Xenophon, in the Spartan expedition against Olynthus (Hellen. v. 2, 40).

That the infantry were of little military efficiency, we see from the judgment of Brasidas—Thucyd. iv. 26. compare also ii. 100.

See O. MÜller’s short tract on the Macedonians, annexed to his History of the Dorians, s. 33.

[600] Aristot. Polit. vii. 2, 6.

[601] Herodot. vii. 102. t? ????d? pe??? ?? a?e? ??te s??t??f?? ?st?, etc.

About the Persians, Herodot. i. 71; Arrian, v. 4, 13.

[602] The oration De Symmoriis is placed by Dionysius of Halikarnassus in the archonship of Diotimus, 354-353 B.C. (Dionys. Hal. ad AmmÆum. p. 724). And it is plainly composed prior to the expedition sent by the Thebans under PammenÊs to assist the revolted Artabazus against the Great King; which expedition is placed by Diodorus (xvi. 34) in the ensuing year 353-352 B.C. Whoever will examine the way in which Demosthenes argues, in the Oration De Symmoriis (p. 187. s. 40-42), as to the relations of the Thebans with Persia—will see that he cannot have known anything about assistance given by the Thebans to Artabazus against Persia.

[603] Diodor. xvi. 21.

[604] Demosthenes cont. Timokratem, s. 15; see also the second Argument prefixed to that Oration.

[605] See Epistola Philipp. ap. Demosthen. p. 160. s. 6.

[606] Demosthenes, De Symmoriis, p. 179. s. 7. ??d? ??? ??d? ?p? ?s?? ??? t??? t? ?????? ????s? ?a? ??? pe?? t?? p??? t?? as???a t?? ????? ??sa?—???? ??e???? ?? p?????? ??d??es?a? ?? d??e? t?? ?d?? t? s?fe???t?? d??????????? t?? ????? ??????? ?e??sa?, ??? d? ??d? ?d????????? pa?? t?? ?d?????t?? ?a??? ?st? ?ae?? ta?t?? t?? d????, ??sa? t??a? a?t?? ?p? t? a???? ?e??s?a?.

[607] Demosthen. De Symmor. p. 181. s. 14.

[608] Demosthen. De Symmor. p. 188. s. 42-46. ... ?st? ??te f?e?s?a? f?? de?? p??a t?? et????, ???? ?pa????a? p??t????? ??f??e?? t?? p??e??....

... ???t?? ?e?? f??e?a; ?da??? ???? ?d? ?d???e?, a?t?? ??? ??e?a ?a? t?? t?? ????? ??????? ta?a??? ?a? ?p?st?a?? ?pe? e? ?? ????ad?? ?? et? p??t?? ?p???s?a? ???, ??d? ?d??e?? ??? ??e???? ?d???? ?? ????a. ?pe?d? d? t???? ??t?? ??e?, f???ttes?a? f?? de?? ? p??fas?? d?e? as??e? t?? t? d??a?a ?p?? t?? ????? ??????? ??te??? ?s???a? ?? ??? ????t?? ???, ?p?pt?? ?? e?? t????t? t? p??tt??—p??e?? d? p???sa???? p??t???? e???t?? ?? d????? d?? t?? p??? ??? ?????? t??? ?????? f???? e??a? ???es?a?. ?? ??? ??e?????te ?? ?a??? ??e? t? ????????, s???a????te? ?t? ?? pe?sete, ?a? p??e???te? ?t? ?? d???ses?e? ???? ??ete ?s???a? ?a?????te? ?a? pa?as?e?a??e???.

[609] Demosthen. De Symmor. p. 181. s. 17. ??? ?? pa?as?e???, ?p?? ?? ???sta ?a? t???sta ?e??seta?, p??? p???? p???ata ?s??? s??p??.

[610] Demosthenes, De Symmoriis, p. 182. s. 18. ?st? t????? p??t?? ?? t?? pa?as?e???, ? ??d?e? ????a???, ?a? ???st??, ??t? d?a?e?s?a? t?? ???a? ???, ?? ??ast?? ????ta p?????? ?,t? ?? d?? p???s??ta. ???te ???, ? ??d?e? ????a???, ?t?, ?sa ?? p?p??? ?pa?te? ?e?? ???????te, ?a? et? ta?ta t? p??tte?? a?t?? ??ast?? ?a?t? p??s??e?? ???sat?, ??d?? p?p??? ??? ???f??e?? ?sa d? ???????te ??, et? ta?ta d? ?pe???ate p??? ???????? ?? a?t?? ?? ??ast?? ?? p???s??, t?? d? p??s??? p?????ta, ??d?? p?p??? ??? ????et?. ????t?? d? ??? ??t? ?a? a????????, etc.

[611] Thucyd. ii. 39, 40.

[612] Aristophanes, Equit. 750.

[613] Demosthenes, Orat. pro Megalopolitanis, p. 203. s. 5. p. 210. s. 36. ?st? t????? ?? t??? t????t? ?a??? t? p???ata ???, e? t? de? t??? e???????? p??????? pa?? ??? ?????? te???as?a?, ?ste T?a???? ?? ????e??? ?a? Tesp??? ?a? ??ata??? ????s?e?s?? ?s?e?e?? ?e??s?a?, etc. ?? ?? t????? ?atap??e???s?? ?? T?a???, ?spe? a?t??? de?, etc.

Compare Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 654. s. 120.

[614] Demosthenes pro Megalopol. p. 206. s. 18; compare Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 2, 1-5.

[615] Demosthenes pro Megalopolit. p. 202. s. 1.

[616] Demosthen. pro Megalop. p. 203. s. 5, 6. Compare a similar sentiment, Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 654. s. 120.

[617] Demosthen. pro Megalop. p. 203. s. 7, 9. p. 207. s. 22.

[618] See Demosthen. cont. Leptinem, p. 489. s. 172 (delivered 355 B.C.) and Olynthiac i. p. 16. s. 27.

[619] Demosthenes pro Megalopol. p. 207. s. 24.

[620] Diodor. xvi. 14; Demosthenes, De CoronÂ, p. 241. s. 60. Harpokration v. S???.

[621] Isokrates, Orat. viii. (De Pace) s. 143, 144.

[622] Diodor. xvi. 35.

[623] Diodor. xvi. 35.

[624] This fact is mentioned by Justin (vii. 2), and seems likely to be true, from the severity with which Philip, after his victory, treated the Phokian prisoners. But the farther statement of Justin is not likely to be true—that the Phokians, on beholding the insignia of the god, threw away their arms and fled without resistance.

[625] Diodor. xvi. 55; Pausan. x. 2, 3; Philo JudÆus apud Eusebium PrÆp. Evang. viii. p. 392. Diodorus states that Chares with the Athenian fleet was sailing by, accidentally. But this seems highly improbable. It cannot but be supposed that he was destined to coÖperate with the Phokians.

[626] Diodor. xvi. 37.

[627] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 50. s. 40. ?a?t??, t? d?p?te ????ete ... t??? ?p?st????? p??ta? ??? ?ste???e?? t?? ?a????, t?? e?? ?e?????, t?? e?? ?a?as??, t?? e?? ??t?da?a?, etc.

Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 11. s. 9. ?a? p???? ????a ??d?a, ??t?da?a, ?e????, ?a?asa?—p????????e?a ?p??????et?, e? t?te t??t?? ??? t? p??t? p?????? ?a? ?? p??s??e? ?????sae? a?t??, etc.

The first Philippic was delivered in 352-351 B.C., which proves that Philip’s capture of PagasÆ cannot have been later than that year. Nor can it have been earlier than his capture of PherÆ—as I have before remarked in reference to the passage of Diodorus (xvi. 31), where it seems to be placed in 354-353 B.C.; if ?a??? is to be taken for ?a?as??.

I apprehend that the first campaign of Philip in Thessaly against the Phokians, wherein he was beaten and driven out by Onomarchus, may be placed in the summer of 353 B.C. The second entrance into Thessaly, with the defeat and death of Onomarchus, belongs to the early spring of 352 B.C. The capture of PherÆ and PagasÆ comes immediately afterwards; then the expedition of Philip to ThermopylÆ, where his progress was arrested by the Athenians comes about Midsummer 352 B.C.

[628] Demosthenes, De Pace, p. 62. s. 23; Philippic ii. p. 71. s. 24; De Fals. Legat. p. 443. s. 365.

[629] Demosthenes, De Fals. Leg. p. 367. s. 94. p. 446. s. 375. ??? ??? ??? ??de? ??? ?t? t? F????? p???? ?a? t? ??????? e??a? ????? F???a?, ? te ?p? T?a??? ?de?a ?p???e? ???, ?a? t? ?d?p?t? ???e?? ?? e?? ?e??p????s?? ?d? e?? ????a? F???pp?? ?d? T?a????;

[630] Diodor. xvi. 37, 38.

[631] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 44. s. 20; De CoronÂ, p. 236. s. 40; De Fals. Leg. p. 444. s. 366.

[632] Demosthenes, De Fals. Leg. p. 367. s. 95.

[633] Thucyd. vi. 31.

[634] Justin, vii. 2. His rhetorical exaggerations ought not to make us reject the expression of this opinion against Athens, as a real fact.

[635] Demosthenes (Fals. Leg. p. 443) affirms that no one else except Athens assisted or rescued the Phokians in this emergency. But Diodorus (xvi. 37) mentions succors from the other allies also; and there seems no ground for disbelieving him. The boast of Demosthenes, however, that Athens single-handed saved the Phokians, is not incorrect as to the main fact, though overstated in the expression. For the Athenians, commanding a naval force, and on this rare occasion rapid in their movements, reached ThermopylÆ in time to arrest the progress of Philip, and before the Peloponnesian troops could arrive. The Athenian expedition to ThermopylÆ seems to have occurred about May 352 B.C.—as far as we can make out the chronology of the time.

[636] Diodor. xvi. 56. The account of these donatives of Kroesus may be read in Herodotus (i. 50, 51), who saw them at Delphi. As to the exact weight and number, there is some discrepancy between him and Diodorus; moreover the text of Herodotus himself is not free from obscurity.

[638] Diodor. xvi. 56, 57. The story annexed about Iphikrates and the ships of Dionysius of Syracuse—a story which, at all events, comes quite out of its chronological place—appears to me not worthy of credit, in the manner in which Diodorus here gives it. The squadron of Dionysius, which Iphikrates captured on the coast of Korkyra, was coming to the aid and at the request of the LacedÆmonians, then at war with Athens (Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 2, 33). It was therefore a fair capture for an Athenian general, together with all on board. If, amidst the cargo, there happened to be presents intended for Olympia and Delphi, these, as being on board of ships of war, would follow the fate of the other persons and things along with them. They would not be considered as the property of the god until they had been actually dedicated in his temple. Nor would the person sending them be entitled to invoke the privilege of a consecrated cargo unless he divested it of hostile accompaniment. The letter of complaint to the Athenians, which Diodorus gives as having been sent by Dionysius, seems to me neither genuine nor even plausible.

[639] TimÆus, Fragm. 67, ed. Didot; ap. AthenÆum, vi. p. 264-272.

[640] Diodor. xvi. 57: compare Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 367.

[641] Diodor. xvi. 37, 38.

[642] Diodor. xvi. 52.

[643] Diodor. xvi. 34.

[644] Diodor. xvi. 39.

[645] Diodor. xvi. 38.

[646] Diodor. xvi. 38, 39.

[647] Diodor. xvi. 40. ?p? d? t??t??, T?a??? ?????te? t? p??? F??e?? p????, ?a? ????t?? ?p????e???, p??se?? ???pe?a? p??? t?? t?? ?e?s?? as???a.... ???? d? ????t??? ?a? t??? F??e?s?? ???????s?? ?? ?a? ???a? ?atad??a? s???st?sa?, p???e?? d? ?at? t??t?? t?? ???a?t?? (351-350 B.C.—according to the chronology of Diodorus) ?? s??ete??s??sa?.

[648] Isokrates, Orat. v. (ad Philipp.) s. 61.

[649] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 46. s. 26. (352-351 B.C.)

Compare Philippic iii. p. 124. s. 63.

[650] Demosthenes, Olynth. ii. p. 23. s. 17. (delivered in 350 B.C.) ... ?? d? d? pe?? a?t?? ??te? ????? ?a? pe??ta???? d??a? ?? ?a? ????s?? ?? e?s? ?a?ast?? ?a? s???e???t????? t? t?? p?????, etc.

[651] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 657. s. 133 (352-351 B.C.); also Demosthen. Olynth. i. p. 15. s. 23. (349 B.C.) ?????? d? ????? t???? ?? ??d? t??? ????a? ?a? t?? ?????? ?t? d?s??e? a?t? ?a?p??s?a?? t? ??? ????? t? Tetta??? ?p? t??t?? d??? d????e??, ?? F???pp?? ?a??e??? e? d? t??t?? ?p?ste????seta? t?? ????t??, e?? ste??? ???d? t? t?? t??f?? t??? ?????? a?t? ?atast?seta?.

[652] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 657. s. 131-133 (352-351 B.C.); compare Isokrates, Orat. v. (ad Philipp. s. 5.)

[653] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 4, 56; Hermippus ap. AthenÆum, i. p. 27. About the lucrative commerce in the Gulf, in reference to Demetrias and ThebÆ Phthiotides, see Livy, xxxix. 25.

[654] Demosthenes cont. Polykl. p. 1207; De Coron TrierarchicÂ, p. 1230; Diodor. xv. 95; Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 11.

[655] Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 15. s. 23. ?a? ??? ?a?as?? ?pa?te?? a?t?? e?s?? ???f?s???? (the Thessalians re-demand the place from Philip), ?a? ?a???s?a? ?e?????as? te????e??. In Olynth. ii. p. 21. s. 11. it stands—?a? ??? ??? e?s?? ???f?s???? ?a?as?? ?pa?te??, ?a? pe?? ?a???s?a? ?????? p??e?s?a?. I take the latter expression to state the fact with more strict precision; the Thessalians passed a vote to remonstrate with Philip; it is not probable that they actually hindered him. And if he afterwards “gave to them Magnesia,” as we are told in a later oration delivered 344 B.C. (Philippic ii. p. 71. s. 24), he probably gave it with reserve of the fortified posts to himself; since we know that his ascendency over Thessaly was not only not relaxed, but became more violent and compressive.

The value which the Macedonian kings always continued to set, from this time forward, upon Magnesia and the recess of the PagasÆan Gulf, is shown in the foundation of the city of Demetrias in that important position, by Demetrius Poliorketes, about sixty years afterwards. Demetrias, Chalkis, and Corinth came to be considered the most commanding positions in Greece.

This fine bay, with the fertile territory lying on its shores under Mount Pelion, are well described by colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iv. ch. 41. p. 373 seqq. I doubt whether either Ulpian (ad Demosthen. Olynth. i. p. 24) or colonel Leake (p. 381) are borne out in supposing that there was any town called Magnesia on the shores of the Gulf. None such is mentioned either by Strabo or by Skylax; and I apprehend that the passages above cited from Demosthenes mean Magnesia the region inhabited by the Magnetes; as in Demosthenes cont. NeÆram. p. 1382. s. 141.

[656] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 46. s. 25. de? ???, ????t?? ??e???? ?a?t????, ?a? ta?e??? t?????? ???, ?p?? ?sfa??? ? d??a?? p???.—p. 49. s. 38. ???t?? ??, t?? ???st?? t?? ??e???? p???? ?fa???ses?e? ?st? d? ??t?? t??; ?p? t?? ?et???? ??? p??ee? s?????, ???? ?a? f???? t??? p????ta? t?? ???assa?. ?pe?ta, t? p??? t??t?; t?? p?s?e?? a?t?? ?a??? ??? ?e??ses?e, ??? ?spe? t?? pa?e????ta ?????? e?? ????? ?a? ???? ?a??? a??a??t??? p???ta? ?et????? ??et? ????, p??? t? Ge?a?st? t? p???a s???a?? ????ta ???at? ????e?e, t? te?e?ta?a e?? ?a?a???a ?p??, ?a? t?? ?e??? ?p? t?? ???a? ??et? ???? t?????, etc.

We can hardly be certain that the Sacred Trireme thus taken was either the Paralus or the Salaminia; there may have been other sacred triremes besides these two.

[657] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 52. s. 49. ???? t?? ?? ????? t?? p????? ?e?e?????? ?p?? t?? t????sas?a? F???pp??, t?? d? te?e?t?? ??sa? ?d? ?p?? t?? ? pa?e?? ?a??? ?p? F???pp??. (Between Midsummer 352 and Midsummer 351 B.C.)

[658] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 660. s. 144. p. 656. s. 130. ???? ? ???sta d???? ??? ??? ?????? e??a? F???pp?? ??t?s?, etc. (this harangue also between Midsummer 352 and Midsummer 351 B.C.)

[659] Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 13. s. 13.

[660] Demosthenes, Olynth. iii. p. 29. s. 5 (delivered in the latter half of 350 B.C.)

... ?p??????? F???pp?? ??? ?? T????, t??t?? ? t?ta?t?? ?t?? t??t?, ??a??? te???? p????????, t?te t????? ?? ?? ?? ?a?a?t?????, etc.

This Thracian expedition of Philip (alluded to also in Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 13. s. 13) stands fixed to the date of November 352 B.C., on reasonably good grounds.

That the town or fortress called ??a??? ?e???? was near to the Chersonese, cannot be doubted. The commentators identify it with ??a???, mentioned by Herodotus (iv. 90) as being near Perinthus. But this hypothesis is open to much doubt. ??a??? ?e???? is not quite the same as ??a???; nor was the latter place very near to the Chersonese; nor would Philip be yet in a condition to provoke or menace so powerful a city as Perinthus—though he did so ten years afterwards. (Diodor. xvi. 74).

I cannot think that we know where ??a??? ?e???? was situated; except that it was in Thrace, and near the Chersonese.

[661] Demosthenes, Olynth. iii. p. 29, 30. ?? ??? ??????? F???pp?? ?s?e??? ? te??e?? (???e ??? ?f?te?a), etc. These reports of the sickness and death of Philip in Thrace are alluded to in the first Philippic, p. 43. s. 14. The expedition of Philip threatening the Chersonese, and the vote passed by the Athenians when they first heard of this expedition, are also alluded to in the first Philippic, p. 44. s. 20. p. 51. s. 46. ?a? ?e??, ?? ?? ?e?????s? p???s?e F???pp??, ??e?se ???e?? ??f??es?e, etc. When Philip was besieging ??a??? ?e????, he was said to be ?? ?e?????s?.

[662] Demosthenes, Olynth. iii. p. 30. s. 6.

[663] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 625. s. 14. p. 682, 683. This oration, delivered between Midsummer 352 and Midsummer 351 B.C., seems to have been prior to November 352 B.C., when the news reached Athens that Philip was besieging ??a??? ?e????.

[664] I adopt the date accepted by most critics, on the authority of Dionysius of Halikarnassus, to the first Philippic; the archonship of Aristodemus 352-351 B.C. It belongs, I think, to the latter half of that year.

The statements of Dionysius bearing on this oration have been much called in question; to a certain extent, with good reason, in what he states about the sixth Philippic (ad AmmÆum, p. 736). What he calls the sixth, is in reality the fifth in his own enumeration, coming next after the first Philippic and the three Olynthiacs. To the Oratio De Pace, which is properly the sixth in his enumeration, he assigns no ordinal number whatever. What is still more perplexing—he gives as the initial words of what he calls the sixth Philippic, certain words which occur in the middle of the first Philippic, immediately after the financial scheme read by Demosthenes to the people, the words, ? ?? ?e??, ? ??d?e? ????a???, ded???e?a e??e?? ta?t? ?st?? (Philipp. i. p. 48). If this were correct, we should have to divide the first Philippic into two parts, and recognize the latter part (after the words ? ?? ?e??) as a separate and later oration. Some critics, among them Dr. Thirlwall, agree so far with Dionysius as to separate the latter part from the former, and to view it as a portion of some later oration. I follow the more common opinion, accepting the oration as one. There is a confusion, either in the text or the affirmations, of Dionysius, which has never yet been, perhaps cannot be, satisfactorily cleared up.

BÖhnecke (in his Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Attischen Redner, p. 222 seq.) has gone into a full and elaborate examination of the first Philippic and all the controversy respecting it. He rejects the statement of Dionysius altogether. He considers that the oration as it stands now is one whole, but delivered three years later than Dionysius asserts: not in 351 B.C., but in the Spring of 348 B.C., after the three Olynthiacs, and a little before the fall of Olynthus. He notices various chronological points (in my judgment none of them proving his point) tending to show that the harangue cannot have been delivered so early as 351 B.C. But I think the difficulty of supposing that the oration was spoken at so late a period of the Olynthian war, and yet that nothing is said in it about that war, and next to nothing about Olynthus itself—is greater than any of those difficulties which BÖhnecke tries to make good against the earlier date.

[665] Demosthenes, De Symmor. p. 182. s. 18.

[666] Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 366.

[667] Demosthen. Philipp. i. init. ... ?? ?? pe?? ?a???? t???? p???at?? p???t??et? ???e??, ?p?s??? ?? ??? ?? p?e?st?? t?? e????t?? ????? ?pef??a?t? ... ?pe?d? d? pe?? ?? p??????? e????as?? ??t?? p??te??? s?a??e? ?a? ???? s??pe??, ????a? ?a? p??t?? ??ast?? e???t?? ?? s??????? t?????e??? e? ??? ?? t?? pa?e??????t?? ?????? t? d???ta ??t?? s??e???e?sa?, ??d?? ?? ??? ??? ?de? ???e?es?a?.

[668] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 40, 41. ?t? ??d?? t?? de??t?? p?????t?? ??? ?a??? t? p???ata ??e?? ?pe? t??, e? p???? ? p??s??e p?att??t?? ??t?? e??e?, ??d? ?? ??p?? ?? a?t? e?t?? ?e??s?a?, etc. Again, p. 42. ?? t????? ?a? ?e?? ?p? t?? t??a?t?? ??e??s?te ?e??s?a? ????? ???, ?pe?d?pe? ?? p??te???, ... ?a? pa?s?s?e a?t?? ?? ??d?? ??ast?? p???se?? ??p????, t?? d? p??s??? p???? ?p?? a?t?? p???e??, etc.

Compare the previous harangue, De Symmoriis, p. 182. s. 18.

[669] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 43. s. 15. ?? d? ??? ??ete, ??d? d?d??t?? t?? ?a???? ?f?p???? d??as?a? d??a?s?? ??, ?p??t????? ?a? ta?? pa?as?e?a?? ?a? ta?? ???a??.

[670] Demosthenes, Philip. i. p. 44. ... ?pe?d?? ?pa?ta ????s?te, ????ate—? p??te??? p???a??ete? ?d? ?? ?? ????? d??? t??? ?a???? pa?as?e??? ???e??, ??a???e?? e t? p???ata ??e?s??? ?? ??? ?? ta?? ?a? t?e??? e?p??te? ???sta e?? d??? ?????s??, etc.

... ??a? t????? ??? ta?ta ???e?? ??e??, ? ?????? e? t?? ????? ?pa?????eta? t?.

This deprecatory tone deserves notice, and the difficulty which the speaker anticipates in obtaining a hearing.

[671] Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 44, 45.

[672] Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 45, 46.

[673] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 48, 49. ? d? ?p???a? de? pa?? ???, ta?t? ?st?? ??? ????afa.

[674] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 49. s. 37.

[675] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 49. s. 38, 39.

[676] Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 48, 49. “The obstinacy and violence of the Etesian winds, in July and August, are well known to those who have had to struggle with them in the Ægean during that season” (Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iv. ch. 42. p. 426).

The Etesian winds, blowing from the north, made it difficult to reach Macedonia from Athens.

Compare Demosthenes, De Rebus Chersonesi, p. 93. s. 14.

[677] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 51. s. 46. ... ?e?? d?, p?e?st?? d??a?? ?p??t?? ????te?, t????e??, ?p??ta?, ?pp?a?, ????t?? p??s?d??, t??t?? ?? ???? t?? t?e??? ???a? ??de?? p?p?te e?? d??? t? ?????s?e.

[678] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 50. ?? d? t??? pe?? t?? p????? ?ta?ta, ?d?????ta, ????sta, ?pa?ta. ????a???? ?a ?????a?? t? ?a? t?????????? ?a??stae?, ?a? t??t??? ??t?d?se?? p????e?a ?a? pe?? ????t?? p???? s??p??e?, etc.

[679] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 48, 49. de?—? ???e?a?? p??ee?? (?ste????e? ??? ?p??t??) ???? pa?as?e?? s??e?e? ?a? d???e?.

Compare his Oration De Rebus Chersonesi, p. 92. s. 11.

[680] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 46. s. 28. ?? ?? d? a?t? ?a?? a?t? t? ?e???? ??? st?ate?eta?, t??? f????? ???? ?a? t??? s??????, ?? d? ?????? e????? t?? d???t?? ?e???as?? ?a? pa?a???a?ta ?p? t?? t?? p??e?? p??e??, p??? ??t?a??? ?a? pa?ta??? ????? ???eta? p????ta, ? d? st?at???? ???????e?, e???t??? ?? ??? ?st?? ???e?? ? d?d??ta ?s???. ?? ??? ?e?e??; t?? p??f?se?? ?fe?e?? ?a? t?? st?at???? ?a? t?? st?at??t??, ?s??? p???sa?ta? ?a? st?at??ta? ???e???? ?spe? ?p?pta? t?? st?at???????? pa?a?atast?sa?ta?, etc.

... p 53. s. 51. ?a? ?? ?? ?????? ?ata?e??s??, ?? d? s?a??? te???s? t? d?e? t??? t????t??? ?p?st?????, etc.

[681] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 47. ?pe? ??? ?e ????? ?s?? ?? ???e?a t??? p???as?.

[682] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 54 s. 58. ??? ?? ??? ??t? ????te p?p?te p??? ????? e????? ???e??, ?,t? ?? ? ?a? s????se?? pepe?s???? ?, ??? te ? ?????s?? p???? ?p???, ??d?? ?p?ste???e???, pepa???s?asa?. ??????? d? ??, ?spe? ?t? ??? s?f??e? t? ??t?sta ????e?? ??da, ??t?? e?d??a? s????s?? ?a? t? t? ??t?sta e?p??t?? p???? ??? ?? ?d??? e?p??. ??? d? ?p? ?d????? ??s? t??? ?p? t??t?? ?a?t? ?e??s??????, ??? ?p? t? s????se?? ???, ?? p????te, ta?ta pepe?s?a? ???e?? a????a?.

[683] Demosthenes, De CoronÂ, p. 308. s. 306. ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? ??t?? ?pe?????? e??, p?sa? ???tas?? ??a?e? ?? pa?a?t??a?. ???a ??? ?st? ta?ta; ?de?? t? p???ata ????e?a, ?a? p??a?s??s?a? ?a? p??e?pe?? t??? ??????. ?a?ta p?p?a?ta? ??. ?a? ?t? t?? ??asta??? ?ad?t?ta?, ??????, ?????a?, f????e???a?, ? p???t??? ta?? p??es? p??sest?? ?p?sa?? ?a? ??a??a?a ?a?t?ata, ta??? ?? e?? ?????sta s?ste??a?, ?a? t?????t??? e?? ?????a? ?a? f???a? ?a? t?? t? d???ta p??e?? ???? p??t???a?.

[684] Demosthenes, Olynth. iii. p. 29. s. 5.

[685] Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 48. s. 34; Olynth. ii. p. 21. s. 12; Olynth. iii. p. 29. s. 5. p. 32. s. 16; De Rhodiorum Libertate, p. 190. s. 1. And not merely votes against Philip, but against others also, remained either unexecuted or inadequately executed (Demosthenes, De Republic OrdinandÂ, p. 175, 176).

[686] Demosthen. De Rhodior. Libertat. p. 197. s. 31. ??? d? ??? ?????? F???pp?? ?? ?? ??? ??de??? ????? p??????? ?????????ta?, as???a d? ?? ?s????? ?????? ??? ?? p?????ta? f????????. ?? d? t?? ?? ?? fa???? ??? ?????e?a, t? d? ?? f?e?? p???? ?pe???e?, p??? t??a? pa?ata??e?a;

This oration was delivered in 351-350 B.C.; a few months after the first Philippic.

[687] Demosthenes, Philipp. i. p. 45. s. 21; Olynthiac ii. p. 19. s. 4.

[688] Compare the advice of the Thebans to Mardonius in 479 B.C.—during the Persian invasion of Greece (Herodot. ix. 2).

[689] Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 656. s. 129. ??e???? (Olynthians) ??? ?? ????? a?t?? (Philip) t??????t?? ?????? ?? p?st?? ?p???e, s?a??? te ?sa?, ?a? d?? ??e???? ??? ?p??????? ?pe?d? d? e?d?? e??? t?? p??? a?t??? p?ste?? ?????e??? ... ???, ??? ?sas?? ?p??t?? ?????p?? ?d?st? ?? ?a? t??? ??e???? f????? ?a? a?t?? t?? F???pp?? ?p??te??a?ta?, f????? pep????ta?, fas? d? ?a? s?????? p???ses?a?.

We know from Dionysius that this oration was delivered between Midsummer 352 B.C. and Midsummer 351 B.C. I have already remarked that it must have been delivered, in my judgment, before the month MÆmakterion (November) 352 B.C.

[690] Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 44. s. 20. ... ?p? t?? ??a?f??? ta?ta? ?p? t?? ???e?a? ???a? a?t?? st?ate?a?, e?? ???a? ?a? ?e?????s?? ?a? ??????? ?a? ?p?? ???eta?.

[691] Demosthenes, Olynthiac i. p. 11. s. 7. ... ???? ???, ? p??te? ????????? t???, ????????? ??p??e?sa? de?? F???pp?, ?????e? a?t?at??, ?a? ta??? ?? ?? ??? ???sta s?f????. ?? ?? ??? ?f? ??? pe?s???te? ??e????t? t?? p??e??, sfa?e??? s?a??? ?a? ???? t?? ta?t? ?? ??????te? ?sa? ?s??, etc.

Compare Olynth. iii. p. 30. s. 9. and p. 32. s. 18. ??? ???, e? p??e?sa?e?, ?t???? s?se?? ?p?s????e?a, ??t?? ??? p??e???ta?;

[692] Demosthen. Olynth. i. p. 13. s. 13.

[693] Demosthen. Olynth. iii. p. 30. s. 8. ??te F???pp?? ?????e? t??t???, ???? ??t?? F???pp??, etc.

[694] Demosthen. Olynth. i. p. 13. s. 13. ... ?s????se? p???? ?a?sa? ??? ?p? t? ????e?? ?p?????e?, ???? e???? ????????? ?pe?e???se?.

What length of time is denoted by the adverb e????, must of course be matter of conjecture. If the expression had been found in the Oration De CoronÂ, delivered twenty years afterwards, we might have construed e???? very loosely. But it occurs here in an oration delivered probably in the latter half of 350 B.C., but certainly not later than the first half of 348 B.C. Accordingly, it is hardly reasonable to assign to the interval here designated by e???? (that between Philip’s recovery and his serious attack upon the Olynthians) a longer time than six months. We should then suppose this attack to have been commenced about the last quartet of Olymp. 107, 2; or in the first half of 350 B.C. This is the view of BÖhnecke, and, I think, very probable (Forschungen, p. 211).

[695] Justin, viii. 3; Orosius, iii. 12. Justin states this as the cause of the attack made by Philip on Olynthus—which I do not believe. But I see no ground for doubting the fact itself—or for doubting that Philip laid hold of it as a pretext. He found the half-brothers in Olynthus when the city was taken, and put both of them to death.

[696] Thucyd. i. 58.

[697] Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 425, 426; Xenophon, Hellen. v. 2. 17.

[698] Demosthenes, Olynth. i. p. 15. s. 22. ??t? ?? ????e??e t?? p??e?? p?te t??t?? ??e????, e? p??ee?? ???? de?se?? a?t??, ???? ?? ?p??? ?pa?ta t?te ??p??e t? p???ata ??a???ses?a?, ??ta d???e?sta?. ???t? d? p??t?? a?t?? ta??tte? pa?? ????? ?e?????, etc.

[699] See ch. lxxxiii. p. 35 of this Volume.

[700] Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 439. Æschines himself met a person named Atrestidas followed by one of these sorrowful troops. We may be sure that this case was only one among many.

[701] Pliny, H. N. ii. 27. “Fit et coeli ipsius hiatus, quod vocant chasma. Fit et sanguine specie (quo nihil terribilius mortalium timori est) incendium ad terras cadens inde; sicut Olympiadis centesimÆ septimÆ anno tertio, cum rex Philippus GrÆciam quateret. Atque ego hÆc statis temporibus naturÆ, ut cetera, arbitror existere; non (ut plerique) variis de causis, quas ingeniorum acumen excogitat. Quippe ingentium malorum fuere prÆnuntia; sed ea accidisse non quia hÆc facta sunt arbitror, verum hÆc ideo facta, quia incasura erant illa: raritate autem occultam eorum esse rationem, ideoque non sicut exortus supra dictos defectusque et multa alia nosci.”

The precision of this chronological note makes it valuable. Olymp. 107, 3—corresponds to the year between Midsummer 350 and Midsummer 349 B.C.

Taylor, who cites this passage in his Prolegomena ad Demosthenem (ap. Reiske Oratt. Gr. vol. viii. p. 756), takes the liberty, without any manuscript authority, of altering tertio into quarto; which BÖhnecke justly pronounces to be unreasonable (Forschungen, p. 212). The passage as it stands is an evidence, not merely to authenticate the terrific character of the time, but also to prove, among other evidences, that the attack of Philip on the Olynthians and Chalkidians began in 350-349 B.C.—not in the following Olympic year, or in the time after Midsummer 349 B.C.

BÖhnecke (Forschungen, p. 201-221) has gone into an examination of the dates and events of this Olynthian war, and has arranged them in a manner different from any preceding critic. His examination is acute and instructive, including however some reasonings of little force or pertinence. I follow him generally, in placing the beginning of the Olynthian war, and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes, before Olymp. 107, 4. This is the best opinion which I can form, on matters lamentably unattested and uncertain.

[702] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 113. That Philip not only attacked, but even subdued, the thirty-two Chalkidic cities, before he marched directly and finally to assail Olynthus—is stated in the Fragment of Kallisthenes ap. StobÆum, Eclog. Tit. vii. p. 92.

Kallisthenes, whose history is lost, was a native of Olynthus, born a few years before the capture of the city.

[703] Some remarks will be found on the order of the Olynthiacs, in an Appendix to the present chapter.

It must be understood that I always speak of the Olynthiacs as first, second, and third, according to the common and edited order; though I cannot adopt that order as correct.

[704] Dionys. Hal. ad AmmÆ. p. 736. et? ??? ?????ta ?a???a???, ?f? ?? t?? e?? ??????? ???e?a? ?p?ste??a? ????a???, pe?s???te? ?p? ???s??????, etc.

He connects the three Olynthiacs of Demosthenes, with the three Athenian armaments sent to Olynthus in the year following Midsummer 349 B.C.; for which armaments he had just before cited Philochorus.

[705] This is evident from the sneers of Meidias: see the oration of Demosthenes cont. Meidiam, p. 575, 576. (spoken in the year following—349-348 B.C.)

I observe, not without regret, that Demosthenes himself is not ashamed to put the like sneers into the mouth of a client speaking before the Dikastery—against Lakritus—“this very clever man, who has paid ten minÆ to Isokrates for a course of rhetoric, and thinks himself able to talk you over as he pleases,” etc. (Demosth. adv. Lakrit. p. 938).

[706] An orator of the next generation (Deinarchus cont. Demosthen. p. 102, s. 99) taunts Demosthenes as a mere opposition-talker, in contrast with the excellent administration of the finances and marine under Eubulus—p??a? ??? t????e?? e?s? ?ates?e?as??a? d?? t??t?? (Demosthenes) ?spe? ep? ???????, t? p??e?; ? p???? ?e?s????? t??t?? p???te?????? ?e???as?; The administration of Eubulus must have left a creditable remembrance, to be thus cited afterwards.

See Theopompus ap. Harpokr. v. ???????; Plutarch, Reipubl. Gerend. PrÆcept. p. 812. Compare also Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 435; and Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 57. c. 11.

[707] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 9. ?? ?st? ???sta t??t? d???, ? pa??????? ?? ?a? de???? ?????p?? (Philip) p???as? ???s?a? t? ?? e???? ????? ?? t???, t? d? ?pe????, t? d? ??? d?a????? ?a? t?? ?p??s?a? t?? ?et??a? t???? te ?a? pa?asp?s?ta? t? t?? ???? p?a??t??.

This occurs in the next subsequent speech of Demosthenes, intimating what Philip and his partisans had already deduced as inference from the past neglect of the Athenians to send any aid to Olynthus. Of course, no such inference could be started until some time had been allowed for expectation and disappointment; which is one among many reasons for believing the first Olynthiac to be posterior in time to the second.

[708] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 12, 13.

[709] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 9.

[710] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 14. F?? d? d??? ????t??? e??a? t??? p???as?? ???? t? te t?? p??e?? t??? ????????? s??e??, ?a? t??? t??t? p???s??ta? st?at??ta? ??p?pe??—?a? t? t?? ??e???? ???a? ?a??? p??e?? ?a? t????es? ?a? st?at??ta?? ?t?????? e? d? ?at???? t??t?? ???????sete, ???? ? ?ta??? ??? ? st?ate?a ????ta?.

[712] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 11.

[713] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 12, 13, 16. ... e? d? p???s?e?a ?a? t??t??? t??? ?????p???, e?t? ??????? ??e???? ?atast???eta?, f?as?t? t?? ???, t? t? ?????? ?t? a?t?? ?sta? ad??e?? ?p?? ???eta?.

... t?? ??t?? e????? ?st?? ??? ?st?? ????e? t?? ??e??e? p??e?? de??? ????ta, ?? ?e??s?e?;

[714] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 15.

[715] In my view, it is necessary to separate entirely the proceedings alluded to in the Demosthenic Olynthiacs, from the three expeditions to Olynthus mentioned by Philochorus during the following year—349-348 B.C., the archonship of Kallimachus. I see no reason to controvert the statement of Philochorus, that there were three expeditions during that year, such as he describes. But he must be mistaken (or Dionysius must have copied him erroneously) in setting forth those three expeditions as the whole Olynthian war, and the first of the three as being the beginning of the war. The Olynthian war began in 350 B.C., and the three Olynthiacs of Demosthenes refer, in my judgment, to the first months of the war. But it lasted until the early spring of 347 B.C., so that the armaments mentioned by Philochorus may have occurred during the last half of the war. I cannot but think that Dionysius, being satisfied with finding three expeditions to Olynthus which might be attached as results to the three orations of Demosthenes, was too hastily copied out the three from Philochorus, and has assigned the date of 349-348 B.C. to the three orations, simply because he found that date given to the three expeditions by Philochorus.

The revolt in Euboea, the expedition of Phokion with the battle of TamynÆ and the prolonged war in that island, began about January or February 349 B.C., and continued throughout that year and the next. Mr. Clinton even places these events a year earlier; in which I do not concur, but which, if adopted, would throw back the beginning of the Olynthian war one year farther still. It is certain that there was one Athenian expedition at least sent to Olynthus before the Euboean war, (Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, p. 566-578)—an expedition so considerable that voluntary donations from the rich citizens were obtained towards the cost. Here is good proof (better than Philochorus, if indeed it be inconsistent with what he really said) that the Athenians not only contracted the alliance of Olynthus, but actually assisted Olynthus, during the year 350 B.C. Now the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes present to my mind strong evidence of belonging to the earliest months of the Olynthian war. I think it reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the expedition of foreign mercenaries to Olynthus, which the third Olynthiac implies as having been sent, is the same as that for which the ?p?d?se?? mentioned in the Meidiana were required. See BÖhnecke, Forschungen, p. 202; and K. F. Hermann, De Anno Natali Demosthenis, p. 9.

[716] Theopompus ap. AthenÆ;, xii. p. 532. This victory would seem to belong more naturally (as Dr. Thirlwall remarks) to the operations of Chares and Onomarchus against Philip in Thessaly, in 353-352 B.C. But the point cannot be determined.

[717] Demosth. Olynth. iii. p. 29. ???s?e, ?t? ?p??????? F???pp?? ??? ?? T???? t??t?? ? t?ta?t?? ?t?? t??t?, ??a??? te???? p????????? t?te t????? ?? ?? ?? ?a?a?t?????, etc. This was the month MÆmakterion or November 352 B.C. Calculating forward from that date, t??t?? ?t?? means the next year but one; that is the Attic year Olymp. 107. 3, or the year between Midsummer 350 and Midsummer 349 B.C. Dionysius of Halikarnassus says (p. 726)—?a??????? t?? t??t?? et? T?ssa??? ???a?t??—though there was only one archon between Thessalus and Kallimachus. When Demosthenes says t??t?? ? t?ta?t?? ?t??—it is clear that both cannot be accurate; we must choose one or the other; and t??t?? ?t?? brings us to the year 350-349 B.C.

To show that the oration was probably spoken during the first half of that year, or before February 349 B.C., another point of evidence may be noticed.

At the time when the third Olynthiac was spoken, no expedition of Athenian citizens had yet been sent to the help of Olynthus. But we shall see, presently, that Athenian citizens were sent thither during the first half of 349 B.C.

Indeed, it would be singular, if the Olynthiacs had been spoken after the expedition to Euboea, that Demosthenes should make no allusion in any one of them to that expedition, an affair of so much moment and interest, which kept Athens in serious agitation during much of the year, and was followed by prolonged war in that neighboring island. In the third Olynthiac, Demosthenes alludes to taking arms against Corinth and Megara (p. 34). Would he be likely to leave the far more important proceedings in Euboea unnoticed? Would he say nothing about the grave crisis in which the decree of Apollodorus was proposed? This difficulty disappears when we recognize the Olynthiacs as anterior to the Euboic war.

[718] Thucyd. ii. 65. ?p?te ???? a?s???t? t? a?t??? pa?? ?a???? ??e? ?a?s???ta?, ????? ?at?p??sse? (Perikles) e?? t? f?e?s?a?? ?a? ded??ta? a? ?????? ??t??a??st? p???? ?p? t? ?a?se??.

Compare the Argument of the third Olynthiac by Libanius.

[719] Demosth. Olynth. iii. p. 28, 29. ???? ?? ??? ?????? pe?? t?? t????sas?a? F???pp?? ??? ??????????, t? d? p???ata e?? t??t? p??????ta, ?ste ?p?? ? pe?s?e?a a?t?? p??te??? ?a??? s???as?a? d???.

... t???? ??a??? p???ae?? ??? e??a? t?? p??t??, ?p?? t??? s?????? s?s?e?.

[720] Demosth. Olynth. iii. p. 30.

[721] Demosth. Olynth. iii. p. 31, 32.

[722] Æschines adv. Ktesiphont. p. 67, 68.

[723] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 661. f???, ??? d? d? ?a? ?e??st?at?? ??? ? ??et??e?? ????? t? a?t? ?a? a?t? ??f?sas?a?, ? F?????? ? F??e??, etc.

[724] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 51.

[725] Demosthen. Philipp. i. p. 49.

[726] Demosthenes, De Pace, p. 58.

[727] Demosthenes cont. Meidiam, p. 550. ... ?a? t?? ?? ????? p?a??t??, ? ????ta???? ? t??t?? ????? ?a? f???? d?ep???at?, ?? ??? a?t??? e?? ?ates?e?a?e, p?? t?? t? p???a ?e??s?a? fa?e??? d?? ????t????? ?e?????.

[728] Demosth. cont. Meidiam, p. 558; cont. Boeotum de Nomine, p. 999. The mention of the ??e? in the latter passage, being the second day of the festival called Anthesteria, identifies the month.

[729] Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, p. 566, 567.

[730] Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 399. ... ?a???s?????, t??? F??????? ?????? d?a??sa?, etc. There is no ground for inferring from this passage (with BÖhnecke, p. 20, and others), that the Phokians themselves seconded Philip in organizing Euboean parties against Athens. The Phokians were then in alliance with Athens, and would not be likely to concur in a step alike injurious and offensive to her, without any good to themselves. But some of the mercenaries on service in Phokis might easily be tempted to change their service and cross to Euboea, by the promise of a handsome gratuity.

[731] Demosth. cont. Meidiam, p. 567. ?pe?d? d? p??????e?s?a? t??? ?? ?a??a?? st?at??ta? ????????et?, etc.

[732] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 300. c. 53; cont. Ktesiphont. p. 399. c. 32. Plutarch, Phokion, c. 13. Plutarch has no clear idea of the different contests carried on in the island of Euboea. He passes on, without a note of transition, from this war in the island (in 349-348 B.C.) to the subsequent war in 341 B.C.

Nothing indeed can be more obscure and difficult to disentangle than the sequence of Euboean transactions.

It is to be observed that Æschines lays the blame of the treachery, whereby the Athenian army was entrapped and endangered, on Kallias of Chalkis; while Demosthenes throws it on Plutarch of Eretria. Probably both Plutarch and Kallias deserved the stigma. But Demosthenes is on this occasion more worthy of credit than Æschines, since the harangue against Meidias, in which the assertion occurs, was delivered only a few months after the battle of TamynÆ; while the allegation of Æschines is contained in his harangue against Ktesiphon, which was not spoken till many years afterwards.

[733] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 13.

[734] Æschines indeed says, that Kallias, having been forgiven by Athens on this occasion, afterwards, gratuitously and from pure hostility and ingratitude to Athens, went to Philip. But I think this is probably an exaggeration. The orator is making a strong point against Kallias, who afterwards became connected with Demosthenes, and rendered considerable service to Athens in Euboea.

The treason of Kallias and Taurosthenes is alluded to by Deinarchus in his harangue against Demosthenes, s. 45.

[735] Demosthenes cont. Meidiam, p. 567.

[736] Æschines cont. Ktesiph. p. 61; Plutarch, Demosth. c. 12. Westermann and many other critics (De Litibus quas Demosthenes oravit ipse, p. 25-28) maintain that the discourse against Meidias can never have been really spoken by Demosthenes to the Dikastery, since if it had been spoken, he could not afterwards have entered into the compromise. But it is surely possible, that he may have delivered the discourse and obtained judgment in his favor; and then afterwards—when the second vote of the Dikasts was about to come on, for estimation of the penalty—may have accepted the offer of the defendant to pay a moderate fine (compare Demosth. cont. NeÆram, p. 1348) in fear of exasperating too far the powerful friends around Meidias. The action of Demosthenes against Meidias was certainly an ???? t??t??. About p?????, see Meier and SchÖmann, Der Attische Prozess, p. 271.

[737] Demosthenes, De Pace, p. 58; De Fals. Leg. p. 434—with the Scholion.

[738] Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, p. 548. ... ?f? ? ??? ??e???? (Euktemon) ?t???e? a?t?? ??? ?pe?e????, ??de??? ????? ?t? p??sd??a? d????, ???? ??a??? ???.

Æschines says that Nikodemus entered an indictment against Demosthenes for deserting his place in the ranks; but that he was bought off by Demosthenes, and refrained from bringing it before the Dikastery (Æsch. Fals. Leg. p. 292).

[739] Demosth. cont. Meid. p. 577.

[740] Demosth. cont. Meid. p. 558-567.

[741] Demosth. cont. Meid. p. 551.

[742] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 14; Pausanias, i. 36, 3.

[743] Demosthen. cont. NeÆram, p. 1346. ... s???t?? t? p??e? ?a???? t????t?? ?a? p?????, ?? ? ?? ? ??at?sas?? ??? e??st??? t?? ??????? e??a?, ?a? ??af?s?t?t?? t? te ??te?a a?t?? ?e???s?a? ?a? ?atapep??e????a? F???pp??—? ?ste??sas? t? ???e?? ?a? p??e????? t??? s??????, d?? ?p???a? ????t?? ?ata?????t?? t?? st?at?p?d??, t??t??? t? ?p???sa? ?a? t??? ?????? ????s?? ?p?st??? e??a? d??e??, ?a? ???d??e?e?? pe?? t?? ?p????p??, pe?? te ????? ?a? ???? ?a? S????? ?a? ?e?????s??—?a? e????t?? st?ate?es?a? ??? pa?d?e? e?? te ????a? ?a? ???????—???a?e ??f?sa ?? t? ???? ?p????d???? ???e???, etc.

This speech was delivered before the Dikastery by a person named Theomnestus, in support of an indictment against NeÆra—perhaps six or eight years after 349 B.C. Whether Demosthenes was the author of the speech or not, its value as evidence will not be materially altered.

[744] Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, p. 578. ... ??t?? t?? e?? ?a?t?? st?ate?sa???? ?pp???, ?te e?? ??????? d???sa?, ????? p??? ??? e?? t?? ?????s?a? ?at????e?. Compare the same oration, p. 558—pe?? d? t?? s?st?ate?sa???? e?? ??????a? (in Euboea) ?ste d?p?? p??te? ??a ?d??????se pa?? ???, ?t? ??e? ?? ?a???d??, ?at?????? ?a? f?s??? ??e?d?? ??e??e?? t?? st?at??? ta?t?? t? p??e?.

This transit of the Athenian horsemen to Olynthus, which took place after the battle of TamynÆ, is a distinct occurrence from the voluntary contributions at Athens towards an Olynthian expedition (?p?d?se?? e?? ???????—Demosth. cont. Meidiam, p. 566); which contributions took place before the battle of TamynÆ, and before the expedition to Euboea of which that battle made part.

These horsemen went from Euboea to Olynthus before Meidias returned to Athens. But we know that he returned to Athens before the beginning of the new Attic or Olympic year (Olymp. 107, 4, 349-348 B.C.); that is, speaking approximatively, before the 1st of July 349 B.C. For he was present at Athens and accused Demosthenes in the senatorial Dokimasy, or preliminary examination, which all senators underwent before they took their seats with the beginning of the new year (Demosth. cont. Meid. p. 551).

It seems, therefore, clear that the Athenian expedition—certainly horsemen, and probably hoplites also—went to Olynthus before July 1, 349 B.C. I alluded to this expedition of Athenian citizens to Olynthus in a previous note—as connected with the date of the third Olynthiac of Demosthenes.

[745] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 2, 41; v. 3, 3-6.

[746] Theopompus, Fragm. 155; ap. AthenÆum, x. p. 436; Ælian, V. H. ii. 41.

[747] See Demosthenes adv. Boeotum De Nomine, p. 999. ... ?a? e? ?s??? ?p???s?? t??? d??ast??????, e?s???? ?? d???? ?t?. This oration was spoken shortly after the battle of TamynÆ, p. 999.

[748] Demosthen. cont. NeÆr. p. 1346, 1347.

[749] Demosthen. cont. NeÆr. p. 1346. ???? ?a? ??? ?t?, ?? p?? ????? ?????ta?, ?????e?ta? pa?? p??t??, ?? t? ??t?sta e?pa? ?d??a p????.

[750] Philochorus ap. Dionys. Hal. ad Amm. p. 734, 735. Philochorus tells us that the Athenians now contracted the alliance with Olynthus; which certainly is not accurate. The alliance had been contracted in the preceding year.

[751] Theopomp. Fragm. 183-238; AthenÆus, xii. p. 532.

[752] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 426.

[753] Diodor. xvi. 52.

[754] Kallisthenes ap. StobÆum, t. vii. p. 92; Plutarch, Parallel. c. 8; Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 117. Kritobulus could not save the sight of the eye, but he is said to have prevented any visible disfigurement. “Magna et Critobulo fama est, extracta Philippi regis oculo sagitta et citra deformitatem oris curata, orbitate luminis” (Pliny, H. N. vii. 37).

[755] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 113.

[756] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 30.

[757] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 125-128; Fals. Leg. p. 426; Diodor. xvi. 53.

[758] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 117; Justin, viii. 3.

[759] Demosthenes, (Fals. Leg. p. 386) says, that both Philokrates and Æschines received from Philip, not only presents of timber and corn, but also grants of productive and valuable farms in the Olynthian territory. He calls some Olynthian witnesses to prove his assertion; but their testimony is not given at length.

[760] Demosth. De Chersones. p. 99. The existence of these Olynthian traitors, sold to Philip, proves that he could not have needed the aid of the Stageirite philosopher Aristotle to indicate to him who were the richest Olynthian citizens, at the time when the prisoners were put up for sale as slaves. The Athenian Demochares, about thirty years afterwards, in his virulent speech against the philosophers, alleged that Aristotle had rendered this disgraceful service to Philip (Aristokles ap. Eusebium, PrÆp. Ev. p. 792) Wesseling (ad Diodor. xvi. 53) refutes the charge by saying that Aristotle was at that time, along with Hermeias, at Atarneus; a refutation not very conclusive, which I am glad to be able to strengthen.

[761] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 37. c. 24. Demosthenes (Olynth. iii. p. 36) mentions the same amount of public money as having been wasted e?? ??d?? d???—even in the early part of the Olynthiac war and before the Euboean war. As evidences of actual amount, such statements are of no value.

[762] Ulpian, in his Commentary on the first Olynthiac, tells us that after the fine imposed upon Apollodorus, Eubulus moved and carried a law, enacting that any future motion to encroach on the TheÔric Fund should be punished with death.

The authority of Ulpian is not sufficient to accredit this statement. The fine inflicted by the Dikastery upon Apollodorus was lenient; we may therefore reasonably doubt whether the popular sentiment would go along with the speaker in making the like offence capital in future.

[763] Among the many passages which illustrate this association in the Greek mind, between the idea of a religious festival, and that of enjoyment—we may take the expressions of Herodotus about the great festival at Sparta called Hyakinthia. In the summer of 479 B.C., the Spartans were tardy in bringing out their military force for the defence of Attica—being engaged in that festival. ?? ??? ?a?eda?????? ??ta??? te t?? ?????? t??t??, ?a? sf? ?? ?a?????a? pe?? p?e?st?? d? ???? t? t?? ?e?? p??s??e?? (Herod. ix. 7). Presently the Athenian envoys come to Sparta to complain of the delay in the following language: ?e?? ??, ? ?a?eda??????, a?t?? t?de ????te?, ?a?????? te ??ete ?a? pa??ete, ?atap??d??te? t??? s??????.

Here the expressions “to fulfil the requirements of the god,” and “to amuse themselves,” are used in description of the same festival, and almost as equivalents.

[764] Harpokration, v. Te????? ... d???e?e? ??????? e?? t?? ??s?a?, ??a p??te? ???t???s?, ?a? ?de?? t?? p???t?? ?p???p?ta? d?? ?s???e?a? t?? ?d???.... ?t? d? ??? ???? t??? ?p?d???s? ?e?????? ?a??e??, ?pe??d?? ded????e? ?? t? ?at? ???est?at?d??.

[765] See Demosth. adv. Leocharem, p. 1091, 1092; Philipp. iv. p. 141. Compare also SchÖmann, Antiq. Jur. Att. s. 69.

[766] See the directions of the old oracles quoted by Demosthenes cont. Meidiam, p. 531. ?st??a? ??a??? ????? ????? ???a p??ta?, etc. stefa??f??e?? ??e??????? ?a? d??????, etc.

[767] See the boast of Isokrates, Orat. iv. (Panegyr.) s. 40; Plato, Alkibiad. ii. p. 148. Xenophon (Vectigal. vi. 1.), in proposing some schemes for the improvement of the Athenian revenue, sets forth as one of the advantages, that “the religious festivals will be celebrated then with still greater magnificence than they are now.”

[768] Plutarch, QuÆstion. Platonic. p. 1011. ?? ??e?e ???d??, ????a? ??????? t? ?e????? t?? p???te?at?? (erroneously written ?e???t???).

[769] According to the author of the oration against NeÆra, the law did actually provide, that in time of war, the surplus revenue should be devoted to warlike purposes—?e?e???t?? t?? ????, ?ta? p??e?? ?, t? pe????ta ???ata t?? d?????se?? st?at??t??? e??a? (p. 1346). But it seems to me that this must be a misstatement, got up to suit the speaker’s case. If the law had been so, Apollodorus would have committed no illegality in his motion; moreover, all the fencing and manoeuvring of Demosthenes in his first and third Olynthiacs would have been to no purpose.

[770] The case here put, though analogous in principle, makes against the Athenian proprietors, in degree; for, even in time of peace, one half of the French revenue is raised by direct taxation.

[771] Demosth. Philipp. iv. p. 141-143; De Republic OrdinandÂ, p. 167. Whether these two orations were actually delivered in their present form may perhaps be doubted. But I allude to them with confidence as Demosthenic compositions; put together out of Demosthenic fragments and thoughts.

[772] Deinarchus cont. Demosth. p. 93; Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 439, 440. Demosthenes asserts also that Olynthian women were given, as a present, by Philip to Philokrates (p. 386-440). The outrage which he imputes (p. 401) to Æschines and Phrynon in Macedonia, against the Olynthian woman—is not to be received as a fact, since it is indignantly denied by Æschines (Fals. Leg. init. and p. 48). Yet it is probably but too faithful a picture of real deeds, committed by others, if not by Æschines.

[773] The story of the old man of Olynthus (Seneca, Controv. v. 10) bought by Parrhasius the painter and tortured in order to form a subject for a painting of the suffering Prometheus—is more than doubtful: since Parrhasius, already in high repute as a painter before 400 B.C. (see Xenoph. Mem. iii. 10), can hardly have been still flourishing in 347 B.C. It discloses, however, at least, one of the many forms of slave-suffering occasionally realized.

[774] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 384-401; Diodor. xvi. 55.

[775] Justin, viii. 3.

[776] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 37. c. 24.

[777] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 30.

[778] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 37.

[779] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 434. ?a? ?? ?? t? d?? ?at??? (you, Eubulus) F???pp?, ?a? ?at? t?? pa?d?? ???e? ? ?? ?p??????a? F???pp?? ?? ???es?a?, etc.

[780] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 438, 439.

[781] Demosthenes affirms this at two distinct times—Fals. Leg. p. 415-431; De CoronÂ, p. 313.

Stechow (Vita Æschinis, p. 1-10) brings together the little which can be made out respecting Æschines.

[782] Dionys. Hal. De Adm. Vi Dicend. Demosth. p. 1063; Cicero, Orator, c. 9, 29.

[783] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 344-438; Æschin. Fals. Leg. p. 38. The conduct of Æschines at this juncture is much the same, as described by his rival, and as admitted by himself. It was, in truth, among the most honorable epochs of his life.

[784] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 433. This decree must have been proposed by Timarchus either towards the close of Olymp. 108, 1—or towards the beginning of the following year, Olymp. 108, 2; that is, not long before, or not long after, Midsummer 347 B.C. But which of these two dates is to be preferred, is matter of controversy. Franke (Prolegom. ad Æschin. cont. Timarchum, p. xxxviii.—xli.) thinks that Timarchus was senator in Olymp. 108, 1—and proposed the decree then; he supposes the oration of Æschines to have been delivered in the beginning of Olymp. 108, 3—and that the expression (p. 11) announcing Timarchus as having been senator “the year before” (p???s??), is to be construed loosely as signifying “the year but one before.”

Mr. Clinton, Boeckh, and Westermann, suppose the oration of Æschines against Timarchus to have been delivered in Olymp. 108, 4—not in Olymp. 108, 3. On that supposition, if we take the word p???s?? in its usual sense, Timarchus was senator in 108, 3. Now it is certain that he did not propose the decree forbidding the export of naval stores to Philip, at a date so late as 108, 3; because the peace with Philip was concluded in Elaphebolion Olymp. 108, 2. (March, 346 B.C.) But the supposition might be admissible, that Timarchus was senator in two different years,—both in Olymp. 108, 1 and in Olymp. 108, 3 (not in two consecutive years). In that case, the senatorial year of Timarchus, to which Æschines alludes (cont. Timarch. p. 11), would be Olymp. 108, 3, while the other senatorial year, in which Timarchus moved the decree prohibiting export, would be Olymp. 108, 1.

Nevertheless, I agree with the views of BÖhnecke (Forschungen, p. 294) who thinks that the oration was delivered Olymp. 108, 3—and that Timarchus had been senator and had proposed the decree prohibiting export of stores to Philip, in the year preceding,—that is, Olymp. 108, 2; at the beginning of the year,—Midsummer 347 B.C.

[785] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 348-445.

[786] Æschin. Fals. Leg. p. 29.

[787] There is more than one singularity in the narrative given by Æschines about Phrynon. The complaint of Phrynon implies an assumption, that the Olympic truce suspended the operations of war everywhere throughout Greece between belligerent Greeks. But such was not the maxim recognized or acted on; so far as we know the operations of warfare. Voemel (Proleg. ad Demosth. De Pace, p. 246) feeling this difficulty, understands the Olympic truce, here mentioned, to refer to the Olympic festival celebrated by Philip himself in Macedonia, in the spring or summer of 347 B.C. This would remove the difficulty about the effect of the truce; for Philip of course would respect his own proclaimed truce. But it is liable to another objection: that Æschines plainly indicates the capture of Phrynon to have been anterior to the fall of Olynthus. Besides, Æschines would hardly use the words ?? ta?? ???p??a?? sp??da??, without any special addition, to signify the Macedonian games.

[788] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 30. c. 7; cont. Ktesiph. p. 63. Our knowledge of these events is derived almost wholly from one, or other, or both, of the two rival orators, in their speeches delivered four or five years afterwards, on the trial De Fals Legatione. Demosthenes seeks to prove that before the embassy to Macedonia, in which he and Æschines were jointly concerned, Æschines was eager for continued war against Philip, and only became the partisan of Philip during and after the embassy. Æschines does not deny that he made efforts at that juncture to get up more effective war against Philip; nor is the fact at all dishonorable to him. On the other hand, he seeks to prove against Demosthenes, that he (Demosthenes) was at that time both a partisan of peace with Philip, and a friend of Philokrates to whom he afterwards became so bitterly opposed. For this purpose Æschines adverts to the motion of Philokrates about permitting Philip to send envoys to Athens—and the speech of Demosthenes in the Dikastery in favor of Philokrates.

It would prove nothing discreditable to Demosthenes if both these allegations were held to be correct. The motion of Philokrates was altogether indefinite, pledging Athens to nothing; and Demosthenes might well think it unreasonable to impeach a statesman for such a motion.

[789] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 30. c. 8. ?p? d? t??? a?t??? ??????? ??????? ???, ?a? p????? t?? ?et???? ???ate??f??sa? p???t??, ?? ?? ?at?????? ?a? ????at??. ?p?? d? t??t?? ??et???a? ???te? ?? ???e???, ?d???t? ??? ?p???e?a? p???sas?a?? pa?e????te? d? a?t??? s????????? F??????t?? ?a? ???s?????, ???? ??? ??s?????.

To illustrate the effect of this impressive ceremony upon the Athenian assembly, we may recall the memorable scene mentioned by Xenophon and Diodorus (Xen. Hell. i. 7, 8; Diodor. xiii. 101) after the battle of ArginusÆ, when the relatives of the warriors who had perished on board of the foundered ships, presented themselves before the assembly with shaven heads and in mourning garb. Compare also, about presentments of solemn supplication to the assembly, Demosthenes, De CoronÂ, p. 262—with the note of Dissen, and Æschines contra Timarchum p. 9. c. 13.

[790] Demosth. De Pace, p. 58.

[791] Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 30. c. 8) mentions only Aristodemus. But from various passages in the oration of Demosthenes (De Fals. Leg. p. 344, 346, 371, 443), we gather that the actor Neoptolemus must have been conjoined with him; perhaps also the Athenian Ktesiphon, though this is less certain. Demosthenes mentions Aristodemus again, in the speech De Coron (p. 232) as the first originator of the peace.

Demosthenes (De Pace, p. 58) had, even before this, denounced Neoptolemus as playing a corrupt game, for the purposes of Philip, at Athens. Soon after the peace, Neoptolemus sold up all his property at Athens, and went to reside in Macedonia.

[792] Æschin. Fals. Leg. p. 30. c. 8.

[794] Diodor. xvi. 56.

[795] Diodor. xvi. 56, 57.

[796] Æschin. Fals. Leg. p. 62. c. 41; Diodor. xvi. 59. F??a????, p???? t?? st?at???a? ????????, etc.

[797] Æschines cont. Ktesiph. p. 73. c. 44; Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 231. Demosthenes, in his oration De CoronÂ, spoken many years after the facts, affirms the contingency of alliance between Athens and Thebes at this juncture, as having been much more probable than he ventures to state it in the earlier speech De Fals Legatione.

[798] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 392.

[799] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 40. c. 41. It is this notice of the ?st????t?de? sp??da? which serves as indication of time for the event. The Eleusinian mysteries were celebrated in the month BoËdromion (September). These events took place in September, 347 B.C., Olymp. 108, 2—the archonship of Themistokles at Athens. There is also a farther indication of time given by Æschines: that the event happened before he was nominated envoy,—p??? ?? ?e???t??????a? p?ese?t?? (p. 46. c. 41). This refutes the supposition of Voemel (Proleg. ad Demosth. de Pace, p. 255), who refers the proceeding to the following month Elaphebolion (March), on the ground of some other words of Æschines, intimating “that the news reached Athens while the Athenians were deliberating about the peace.” BÖhnecke, too, supposes that the mysteries here alluded to are the lesser mysteries, celebrated in Anthesterion; not the greater, which belong to BoËdromion. This supposition appears to me improbable and unnecessary. We may reasonably believe that there were many discussions on the peace at Athens, before the envoys were actually nominated. Some of these debates may well have taken place in the month BoËdromion.

[800] It is at this juncture, in trying to make out the diplomatic transactions between Athens and Philip, from the summer of 347 to that of 346 B.C., that we find ourselves plunged amidst the contradictory assertions of the two rival orators,—Demosthenes and Æschines; with very little of genuine historical authority to control them. In 343-342 B.C., Demosthenes impeached Æschines for corrupt betrayal of the interest of Athens in the second of his three embassies to Philip (in 346 B.C.). The long harangue (De Fals Legatione), still remaining, wherein his charge stands embodied, enters into copious details respecting the peace with its immediate antecedents and consequents. We possess also the speech delivered by Æschines in his own defence, and in counter-accusation of Demosthenes; a speech going over the same ground, suitably to his own purpose and point of view. Lastly, we have the two speeches, delivered several years later (in 330 B.C.), of Æschines in prosecuting Ktesiphon, and of Demosthenes in defending him; wherein the conduct of Demosthenes as to the peace of 346 B.C. again becomes matter of controversy. All these harangues are interesting, not merely as eloquent compositions, but also from the striking conception which they impart of the living sentiment and controversy of the time. But when we try to extract from them real and authentic matter of history, they become painfully embarrassing; so glaring are the contradictions not only between the two rivals, but also between the earlier and later discourses of the same orator himself, especially Æschines; so evident is the spirit of perversion, so unscrupulous are the manifestations of hostile feeling, on both sides. We can place little faith in the allegations of either orator against the other, except where some collateral grounds of fact or probability can be adduced in confirmation. But the allegations of each as to matters which do not make against the other, are valuable; even the misrepresentations, since we have them on both sides, will sometimes afford mutual correction: and we shall often find it practicable to detect a basis of real matter of fact which one or both may seek to pervert, but which neither can venture to set aside, or can keep wholly out of sight. It is indeed deeply to be lamented that we know little of the history except so much as it suits the one or the other of these rival orators, each animated by purposes totally at variance with that of the historian, to make known either by direct notice or oblique allusion.

[801] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 30. s. 9. p. 31. c. 10. p. 34. c. 20; Argumentum ii ad Demosth. Fals. Leg.

[802] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p 442. Compare p. 369, 387, 391.

[803] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 392.

[804] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 31. c. 10, 11.

[805] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 31. c. 11.

[806] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 32. c. 13, 14.

[807] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 32, 33. c. 15. Demosthenes himself says little or nothing about this first embassy, and nothing at all either about his own speech or that of Æschines.

[808] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 33. c. 17, 18. The effect of the manner and behavior of Philip upon Ktesiphon the envoy, is forcibly stated here by Æschines.

[809] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 34. c. 19; Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 414. This vote of thanks, and invitation to dinner, appears to have been so uniform a custom, that Demosthenes (Fals. Leg. p. 350) comments upon the withholding of the compliment, when the second embassy returned, as a disgrace without parallel. That Demosthenes should have proposed a motion of such customary formality, is a fact of little moment any way. It rather proves that the relations of Demosthenes with his colleagues during the embassy, cannot have been so ill-tempered as Æschines had affirmed. Demosthenes himself admits that he did not begin to suspect his colleagues until the debates at Athens after the return of this first embassy.

[810] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 344. Compare p. 371. t??? pe?? t?? e?????? p??se?? p?pe?? ?? F???pp?? ?pe?s??te ?p? ???st?d??? ?a? ?e?pt????? ?a? ?t?s?f??t??, ?a? t?? ????? t?? ??e??e? ?pa??e????t?? ??d? ?t???? ?????, etc.

[811] There is great contradiction between the two orators, Æschines and Demosthenes, as to this speech of Æschines before Philip respecting Amphipolis. Demosthenes represents Æschines as having said in this report to the people on his return, “I (Æschines) said nothing about Amphipolis, in order that I might leave that subject fresh for Demosthenes,” etc.

Compare Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 421; Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 33, 34. c. 18, 19, 21.

As to this particular matter of fact, I incline to believe Æschines rather than his rival. He probably did make an eloquent speech about Amphipolis before Philip.

[812] The eighth day of Elaphebolion fell some little time after their arrival, so that possibly they may have even reached Athens on the last days of the month Anthesterion (Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 63. c. 24). The reader will understand that the Grecian lunar months do not correspond precisely, but only approximatively, with ours.

[813] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 353, 354. ... ? ??? e?? t?? p??t??a? ????a? ?p?st????, ?? ?????ae? ?e??, ?t? “???af?? t? ?? ?a? d?a???d??, ????a ??? e? p???s?, e? e? ?de?? ?a? t?? s?a??a? ?? ?e??s?????,” etc. Compare Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 85. Æschines alludes to this letter, Fals. Leg. p. 34. c. 21.

[814] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p 365.

[815] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. c. 26; Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 63. c. 23. pa???????et? d? ?p? a?t?? (Kersobleptes) ?d? st?ate?a, etc.

[816] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 34. c. 20. t?? ?? t??? p?t??? ?p?de???t?t??—s?p?e?? de???? ?? (c. 21).

[817] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 34, 35. c. 21; Dem. Fals. Leg. p. 421. Yet Æschines, when describing the same facts in his oration against Ktesiphon (p. 62. c. 23), simply says that Demosthenes gave to the assembly an account of the proceedings of the first embassy, similar to that given by the other envoys—ta?t? t??? ?????? p??ses?? ?p???e??e, etc.

The point noticed in the text (that Demosthenes charged Æschines with reluctance to let any one else have anything to say) is one which appears both in Æschines and Demosthenes, De Fals. Legat., and may therefore in the main be regarded as having really occurred. But probably the statement made by Demosthenes to the people as to the proceedings of the embassy, was substantially the same as that of his colleagues. For though the later oration of Æschines is, in itself, less trustworthy evidence than the earlier—yet when we find two different statements of Æschines respecting Demosthenes, we may reasonably presume that the one which is least unfavorable is the most credible of the two.

[818] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 34, 35, 42. c 20, 21, 34; Æschines adv. Ktesiphont. p. 62, 63. c. 23, 24. In the first of the two speeches, Æschines makes no mention of the decree proposed by Demosthenes relative to the assembly on the eighth of Elaphebolion. He mentions it in the speech against Ktesiphon, with considerable specification.

[819] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 36. c. 22. ?te??? ??f?sa, Æsch. adv. Ktesiph. p. 63. c. 24. This last decree, fixing the two special days of the month, could scarcely have been proposed until after Philip’s envoys had actually reached Athens.

[820] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 42. c. 34; adv. Ktesiphont. p. 62. c. 22; Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 414; De CoronÂ, p. 234. This courtesy and politeness towards the Macedonian envoys is admitted by Demosthenes himself. It was not a circumstance of which he had any reason to be ashamed.

[821] I insert in the text what appears to me the probable truth about this resolution of the confederate synod. The point is obscure, and has been differently viewed by different commentators.

Demosthenes affirms, in his earlier speech (De Fals. Leg. p. 346), that Æschines held disgraceful language in his speech before the public assembly on the 19th Elaphebolion (to the effect that Athens ought to act for herself alone, and to take no thought for any other Greeks except such as had assisted her); and that, too, in the presence and hearing of those envoys from other Grecian cities, whom the Athenians had sent for at the instigation of Æschines himself. The presence of these envoys in the assembly, here implied, is not the main charge, but a collateral aggravation; nevertheless, Æschines (as is often the case throughout his defence) bestows nearly all his care upon the aggravation, taking comparatively little notice of the main charge. He asserts with great emphasis (Fals. Leg. p. 35), that the envoys sent out from Athens on mission had not returned, and that there were no envoys present from any Grecian cities.

It seems to me reasonable here to believe the assertion of Demosthenes, that there were envoys from other Grecian cities present; although he himself in his later oration (De CoronÂ, p. 232, 233) speaks as if such were not the fact, as if all the Greeks had been long found out as recreants in the cause of liberty, and as if no envoys from Athens were then absent on mission. I accept the positive assertion of Æschines as true—that there were Athenian envoys then absent on mission, who might possibly, on their return, bring in with them deputies from other Greeks; but I do not admit his negative assertion—that no Athenian envoys had returned from their mission, and that no deputies had come in from other Greeks. That among many Athenian envoys sent out, all should fail—appears to me very improbable.

If we follow the argument of Æschines (in the speech De Fals. Leg.), we shall see that it is quite enough if we suppose some of the envoys sent out on mission, and not all of them, to be absent. To prove this fact, he adduces (p. 35, 36) the resolution of the confederate synod, alluding to the absent envoys, and recommending a certain course to be taken after their return. This does not necessarily imply that all were absent. Stechow remarks justly, that some of the envoys would necessarily be out a long time, having to visit more than one city, and perhaps cities distant from each other (Vita Æschinis, p. 41).

I also accept what Æschines says about the resolution of the confederate synod, as being substantially true. About the actual import of this resolution, he is consistent with himself, both in the earlier and in the later oration. Winiewski (Comment. Historic. in Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 74-77) and Westermann (De Litibus quas Demosthenes oravit ipse, p. 38-42) affirm, I think without reason, that the import of this resolution is differently represented by Æschines in the earlier and in the later orations. What is really different in the two orations, is the way in which Æschines perverts the import of the resolution to inculpate Demosthenes; affirming in the later oration, that if Athens had waited for the return of her envoys on mission, she might have made peace with Philip jointly with a large body of Grecian allies; and that it was Demosthenes who hindered her from doing this, by hurrying on the discussions about the peace (Æsch. adv. Ktesiph. p. 61-63), etc. Westermann thinks that the synod would not take upon them to prescribe how many assemblies the Athenians should convene for the purpose of debating about peace. But it seems to have been a common practice with the Athenians, about peace or other special and important matters, to convene two assemblies on two days immediately succeeding: all that the synod here recommended was, that the Athenians should follow the usual custom—p??????a? t??? p??t??e?? ?????s?a? d?? ?at? t??? ?????, etc. That two assemblies, neither less nor more, should be convened for the purpose, was a point of no material importance; except that it indicated a determination to decide the question at once—sans dÉsemparer.

[822] Æschines, adv. Ktesiph. p. 64.

[823] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 391. t?? te ??? e?????? ???? d??????t?? ?? ?pe?e???sa? ??t??, “p??? ????? ?a? F?????,” ????a?—???? ??a??as???t?? ?f? ??? t?? F??????t??? ta?ta ?? ?pa?e??a?, ????a? d? ??t????? “????a???? ?a? t??? ????a??? s??????,” etc.

[824] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 345, 346.

[825] Æschines. Fals. Leg. p. 36.

[826] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 63, 64.

[827] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39.

[828] From the considerations here stated, we can appreciate the charges of Æschines against Demosthenes, even on his own showing; though the precise course of either is not very clear.

He accuses Demosthenes of having sold himself to Philip (adv. Ktes. p. 63, 64); a charge utterly futile and incredible, refuted by the whole conduct of Demosthenes, both before and after. Whether Demosthenes received bribes from Harpalus—or from the Persian court—will be matter of future inquiry. But the allegation that he had been bribed by Philip is absurd. Æschines himself confesses that it was quite at variance with the received opinion at Athens (adv. Ktes. p. 62. c. 22).

He accuses Demosthenes of having, under the influence of these bribes, opposed and frustrated the recommendation of the confederate synod—of having hurried on the debate about peace at once—and of having thus prevented Athens from waiting for the return of her absent envoys, which would have enabled her to make peace in conjunction with a powerful body of coÖperating Greeks. This charge is advanced by Æschines, first in the speech De Fals. Leg. p. 36—next, with greater length and emphasis, in the later speech, adv. Ktesiph. p. 63, 64. From what has been said in the text, it will be seen that such indefinite postponement, when Antipater and Parmenio were present in Athens by invitation, was altogether impossible, without breaking off the negotiation. Not to mention, that Æschines himself affirms, in the strongest language, the ascertained impossibility of prevailing upon any other Greeks to join Athens, and complains bitterly of their backward dispositions (Fals. Leg. p. 38. c. 25). In this point Demosthenes perfectly concurs with him (De CoronÂ, p. 231, 232). So that even if postponement could have been had, it would have been productive of no benefit, nor of any increase of force, to Athens, since the Greeks were not inclined to coÖperate with her.

The charge of Æschines against Demosthenes is thus untenable, and suggests its own refutation, even from the mouth of the accuser himself. Demosthenes indeed replies to it in a different manner. When Æschines says—“You hurried on the discussion about peace, without allowing Athens to await the return of her envoys, then absent on mission”—Demosthenes answers—“There were no Athenian envoys then absent on mission. All the Greeks had been long ago detected as incurably apathetic.” (De CoronÂ, p. 233). This is a slashing and decisive reply, which it might perhaps be safe for Demosthenes to hazard, at an interval of thirteen years after the events. But it is fortunate that another answer can be provided; for I conceive the assertion to be neither correct in point of fact, nor consistent with the statements of Demosthenes himself in the speech De Fals Legatione.

[829] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 391-430. Æschines affirms strongly, in his later oration against Ktesiphon (p. 63), that Demosthenes warmly advocated the motion of Philokrates for alliance as well as peace with Philip. He professes to give the precise phrase used by Demosthenes—which he censures as an inelegant phrase—?? de?? ?p?????a? t?? e?????? t?? s?a??a?, etc. He adds that Demosthenes called up the Macedonian ambassador Antipater to the rostrum, put a question to him, and obtained an answer concerted beforehand. How much of this is true, I cannot say. The version given by Æschines in his later speech, is, as usual, different from that in his earlier.

The accusation against Demosthenes, of corrupt collusion with Antipater, is incredible and absurd.

[830] Æschines, adv. Timarch. p. 24, 25. c. 34. pa?e????? (Demosthenes) t?? ??? d??????a?, ?a? ????? t?? e?????? t?? d?? ??? ?a? F??????t??? ?e?e??????, ?ste ??d? ?pa?t?ses?a? e ?p? t? d??ast????? ?p?????s?e???, ?ta? t?? t?? p?ese?a? e????a? d?d?, etc. ... F???pp?? d? ??? ?? d?? t?? t?? ????? e?f??a? ?pa???, etc.

[831] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 434. f?sa? (Eubulus) ?ataa??e?? e?? ?e??a?? de?? ?d? ?a? ???at? e?sf??e?? ?a? t? ?e????? st?at??t??? p??e??—? ?e???t??e?? ? s??e?pe ?? ??t?? (Æschines) ???a?e d? ? de????? F??????t??.

[832] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 385.

[833] Pseudo-Demosthen. De Halonneso, p. 81-83. Demosthenes, in one passage (Fals. Leg. p. 385), speaks as if it were a part of the Athenian oath—that they would oppose and treat as enemies all who should try to save from Philip and to restore to Athens the places now recognized as Philip’s possession for the future. Though Voemel (Proleg. ad Demosth. De Pace, p. 265) and BÖhnecke (p. 303) insert these words as a part of the actual formula, I doubt whether they are anything more than a constructive expansion, given by Demosthenes himself, of the import of the formula.

[834] This fact we learn from the subsequent discussions about amending the peace, mentioned in Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 84.

[835] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 33. c. 26.

[836] This date is preserved by Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 64. c. 27. ??t? f?????t?? t?? ??af???????? ????, etc. In the earlier oration (De Fals. Leg. p. 40. c. 29) Æschines states that Demosthenes was among the Proedri or presiding senators of a public assembly held ?d?? f?????t??—the day before. It is possible that there might have been two public assemblies held, on two successive days (the 23d and 24th, or the 24th and 25th, according as the month Elaphebolion happened in that year to have 30 days or 29 days), and that Demosthenes may have been among the Proedri in both. But the transaction described (in the oration against Ktesiphon) as having happened on the latter of the two days—must have preceded that which is mentioned (in the Oration De Fals. Leg.) as having happened on the earlier of the two days; or at least cannot have followed it; so that there seems to be an inaccuracy in one or in the other. If the word ??t?, in the oration against Ktesiphon, and ?d?? in the speech on the False Legation, are both correct, the transactions mentioned in the one cannot be reconciled chronologically with those narrated in the other. Various conjectural alterations have bean proposed. See Voemel, Prolegg. ad Demosth. Orat. De Pace, p. 257; BÖhnecke, Forschungen, p. 399.

[837] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. ?d? d? ??? ?e?e???t??????? e?? t??? ??????, ??p? d? ?p????t?? ?p? t?? ?st??a? p?ese?a?, ?????s?a ???eta?, etc.

This ?????s?a seems to be the same as that which is named by Æschines in the speech against Ktesiphon, as having been held on the 25th Elaphebolion.

[838] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 397. ?a?t?? d?? ???s??t????? t?p??? t?? ????????? ??d? ?? e?? ?p?de??a? t? p??e?, ?at? ?? ???, ?????—?? ?a??tt?? d? t?? ????sp??t??? ? s??af?te?a ??t?? pep???as?? a?s???? ?a? ?a?? ??? ???e?e????as? F???pp?.

[839] Compare Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. c. 26, with Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 64. c. 27.

Franke (Proleg. ad Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 30, 31) has some severe comments on the discrepancy between the two statements.

That the question was put, and affirmed by vote, to admit Kersobleptes appears from the statement of Æschines in the speech De Fals. Leg.—t? ??f?sa ?pe??f?s??—???f?s???? d? t?? d???. Compare Demosth. De Fals. Leg. p. 398, and Demosthen. Philipp. iv. p. 133.

Philip, in his letter some years afterwards to the Athenians, affirmed that Kersobleptes wished to be admitted to take the oaths, but was excluded by the Athenian generals, who declared him to be an enemy of Athens (Epist. Phil. ap. Demosth. p. 160). If it be true that the generals tried to exclude him, their exclusion must have been overruled by the vote of the assembly.

[840] Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 444. ??te??e? ?? ?? pa?? ??e???? p??se?? p????e??? ??? ?t? F???a? ?? p??sd??eta? F???pp?? s??????, ??t?? d? ??de??e??? t??a?t? ?d????????, ?? fa?e??? ?? ???? ?a??? ??e? t? F???pp? p??sd??as?a? t??? F???a? s??????, d?? t??? T?a???? ?a? t??? Tetta????, ?? d? ????ta? t?? p?a??t?? ?????? ?a? t?? e?????? t???, ?pe? ?? s????s?a? ??? ????sa?e? a?t??, ta?ta p???se? t?te. ??? ?? t????? e?????? ta?ta?? ta?? ??p?s? ?a? ta?? ?pa???a?? e????t? pa?? ??? ??e? F?????.

Ibid. p. 409. ?? d? p??ta t??a?t?a t??t?? ?a? p???? ?a? f???????pa e?p??te? F???pp??, f??e?? t?? p????, F???a? s?se??, T?a???? pa?se?? t?? ??e??, ?t? p??? t??t??? e????a ? ?at? ?f?p???? e? p???se?? ???, ??? t??? t?? e??????, ????a?, ???p?? ?p?d?se??—e? ta?t? e?p??te? ?a? ?p?s??e??? p??t? ???pat??as? ?a? pefe?a???as?, etc.

Compare also, p. 346, 388, 391, about the false promises under which the Athenians were induced to consent to the peace—t?? ?p?s??se??, ?f? a?? e???s?et? (Philip) t?? e??????. The same false promises put forward before the peace and determining the Athenians to conclude it, are also noticed by Demosthenes in the second Philippic (p. 69), t?? ?p?s??se??, ?f? a?? t?? e?????? ?t??e? (Philip)—p. 72. t??? ??e????ta? t?? ?p?s??se??, ?f? a?? ?pe?s??te p???sas?a? t?? e??????. This second Philippic is one year earlier in date than the oration de Fals Legatione, and is better authority than that oration, not merely on account of its earlier date, but because it is a parliamentary harangue, not tainted with an accusatory purpose nor mentioning Æschines by name.

[841] Demosthenes speaks of the omission of the Phokians, in taking the oaths at Athens, as if it were a matter of small importance (Fals. Leg. p. 387, 388; compare p. 372); that is, on the supposition that the promises made by Æschines turned out to be realized.

In his speech De Pace (p. 59), he takes credit for his protests on behalf of the Phokians; but only for protests made after his return from the second embassy—not for protests made when Antipater refused to admit the Phokians to the oaths.

Westermann (De Litibus quas Demosthenes oravit ipse, p. 48) suspects that Demosthenes did not see through the deception of Æschines until the Phokians were utterly ruined. This, perhaps, goes beyond the truth; but at the time when the oaths were exchanged at Athens, he either had not clearly detected the consequences of that miserable shuffle into which Athens was tricked by Philokrates, etc.—or he was afraid to proclaim them emphatically.

[842] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 355. t?a???? d? ??? t? “?d? p??sd????” s???t??, etc. (the Athenian public were displeased with Demosthenes when he told them that he did not expect the promises of Æschines to be realized; this was after the second embassy, but it illustrates the temper of the assembly even before the second embassy)—ibid. p. 349. t?? ??? ?? ???s?et?, t????a?ta ?a? t?sa?ta ?ses?a? p??sd???? ??a??, ? ta??? ?? ??? ?sta? ?????t?? t????, ? ?at???????t?? t?? pep?a????? t??t???;

How unpopular it was to set up mere negative mistrust against glowing promises of benefits to come, is here strongly urged by Demosthenes.

Respecting the premature disarming of the Athenians, see Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 234.

[843] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. c. 27.

[844] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 430. ?? t? ?? ??f?sa “??da?? ????? ??t?????e?? F???pp?,” ??t?? d? ??d?? ?pa?sa?t? ?d?? ???at????te?;

[845] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 41. c. 32. ?? d? ?p?? t?? ???? ????? ???e?sas?a?, ?sa ?a?? ??? ?st?? ? F???pp??, t??t? ?d? ????? ?st? p?es??? f??????.... ?f??e?a d? ?e?? ????te? t?? d??? ??f?sa, ?? ? ????apta?, ???tte?? d? t??? p??se??, ?a? ???? ?,t? ?? d????ta? ??a???.

[846] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. c. 26.

[847] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 40. c. 29. ?t? ?e?s???pt?? ?p????e?e t?? ?????, ?a? t? ?e??? ???? ?ate???fe F???pp??.

There is no fair ground for supposing that the words ?p????e?e t?? ????? are the actual words used by Chares, or that Kersobleptes was affirmed by Chares to have lost everything that he had. It suited the argument of Æschines to give the statement in a sweeping and exaggerated form.

[848] See the just and prudent reasoning of Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 388, and De CoronÂ, p. 234.

Compare also Pseudo-Demosthenes, De Halonneso, p. 85, 86.

[849] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 389; De CoronÂ, p. 234. Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 40. c. 29, 30) recognizes the fact that this decree was passed by the Senate on the 3d of Munychion, and that the envoys left Athens in consequence of it. He does not mention that it was proposed by Demosthenes. Æschines here confirms, in a very important manner, the fact of the delay, as alleged by Demosthenes, while the explanation which he gives, why the envoys did not go to Thrace, is altogether without value.

A document, purporting to be this decree, is given in Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 234, but the authenticity is too doubtful to admit of citing it.

[850] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 390.

[851] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 38. c. 26; Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 85; Fals. Leg. p. 390-448: compare Philippic iii. p. 114. Among the Thracian places captured by Philip during this interval, Demosthenes enumerates the Sacred Mountain. But this is said to have been captured before the end of Elaphebolion, if Æschines quotes correctly from the letter of Chares, Fals. Leg. p. 40. c. 29.

[852] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 390.

[853] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 41. c. 30. Demosthenes (and doubtless the other envoys also) walked on the journey, with two slaves to carry his clothes and bedding. In the pack carried by one slave, was a talent in money, destined to aid some of the poor prisoners towards their ransom.

[854] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 388. ? ??? pa???t?? (we the envoys) ?a? ?at? t? ??f?sa a?t?? (Philip) ??????s??t??, ? ?? e???fe? t?? p??e??, ?p?d?se??, t?? d? ???p?? ?f??es?a?—? ? p?????t?? ta?ta ?pa??e?e?? ??? e????? de???, etc.

[855] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 42. c. 33. p??e?eta? F???pp?? e?? ???a?? ??? d? ???a??pt?a?, etc. This is the language which Æschines affirms to have been held by Demosthenes during the embassy. It is totally at variance with all that Demosthenes affirms, over and over again, respecting his own proceedings; and (in my judgment) with all the probabilities of the case.

[856] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 42. c. 34.

[857] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 43. c. 36. ??? ?? ??? ????? t?? st?ate?a? ta?t?? ?s?a? ?a? d??a?a? ?pef????? e??a?, etc.

... ?pef????? ?t? ??? d??e? d??a??? e??a?, ? pe?????? ?ates?a??a? t?? ?? ????t??? p??e??, ?t? d? ?sa? ?f??t????de? ?a? ???????.

[858] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 43. c. 37; compare Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 347.

[859] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 393, 394, 395.

[860] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 396. ?a? t?? ?? ??afe?sa? ?p?st???? ?p? ??? p??? ??? ?pe??f?sa?t? ? p?pe??, a?t?? d? ??d? ?t???? ????? ????a?te? ?pe?a?. Compare p. 419.

[861] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 445. ??? d?, ?spe? ?????at? ?d? p???????, ???? d????e?? p??ape??e??, ???? ?a? ?s??s?e??? p????? ?ata?????e?? ??p?e?sa?. Compare p. 357.—??d? ?? ??, ????a de??? ?p?p?e?? ???????, ?ate????e? (Philip), etc.

[862] The LacedÆmonian troops remained at ThermopylÆ until a little time before Philip reached it (Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 365).

[864] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 113; Justin, viii. 4. “Contra Phocensium legati, adhibitis LacedÆmoniis et Atheniensibus, bellum deprecabantur, cujus ab eo dilationem ter jam emerant.” I do not understand to what facts Justin refers, when he states, that the Phokians “had already purchased thrice from Philip a postponement of war.”

[865] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 365. t??? ?a?eda??????? etep?pet?, p??ta t? p???ata ?p?s??e??? p???e?? ??e?????, etc.

Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 41. ?a?eda?????? d? ?? e?? ??? t??a?t?a T?a???? ?p??se???, ?a? te?e?t??te? p??s??????? fa?e??? ?? ?a?ed????, ?a? d??pe????? t??? t?? T?a??? p??se?s??;

[866] This thought is strikingly presented by Justin (viii. 4), probably from Theopompus—“Foedum prorsus miserandumque spectaculum, GrÆciam, etiam nunc et viribus et dignitate orbis terrarum principem, regum certo gentiumque semper victricem et multarum adhuc urbium dominam, alienis excubare sedibus, aut rogantem bellum aut deprecantem: in alterius ope omnem spem posuisse orbis terrarum vindices; eoque discordia sua civilibusque bellis redactos, ut adulentur ultro sordidam paulo ante clientelÆ suÆ partem: et hÆc potissimum facere Thebanos LacedÆmoniosque, antea inter se imperii, nunc gratiÆ imperantis, Æmulos.”

[867] Justin, viii. 4.

[868] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 113. t??t? d? e?? F???a? ?? p??? s?????? ?p??e?et?, ?a? p??se?? F????? ?sa? ?? pa??????????? a?t? p??e?????? ?a? pa?? ??? ?????? p?????, T?a???? ?? ??s?te??se?? t?? ??e???? p???d??. The words pa?? ??? denote the Athenian envoys (of whom Demosthenes was one) and the persons around them, marching along with Philip; the oaths not having been yet taken.

[869] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 390. The oath was administered in the inn in front of the chapel of the Dioskuri, near PherÆ.

[870] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 359. In more than one passage, he states their absence from Athens to have lasted three entire months (p. 390; also De CoronÂ, p. 235). But this is an exaggeration of the time. The decree of the Senate, which constrained them to depart, was passed on the third of Munychion. Assuming that they set out on that very day (though it is more probable that they did not set out until the ensuing day), their absence would only have lasted seventy days.

[871] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 430. The Magnesian and AchÆan cities round the PagasÆan Gulf, all except Halus, were included in the oath as allies of Philip (Epistola Philippi ap. Demosthen. p. 159).

[872] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 395. Compare Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 87.

[873] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 351. ?? ??? t??t? p??t?? ?p??t?? t?? ?d????t??, t? t?? F???pp?? ?p?st?sa? t??? p???as? t??t???, ?a? d??? ??? ????sa? pe?? t?? p?a??t??, e?ta ???e?sas?a?, et? ta?ta d? p??tte?? ?,t? d??a?, ?a ????e?? ???e???? pa?e??a?, ?a? ?d? ?,t? ??? p??e?? ??d??? e?pe?? e??a?. Compare Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 236. p???? ??e?ta? pa?? a?t?? ?p?? ? ?p??e? ?? ?a?ed???a? ??? t? t?? st?ate?a? t?? ?p? t??? F???a? e?t?ep? p???sa?t?, etc.

[874] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 352, 353; ad Philipp. Epistol. p. 152. Demosthenes affirms farther that Æschines himself wrote the letter in Philip’s name. Æschines denies that he wrote it, and sustains his denial upon sufficient grounds. But he does not deny that he brought it (Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 44. c. 40, 41).

The inhabitants of Pharsalus were attached to Philip; while those of PherÆ were opposed to him as much as they dared, and even refused (according to Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 444) to join his army on this expedition. The old rivalry between the two cities here again appears.

[875] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 355. ?? t??, ?te t??? ?????? ?e??e F???pp?? ????a? t??? pe?? t?? e??????, ??sp??d??? ?p?fa????a? t??? F???a? ?p? t??t??, ? s??p?? ?a? ??? e???? ??, e?pe? ?e???? s??es?a?. Compare p. 395. ???t?? ?? t????? F??e?? ??sp??d??? ?a? ??e?? ?p?f??a? ?a? ?e?s???pt??, pa?? t? ??f?sa ?a? t? p??? ??? e?????a, etc.; also p. 430.

[876] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 346.

[877] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 444. ?f? ?? a? pe?t????ta t????e?? ??? ?f?????, etc. Compare Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 33.

[878] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 350, 351. Demosthenes causes this resolution of the Senate (p?????e?a) to be read to the Dikasts, together with the testimony of the senator who moved it. The document is not found verbatim, but Demosthenes comments upon it before the Dikasts after it has been read, and especially points out that it contains neither praise nor invitation, which the Senate was always in the habit of voting to returning envoys. This is sufficient to refute the allegation of Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 44. c. 38), that Demosthenes himself moved a resolution to praise the envoys and invite them to a banquet in the Prytaneium. Æschines does not produce such resolution, nor cause it to be read before the Dikasts.

[879] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 347, 351, 352. t??t? ?? ??de?? ?????? t? d?? t? p?????e?a, ??d? ????se? ? d???, ??ast?? d? ??t?? ?d?????e?. The date of the 16th Skirrophorion is specified, p. 359.

[880] I have here condensed the substance of what is stated by Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 347, 348, 351, 352, 364, 411, etc. Another statement, to the same effect, made by Demosthenes in the Oration De Pace (delivered only a few months after the assembly here described, and not a judicial accusation against Æschines, but a deliberative harangue before the public assembly), is even better evidence than the accusatory speech De Fals Legatione—????a t??? ?????? t??? pe?? t?? e?????? ?pe???f?te? ???e? ?? p??se??, t?te Tesp??? t???? ?a? ??ata??? ?p?s???????? ????s??ses?a?, ?a? t??? ?? F???a? t?? F???pp??, ?? ????ta? ??????, s?se??, t?? d? T?a??? p???? d?????e??, ?a? t?? ???p?? ??? ?p???e??, ?a? t?? ????a? ??t? ?f?p??e?? ?p?d???ses?a?, ?a? t??a?ta? ??p?da? ?a? fe?a??s???, ??? ?pa????te? ?e?? ??te s?f???? ??t? ?s?? ??te ?a??? p??e?s?e F???a? ... ??d?? t??t?? ??t? ??apat?sa? ??te s???sa? ??? fa??s?a?, ???? p??e?p?? ???, ?? ??d? ?t? ????e?ete, ?t? ta?ta ??te ??da ??te p??sd???, ????? d? t?? ?????ta ???e?? (De Pace, p. 59).

Compare also Philippic ii. p. 72, 73, where Demosthenes repeats the like assertion; also De Chersoneso, p. 105; De CoronÂ, p. 236, 237.

[881] Demosthenes states (Fals. Leg. p. 394. e?? t? ?a?a???a?a f?sa? ?p?p??e??) that he received this assurance from Philip, while he was busying himself during the mission in efforts to procure the ransom or liberation of the prisoners. But we may be sure that Æschines, so much more in the favor of Philip, must have received it also, since it would form so admirable a point for his first speech at Athens, in this critical juncture.

[882] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 352. ?s?? ???, ??pep???????? t? pa???s?? t?? F???pp??, ?a? t??t??? ??????????? ?p? t? ? p?????e????a?, p???t????? ?e??s?a? t????, p???? ?s? ????es?? ??? ?ses?a? p??sd???sa?ta?, etc.

[883] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 348, 349, 352. ?? d? ??t??????te? ????? ????? ?a? as?a??a ?atefa??et?, etc.

[884] Dem. Fals. Leg. p. 355; Phil. ii. p. 73.

[885] Dem. Fals. Leg. p. 353.

[886] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 356. ??t?? (Æschines) ?? ? ????? ?p?? a?t?? ?a? ?p?s????e???? p??? d? t??? pa?? t??t?? ?????? ?????ta? ?a?? ??? ? F??????t??, ?????fe? t??t? e?? t? ??f?sa, ??? ? p???s? F??e?? ? de?, ?a? pa?ad?d?s? t??? ?f??t??s? t? ?e???, ?t? ????se? ? d??? ? ????a??? ?p? t??? d?a??????ta? ta?ta ????es?a?.

The fact, that by this motion of Philokrates the peace was extended to “the posterity” of the Athenians—is dwelt upon by Demosthenes as “the greatest disgrace of all;” with an intensity of emphasis which it is difficult to enter into (Philippic ii. p. 73).

[887] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 357. Demosthenes causes the two letters to be read, and proceeds—?? ?? t????? ?p?st??a? ?a???s?? a?ta?, ?a? ?? ??a ?d? ?e.

So also Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 4. ??? d? ta??? ???? ??? ???a?e? ?p?st???? ? F???pp??, ?????a? p?s? t? d???e? ????s??ta? t??? d??a????; Æschines only notices one of the two letters. BÖhnecke (Forschungen, p. 412) conceives the letters as having been written and sent between the 16th and 23d of the month Skirrophorion.

[888] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 359.

[889] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 379.

[890] This was among the grounds of objection, taken by Demosthenes and his friends, against the despatch of forces to ThermopylÆ in compliance with the letter of Philip—according to the assertion of Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 41); who treats the objection with contempt, though it seems well-grounded and reasonable.

[891] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 356, 357.

[892] Æschin. Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 41.

[893] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 387.

[894] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 41. This statement of Æschines—about the declining strength of the Phokians and the causes thereof—has every appearance of being correct in point of fact; though it will not sustain the conclusions which he builds upon it.

Compare Demosth. Olynth. iii. p. 30 (delivered four years earlier) ?pe?????t?? d? ???as? F?????, etc.

[895] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 365; Diodor. xvi. 59.

[896] For the defence of ThermopylÆ, at the period of the invasion of Xerxes, the Grecian fleet at Artemisium was not less essential than the land force of Leonidas encamped in the pass itself.

[897] That the Phokians could not maintain ThermopylÆ without the aid of Athens—and that Philip could march to the frontier of Attica, without any intermediate obstacle to prevent him, if Olynthus were suffered to fall into his hand—is laid down emphatically by Demosthenes in the first Olynthiac, nearly four years before the month of Skirrophorion, 346 B.C.

?? d? ??e??a F???pp?? ???, t?? a?t?? ????se? de??? ad??e??; T?a???; ??, e? ? ??a? p????? e?pe??, ?a? s??e?sa???s?? ?t????. ???? F??e??; ?? t?? ???e?a? ??? ???? te ??te? f???tte??, ??? ? ????se?? ?e?? (Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 16).

[898] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 359. ???e? d? de??? ?p? t?? p?ese?a? t?? ?p? t??? ?????? t??t? ?p? d??a t?? S?????f??????? ????, ?a? pa??? ? F???pp?? ?? ???a?? ?d? ?a? t??? F??e?s?? ?p??????et? ?? ??d?? ?p?ste??? ??e????. S?e??? d?—?? ??? ?? de??? ???? ?? ??? ... pa??sa? ??? ?? t?? F????? p??se?? ????de, ?a? ?? a?t??? ?a? t? ?pa??e???s?? ??t?? (Æschines, Philokrates, etc.) ?a? t? ??f?e?s?e ?e??, ?p?e??? e?d??a?.

[899] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 357. ?? ?? t????? F??e??, ?? t? pa?? ??? ?p????t? ?? t?? ?????s?a? ?a? t? te ??f?sa t??t? ??a?? t? t?? F??????t???, ?a? t?? ?pa??e??a? ?p????t? t?? t??t?? ?a? t?? ?p?s??se??—?at? p??ta? t??? t??p??? ?p????t?.

Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 45. c. 41) touches upon the statements made by Demosthenes respecting the envoys of PhalÆkus at Athens, and the effect of the news which they carried back in determining the capitulation. He complains of them generally as being “got up against him” (? ?at?????? e?????ta?), but he does not contradict them upon any specific point. Nor does he at all succeed in repelling the main argument, brought home with great precision of date by Demosthenes.

[900] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 359: compare Diodor. xvi. 59. In this passage, Demosthenes reckons up seven days between the final assembly at Athens, and the capitulation concluded by the Phokians. In another passage, he states the same interval at only five days (p. 365); which is doubtless inaccurate. In a third passage, the same interval, seemingly, stands at five or six days, p. 379.

[901] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 356-365. ?pe?d? d? ??e? (Philip) e?? ???a?, ?a?eda?????? d? a?s??e??? t?? ???d?a? ?pe????sa?, etc.

[902] Demosth. Fals. Leg p. 359, 360, 365, 379, 413. ? d? (Æschines) t?s??t?? de? t?? ?pa????t?? t??a a?????t?? s?sa?, ?s?? ???? t?p?? ?a? p?e?? ? ?????? ?? ?p??ta?, ??? d? ??????? ?pp?a? t?? ?pa????t?? s?????, ?p?? a?????t?? ?????ta? F???pp? s?pa?es?e?ase?.

Diodorus (xvi. 59) states the mercenaries of PhalÆkus at eight thousand men.

Because the Phokians capitulated to Philip and not to the Thebans (p. 360)—because not one of their towns made any resistance—Demosthenes argues that this proves their confidence in the favorable dispositions of Philip, as testified by Æschines. But he overstrains this argument against Æschines. The Phokians had no choice but to surrender, as soon as all chance of Athenian aid was manifestly shut out. The belief of favorable dispositions on the part of Philip, was doubtless an auxiliary motive, but not the primary or predominant.

[903] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 378; Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 40. c. 30. It appears that the ten envoys were not all the same—t?? ????? t??? p?e?st??? t??? a?t???, etc.

[904] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 380. ???? ?t? p?ese?t?? ????? ???t? ???? a?t??, etc.

Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 43) does not seem to deny this distinctly.

[905] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 359, 360, 365, 379.

[906] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 368-379. Æschines also acknowledges the passing of this vote, for bringing in the movable property of Athens into a place of safety; though he naturally says very little about it (Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 42).

In the oration of Demosthenes, De CoronÂ, p. 238, this decree, moved by Kallisthenes, is not only alluded to, but purports to be given verbatim. The date as we there read it—the 21st of the month MÆmakterion—is unquestionably wrong; for the real decree must have been passed in the concluding days of the month Skirrophorion, immediately after hearing the report of Derkyllus. This manifest error of date will not permit us to believe in the authenticity of the document. Of these supposed original documents, inserted in the oration De CoronÂ, Droysen and other critics have shown some to be decidedly spurious; and all are so doubtful that I forbear to cite them as authority.

[907] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 380.

[908] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 41. c. 32. p. 43. c. 36. Æschines accuses Demosthenes of traitorous partiality for Thebes.

[909] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 380; De CoronÂ, p. 321. Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 49, 50) admits, and tries to justify, the proceeding.

[910] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 237, 238, 239. It is evident that Demosthenes found little in the letter which could be turned against Philip. Its tone must have been plausible and winning.

A letter is inserted verbatim in this oration, professing to be the letter of Philip to the Athenians. I agree with those critics who doubt or disbelieve the genuineness of this letter, and therefore I do not cite it. If Demosthenes had had before him a letter so peremptory and insolent in its tone, he would have animadverted upon it much more severely.

[911] Æschines went on boasting about the excellent dispositions of Philip towards Athens, and the great benefits which Philip promised to confer upon her, for at least several months after this capture of ThermopylÆ Æschines, cont. Timarch. p. 24. c. 33. F???pp?? d? ??? ?? d?? t?? t?? ????? e?f??a? ?pa???? ??? d? a?t?? ?? t??? p??? ??? ?????? ????ta?, ???? ??? ?st?? ?? ta?? ?p?s??ses??, ?sfa?? ?a? ??d??? t?? ?a?? a?t?? p???seta? ?pa????.

This oration was delivered apparently about the middle of Olymp. 108, 3; some months after the conquest of ThermopylÆ by Philip.

[912] Demosth. De Pace, p. 62, Philippic ii. p. 69.

[913] Pausanias, x. 3, 2.

[914] This transfer to the Thebans is not mentioned by Diodorus, but seems contained in the words of Demosthenes (Fals. Leg. p. 385)—t?? t?? F????? ???a? ?p?s?? ?????ta?: compare p. 380.

[915] Diodor. xvi. 60; Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 385. ???? t?? te???? ?a? t?? p??e?? ??a???se??. Demosthenes causes this severe sentence of the Amphiktyonic council to be read to the Dikastery (Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 361.) Unfortunately it has not been preserved.

[916] Pausanias, x. 8, 2.

[917] Æschines, Fals. Leg p. 47. c. 44.

[918] Justin, viii. 5. “Victi igitur necessitate, pact salute se dediderunt. Sed pactio ejus fidei fuit, cujus antea fuerat deprecati belli promissio. Igitur cÆduntur passim rapiunturque: non liberi parentibus, non conjuges maritis, non deorum simulacra templis suis relinquuntur. Unum tantum miseris solatium fuit, quod cum Philippus portione prÆdÆ socios fraudasset, nihil rerum suarum apud inimicos viderunt.”

Compare Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 366.

[919] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 47. c. 44; Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 366; Demosthen. De Pace, p. 61. ?t? t??? F????? f???da? s???e?, etc.

[920] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 361. ??aa de???? ?a? ??ee????? ?te ??? ??? ?p??e??e?a e?? ?e?f??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? p??ta ta?ta, ????a? ?ates?a??a?, te??? pe???????a, ???a? ????? t?? ?? t? ??????, ???a?a d? ?a? pa?d???a ????a ?a? p?es?ta? ?????p??? ???t????, ??d? ?? e?? d??a?t? ?f???s?a? t? ???? t?? ??e? ?a??? ??? ??t??.

As this oration was delivered in 343-342 B.C., the adverb of time ??? may be reasonably referred to the early part of that year, and the journey to Delphi was perhaps undertaken for the spring meeting of the Amphiktyonic council of that year; between two and three years after the destruction of the Phokians by Philip.

[921] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 361.

[922] Demosth. ad Philipp. Epistolam, p. 153. ???a?a? ?? f????? ?at????, etc.

[923] Diodor. xvi. 60. t????a? d? ?a? t?? ????a t?? ?????? F???pp?? et? ????t?? ?a? Tetta???, d?? t? ?????????? etes?????a? t??? F??e?s? t?? e?? t? ?e??? pa?a???a?.

The reason here assigned by Diodorus, why the Amphiktyons placed the celebration of the Pythian festival in the hands of Philip, cannot be understood. It may be true, as matter of fact, that the Corinthians had allied themselves with the Phokians during the Sacred War—though there is no other evidence of the fact except this passage. But the Corinthians were never invested with any authoritative character in reference to the Pythian festival. They were the recognized presidents of the Isthmian festival. I cannot but think that Diodorus has been misled by a confusion of these two festivals one with the other.

[924] Xenoph. Hellen. vi.

[925] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 380-398. ??t? de??? ?a? s??t??a ???????? t??? ta?a?p????? p?s?e?? F???a?, ?ste ?te t??? ?? t?? ????? ?e????? ?te t??? ?es???ta? e?? t? ????a p??a?, ???? ?p?st??a? t?? pat???? ?e???a?, etc. Demosth. De Pace, p. 60. t??? s??e??????ta? t??t??? ?a? f?s???ta? ?f??t???a? e??a?, etc.

[926] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 61; Philippic ii. p. 68, 69.

[927] Demosth. De Pace, p. 60-63; Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 375. In the latter passage, p. 375, Demosthenes accuses Æschines of having been the only orator in the city who spoke in favor of the proposition, there being a strong feeling in the assembly and in the people against it. Demosthenes must have forgotten, or did not wish to remember, his own harangue De Pace, delivered three years before. In spite of the repugnance of the people, very easy to understand, I conclude that the decree must have passed; since, if it had been rejected, consequences must have arisen which would have come to our knowledge.

[928] Æschin. Fals. Leg. p. 43. c. 37. ???t? ??? ?pa??e??a?, ???? ?p?s??s?a? ? f?s??.

Compare p. 43. c. 36. p. 46. c. 41. p. 52. c. 54—also p. 31-41—also the speech against Ktesiphon, p. 65. c. 30. ?? t???sta e?s? ????? F???pp?? pa????e ?a? t?? ?? ?? F??e?s? p??e?? pa?ad???? ??ast?t??? ?p???se, etc.

[929] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 373, 374. I translate the substance of the argument, not the words.

[930] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 43. c. 36. In rebutting the charge against him of having betrayed the Phokians to Philip, Æschines (Fals. Leg. p. 46, 47) dwells upon the circumstance, that none of the Phokian exiles appeared to assist in the accusation, and that some three or four Phokians and Boeotians (whom he calls by name) were ready to appear as witnesses in his favor.

The reason, why none of them appeared against him, appears to me sufficiently explained by Demosthenes. The Phokians were in a state far too prostrate and terror-stricken to incur new enmities, or to come forward as accusers of one of the Athenian partisans of Philip, whose soldiers were in possession of their country.

The reason why some of them appeared in his favor is also explained by Æschines himself, when he states that he had pleaded for them before the Amphiktyonic assembly, and had obtained for them a mitigation of that extreme penalty which their most violent enemies urged against them. To captives at the mercy of their opponents, such an interference might well appear deserving of gratitude; quite apart from the question, how far Æschines as envoy, by his previous communications to the Athenian people, had contributed to betray ThermopylÆ and the Phokians to Philip.

[931] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 376.

[932] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 375, 376, 377, 386

[933] Diodor. xvi. 63. ?p? t?? ?e??? p???? ?atef?????sa?, etc.

[934] Diodor. xvi. 61, 62, 63.

[935] Diodor. xvi. 64; Justin, viii. 2. “Dignum itaque qui a Diis proximus habeatur, per quem Deorum majestas vindicata sit.”

Some of these mercenaries, however, who had been employed in Phokis perished in Sicily in the service of Timoleon—as has been already related.

[936] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 119.

[937] Demosth. De Pace, p. 62. ???? d? T?a???? p??? ?? t? t?? ???a? ?e???s?a?, ?????sta p?p?a?ta?, p??? d? t??? ?a? d??a?, a?s??sta, etc.

[938] Demosth. De Pace, p. 60, 61.

[939] Isokrates. Or. v. ad Philipp. s. 128-135.

[940] Isokrat. Or. v. ad Philipp. s. 91. ?ta? ??t? d?a??? t??? ?????a?, ?spe? ???? ?a?eda??????? te p??? t??? ?a?t?? as???a? ????ta?, t??? d? ?ta????? t??? s??? p??? s? d?a?e??????. ?st? d? ?? ?a?ep?? t??e?? t??t??, ?? ??e??s?? ?????? ?pas? ?e??s?a?, etc.

[941] Demosth. Philipp. iii. p. 118.

[942] Isokrates, Or. v. Philipp. s. 118; Diodor. xv. 40, 44, 48. Diodorus alludes three several times to this repulse of Ochus from Egypt. Compare Demosth. De Rhod. Libert. p. 193.

Trogus mentioned three different expeditions of Ochus against Egypt (Argument. ad Justin. lib. x).

[943] Isokrates, Or. v. Philipp. s. 102. ?d???a ?e t?? e?p???tat?? t?? ??? pe?? t?? ?pe????, etc.

Demosth. De Pace, p. 63. ?e?? d? ??e?—?a? t?? ???a t?? ??s??? ?ata?a??e??, ???? ?a? ??? ?a? ??d??, etc. An oration delivered in the latter half of 346 B.C. after the peace.

Compare Demosth. De Rhod. Libertat. p. 121, an oration four years earlier.

[944] Diodor. xvi. 42-46. In the Inscription No. 87. of Boeckh’s Corpus Inscriptt., we find a decree passed by the Athenians recognizing friendship and hospitality with the Sidonian prince Strato—from whom they seem to have received a donation of ten talents. The note of date in this decree is not preserved; but M. Boeckh conceives it to date between Olympiad 101-104.

[945] Diodor. xvi. 42, 43, 45. “Occisis optimatibus Sidona cepit Ochus” (Trogus, Argum. ad Justin. lib x).

[946] Diodor. xvi. 47; Isokrates, Or. xii. Panathenaic. s. 171.

[947] Diodor. xvi. 47-51. Ley, Fata et Conditio, Ægypti sub Regno Persarum, p. 25, 26.

[948] Isokrates, Or. iv. Philipp. s. 149. ?a? t??? ?f?sta????? t?? ????? t?? as????? s???atast?ef?e?a, etc.

[950] Diodor. xvi. 50-52.

[951] Strabo, xvi. p. 610. Suidas v. Aristotelis—????a? ?? pa?d??.

[952] Diodorus places the appointment of Mentor to the satrapy of the Asiatic coast, and his seizure of Hermeias, in Olymp. 107, 4 (349-348 B.C.), immediately after the successful invasion of Egypt.

But this date cannot be correct, since Aristotle visited Hermeias at Atarneus after the death of Plato, and passed three years with him—from the archonship of Theophilus (348-347 B.C. Olymp. 108, 1), in which year Plato died—to the archonship of Eubulus (345-344 B.C. Olymp. 108, 4) (Vita Aristotelis ap. Dionys. Hal. Epist. ad AmmÆum, c. 5; Scriptt. Biographici, p. 397, ed. Westermann); Diogen. Laert. v. 7.

Here is another reason confirming the remark made in my former note, that Diodorus has placed the conquest of Egypt by Ochus three or four years too early; since the appointment of Mentor to the satrapy of the Asiatic coast follows naturally and immediately after the distinguished part which he had taken in the conquest of Egypt.

The seizure of Hermeias by Mentor must probably have taken place about 343 B.C. The stay of Aristotle with Hermeias will probably have occupied the three years between 347 and 344 B.C.

Respecting the chronology of these events, Mr. Clinton follows Diodorus; BÖhnecke dissents from him—rightly, in my judgment (Forschungen, p. 460-734, note). BÖhnecke seems to think that the person mentioned in Demosth. Philipp. iv. (p. 139, 140) as having been seized and carried up prisoner to the king of Persia, accused of plotting with Philip measures of hostility against the latter—is Hermeias. This is not in itself improbable, but the authority of the commentator Ulpian seems hardly sufficient to warrant us in positively asserting the identity.

It is remarkable that Diodorus makes no mention of the peace of 346 B.C. between Philip and the Athenians.

[953]

[954] Demosth. De Pace, p. 61; Philippic ii. p. 69.

[955] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 424; Pausan. iv. 28, 3.

[956] Justin, viii. 6. Diodorus states that Alexander did not become prince until after the death of Arrhybas (xvi. 72).

[957] Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 84; Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 424-435; Philippic iii. p. 117-120; Philippic iv. p. 133.

As these enterprises of Philip against Ambrakia and Leukas are not noticed in the second Philippic, but only in orations of later date, we may perhaps presume that they did not take place till after Olymp. 109, 1 = B.C. 344-343. But this is not a very certain inference.

[958] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 368, 424, 436; Philipp. iii. 117, 118. iv. p. 133; De CoronÂ, p. 324; Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 84.

Compare Harpokration v. ?e?ada???a.

[959] Diodor. xvi. 69, 71.

[960] Justin, viii. 5, 6. “Reversus in regnum, ut pecora pastores nunc in hybernos, nunc in Æstivos saltus trajiciunt—sic ille populos et urbes, ut illi vel replenda vel derelinquenda quÆquÆ loca videbantur, ad libidinem suam transfert. Miseranda ubique facies et similis excidio erat,” etc. Compare Livy, xl. 3, where similar proceedings of Philip son of Demetrius (B.C. 182) are described.

[961] See a striking passage in the fourth Philippic of Demosthenes, p. 132.

[962] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 252.

[963] Demosth. Philipp. ii. p. 71, 72. Demosthenes himself reports to the Athenian assembly (in 344-343 B.C.) what he had said to the Messenians and Argeians.

[964] Demosth. Philipp. ii. p. 72.

[965] Demosth. Philipp. ii. p. 66-72. Who these envoys were, or from whence they came, does not appear from the oration. Libanius in his Argument says that they had come jointly from Philip, from the Argeians, and from the Messenians. Dionysius Hal. (ad AmmÆum, p. 737) states that they came out of Peloponnesus.

I cannot bring myself to believe, on the authority of Libanius, that there were any envoys present from Philip. The tenor of the discourse appears to contradict that supposition.

[966] Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 81, 82. Winiewski (Comment Histor. in Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 140) thinks that the embassy of Python to Athens is the very embassy to which the second Philippic of Demosthenes provides or introduces a reply. I agree with BÖhnecke in regarding this supposition as improbable.

[967] Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 81. ?e?? d? t?? e??????, ?? ?d?sa? ??? ?? p??se?? ?? pa?? ??e???? pef???te? ?pa?????sas?a?, ?t? ?p??????s?e?a, ? pa?? p?s?? ?????p??? ?????e?ta? d??a??? e??a?, ??at????? ??e?? t? ?a?t??, ?f?s?te? (Philip) ? ded????a?, ?d? t??? p??se?? ta?t? e??????a? p??? ???, etc.

Compare Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 398.

[968] Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 81. See Ulpian ad Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 364.

[969] Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 81, 84, 85. ?f?s?te? ? ded????a? (Philip contends that he never tendered the terms of peace for amendment) ?d? t??? p??se?? ta?t? e??????a? p??? ??? ... ???t? d? t? ?pa?????a (the second amendment) ??????? ?? t? ?p?st???, ?? ????ete, d??a??? t? e??a? ?a? d??es?a?, etc.

[970] Hegesippus was much denounced by the philippizing orators at Athens (Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 364). His embassy to Philip has been treated by some authors as enforcing a “grossly sophistical construction of an article in the peace,” which Philip justly resented. But in my judgment it was no construction of the original treaty, nor was there any sophistry on the part of Athens. It was an amended clause, presented by the Athenians in place of the original. They never affirmed that the amended clause meant the same thing as the clause prior to amendment. On the contrary, they imply that the meaning is not the same—and it is on that ground that they submit the amended form of words.

[971] Compare Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 77, and the Epistola Philippi, p. 162. The former says, ??e?e d? ?a? p??? ??? t????t??? ??????, ?te p??? a?t?? ?p?ese?sae?, ?? ??st?? ?fe??e??? ta?t?? t?? ??s?? ?t?sa?t?, ?a? p??s??e?? a?t?? ?a?t?? e??a?.

Philip’s letter agrees as to the main facts.

[972] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 65. c. 30. pe?? s???a?? d?afe??e???, etc.

[973] Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 78-80.

[974] Epistol. Philipp. ap. Demosth. p. 162. The oration of Pseudo-Demosthenes De Halonneso is a discourse addressed to the people on one of these epistolary communications of Philip, brought by some envoys who had also addressed the people viv voce. The letter of Philip adverted to several other topics besides, but that of Halonnesus came first.

[975] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 446. I take these words to denote, not any one particular outmarch to these places, but a standing guard kept there, since the exposure of the northern frontier of Attica after the peace. For the great importance of Panaktum, as a frontier position between Athens and Thebes, see Thucydides, v. 35, 36, 39.

[976] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 368, 435, 446, 448; Philippic iv. p. 133; De CoronÂ, p. 324; Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16.

[977] The general state of things, as here given, at Oreus and Eretria, existed at the time when Demosthenes delivered his two orations—the third Philippic and the oration on the Chersonese; in the late spring and summer of 341 B.C.—De Chersoneso, p. 98, 99, 104; Philipp. iii. p. 112, 115, 125, 126.

... d???e???s? ?e ast????e??? ?a? st?e???e??? (the people of Eretria under Kleitarchus, p. 128).

[978] Demosth. De Chersoneso, p. 99.

[979] Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. p 677. De Fals. Leg. p. 396; De Chersoneso, p. 104, 105.

[980] Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 87.

[981] Demosth. De Chersoneso, p. 93; Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 87; Epistol. Philipp. ap. Demosth. p. 161.

[982] Epistol. Philipp. l. c.

[983] Philippic iii. p. 112.

[984] Philippic iii. p. 118, 119.

[985] Philippic iii. p. 129, 130.

[986] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 252.

[987] Diodor. xvi. 74.

[988] Stephanus Byz. v. ??e??.

[989] Æschines adv. Ktesiphont. p. 67, 68. Æschines greatly stigmatizes Demosthenes for having deprived the Athenian synod of these important members. But the Euboean members certainly had not been productive of any good to Athens by their attendance, real or nominal, at her synod, for some years past. The formation of a free Euboic synod probably afforded the best chance of ensuring real harmony between the island and Athens.

Æschines gives here a long detail of allegations, about the corrupt intrigues between Demosthenes and Kallias at Athens. Many of these allegations are impossible to reconcile with what we know of the course of history at the time. We must recollect that Æschines makes the statement eleven years after the events.

[990] Epistol. Philipp. ap. Demosth. p. 159.

[991] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. l. c. Æschines here specifies the month, but not the year. It appears to me that Anthesterion, 340 B.C. (Olymp. 109, 4) is the most likely date; though BÖhnecke and others place it a year earlier.

[992] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 254, 304, 308. ????e??? t?? s?t?p?p?a? ?????? ?e??s?a? (Philip), pa?e???? ?p? T????? ???a?t???? s?????? ??ta? a?t? t? ?? p??t?? ????? s?p??ee?? t?? p??? ??? p??e??, etc.

? ?? ?? p???te?a ... ??t? d? t?? t?? ????sp??t?? ??e?? F???pp??, ?a??ta ?????t???, s?p??ee?? t??? ???a?t???? e?? ??? p??? a?t?? (?p???se?) ... ??? ? ????sa? t?? ????sp??t?? ????t??????a? ?at? ??e????? t??? ???????; (p. 255.)

Compare Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 90.

That Demosthenes foresaw, several months earlier, the plans of Philip upon Byzantium, is evident from the orations De Chersoneso, p. 93-106, and Philippic iii. p. 115.

[993] Diodor. xvi. 74.

[994] Epistola Philippi ap. Demosth. p. 163.

[995] That these were the two last causes which immediately preceded and determined the declaration of war, we may see by Demosthenes, De CoronÂ, p. 249—?a? ?? t?? e?????? ?? ??e???? ???se t? p???a ?a??, ??? ? p????, etc.

???? ?pe?d? fa?e??? ?d? t? p???a ?ses???t?, ?e?????s?? ?p???e?t?, ?p? t?? ?tt???? ?p??e?e?? ?????p??, ????t? ?? ?f?s?t?s?? t? p???ata ??, ???? ??e?st??e? p??e??, etc. (p. 274.)

[996] Philochorus, Frag. 135. ed. Didot; Dionys. Hal. ad AmmÆum, p. 738-741; Diodorus, xvi. 77. The citation given by Dionysius out of Philochorus is on one point not quite accurate. It states that Demosthenes moved the decisive resolution for declaring war; whereas Demosthenes himself tells us that none of the motions at this juncture were made by him (De CoronÂ, p. 250).

[997] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 250. It will be seen that I take no notice of the two decrees of the Athenians, and the letter of Philip, embodied in the oration De CoronÂ, p. 249, 250, 251. I have already stated that all the documents which we read as attached to this oration are so tainted either with manifest error or with causes of doubt, that I cannot cite them as authorities in this history, wherever they stand alone. Accordingly, I take no account either of the supposed siege of Selymbria, mentioned in Philip’s pretended letter, but mentioned nowhere else—nor of the twenty Athenian ships captured by the Macedonian admiral Amyntas, and afterwards restored by Philip on the remonstrance of the Athenians, mentioned in the pretended Athenian decree moved by Eubulus. Neither Demosthenes, nor Philochorus, nor Diodorus, nor Justin, says anything about the siege of Selymbria, though all of them allude to the attacks on Byzantium and Perinthus. I do not believe that the siege of Selymbria ever occurred. Moreover, Athenian vessels captured, but afterwards restored by Philip on remonstrance from the Athenians, can hardly have been the actual cause of war.

The pretended decrees and letter do not fit the passage of Demosthenes to which they are attached.

[998] Epistol. Philipp. ap. Demosth. p. 165. This Epistle of Philip to the Athenians appears here inserted among the orations of Demosthenes. Some critics reject it as spurious; but I see no sufficient ground for such an opinion. Whether it be the composition of Philip himself, or of some Greek employed in Philip’s cabinet, is a point which we have no means of determining.

The oration of Demosthenes which is said to be delivered in reply to this letter of Philip (Orat. xi), is, in my judgment, wrongly described. Not only it has no peculiar bearing on the points contained in the letter—but it must also be two or three months later in date, since it mentions the aid sent by the Persian satraps to Perinthus, and the raising of the siege of that city by Philip (p. 153).

[999] Epistol. Philipp. ap. Demosth. p. 159, 164; compare Isokrates. Or. v. (Philip.) s. 82.

[1000] How much improvement Philip had made in engines for siege, as a part of his general military organization—is attested in a curious passage of a later author on mechanics. AthenÆus, De Machinis ap. Auctor. Mathem. Veter. p. 3, ed. Paris.—?p?d?s?? d? ??ae? ? t?a??t? ??a??p???a ?pasa ?at? t?? t?? ?????s??? t?? S??e???t?? t??a???da, ?at? te t?? F???pp?? t?? ???t?? as??e?a?, ?te ?p??????e? ???a?t???? F???pp??. ?????e? d? t? t??a?t? t???? ????e?d?? ? Tessa???, ?? ?? a??ta? s??est?ate???t? ??e???d??.

Respecting the engines employed by Dionysius of Syracuse, see Diodor. xiv. 42, 48, 50.

[1001] Diodor. xvi. 74-76; Plutarch, Vit. Alexandri, c. 70; also Laconic. Apophthegm. p. 215, and De Fortun Alexan. p. 339.

[1002] Demosth. ad Philip. Epistol. p. 153; Diodor. xvi. 75; Pausanias, i. 29, 7.

[1003] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 14; Plutarch, Vit. X. Orat. p. 848-851. To this fleet of Phokion, Demosthenes contributed the outfit of a trireme, while the orator Hyperides sailed with the fleet as trierarch. See Boeckh, Urkunden Über das Attische Seewesen, p. 441, 442, 498. From that source the obscure chronology of the period now before us derives some light; since it becomes certain that the expedition of Chares began during the archonship of Nichomaclides; that is, in the year before Midsummer 340 B.C.; while the expedition of Phokion and Kephisophon began in the year following—after Midsummer 340 B.C.

See some anecdotes respecting this siege of Byzantium by Philip, collected from later authors (Dionysius Byzantinus, Hesychius Milesius, and others) by the diligence of BÖhnecke—Forschungen, p. 470 seqq.

[1004] Diodor. xvi. 77: Plutarch, Demosthen. c. 17.

[1005] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 14.

[1006] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 255; Plutarch, De Glor. Athen. p. 350.

[1007] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 305, 306, 307: comp. p. 253. et? ta?ta d? t??? ?p?st????? p??ta? ?p?ste??a, ?a?? ??? ?e?????s?? ?s???, ?a? ?????t??? ?a? p??te? ?? s?a???, etc.

[1008] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 255, 257. That these votes of thanks were passed, is authenticated by the words of the oration itself. Documents are inserted in the oration, purporting to be the decree of the Byzantines and Perinthians, and that of the Chersonesite cities. I do not venture to cite these as genuine, considering how many of the other documents annexed to this oration are decidedly spurious.

[1009] Demosth. p. 253. Aristonikus is again mentioned, p. 302. A document appears, p. 253, purporting to be the vote of the Athenians to thank and crown Demosthenes, proposed by Aristonikus. The name of the Athenian archon is wrong, as in all the other documents embodied in this oration, where the name of an Athenian archon appears.

[1010] Diodorus (xvi. 77) mentions this peace; stating that Philip raised the sieges of Byzantium and Perinthus, and made peace p??? ????a???? ?a? t??? ?????? ?????a? t??? ??a?t????????.

Wesseling (ad loc.) and Weiske (De HyperbolÊ, ii. p. 41) both doubt the reality of this peace. Neither BÖhnecke nor Winiewski recognize it. Mr. Clinton admits it in a note to his Appendix 16. p. 292; though he does not insert it in his column of events in the tables.

I perfectly concur with these authors in dissenting from Diodorus, so far as Athens is concerned. The supposition that peace was concluded between Philip and Athens at this time is distinctly negatived by the language of Demosthenes (De CoronÂ, p. 275, 276); indirectly also by Æschines. Both from Demosthenes and from Philochorus it appeals sufficiently clear, in my judgment, that the war between Philip and the Athenians went on without interruption from the summer of 340 B.C., to the battle of ChÆroneia, in August 338.

But I see no reason for disbelieving Diodorus, in so far as he states that Philip made peace with the other Greeks—Byzantines, Perinthians, Chians, Rhodians, etc.

[1011] Justin, ix. 2, 3. Æschines alludes to this expedition against the Scythians during the spring of the archon Theophrastus, or 339 B.C. (Æschin. cont. Ktesiph. p. 71).

[1012] Æschines cont. Ktesiph. p. 85. c. 80. ?p?st?t?? t?? ?a?t????.

[1013] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 260-262. ?? ??? a?t??? (t??? ??e?s? t?? s??????) ?? ?? t?? p??t???? ???? s??e??a?de?a ?e?t????e??—a?t??? ?? ???? ?a? ??d?? ??a??s???s??, t??? d? ?p????? t?? p???t?? ?p?t????s?? ... ?? d? t?? ??? ???? t? ?????e??? ?at? t?? ??s?a? ??ast?? t????a?? ?a? d???? ?f??? t????a???? ? t?? ??? ??t?? ?a? d??at?? p??te??? s??te???? ??d? ??? t?????????? ?t? ???a??? ?a?t???, ???? s??te?e??.

The trierarchy, and the trierarchic symmories, at Athens, are subjects not perfectly known; the best expositions respecting them are to be found in Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens (b. iv. ch. 11-13), and in his other work, Urkunden Über das Attische Seewesen (ch. xi. xii. xiii.); besides Parreidt, De Symmoriis, part ii. p. 22, seq.

The fragment of Hyperides (cited by Harpokration v. S????a) alluding to the trierarchic reform of Demosthenes, though briefly and obscurely, is an interesting confirmation of the oration De CoronÂ.

[1014] There is a point in the earlier oration of Demosthenes De Symmoriis, illustrating the grievance which he now reformed. That grievance consisted, for one main portion, in the fact, that the richest citizen in a trierarchic partnership paid a sum no greater (sometimes even less) than the poorest. Now it is remarkable that this unfair apportionment of charge might have occurred, and is noway guarded against, in the symmories as proposed by Demosthenes himself. His symmories, each comprising sixty persons or one-twentieth of the total active twelve hundred, are directed to divide themselves into five fractions of twelve persons each, or a hundredth of the twelve hundred. Each group of twelve is to comprise the richest alongside of the poorest members of the sixty (??ta?ap??????ta? p??? t?? e?p???tat?? ?e? t??? ?p???t?t???, p. 182), so that each group would contain individuals very unequal in wealth, though the aggregate wealth of one group would be nearly equal to that of another. These twelve persons were to defray collectively the cost of trierarchy for one ship, two ships, or three ships, according to the number of ships which the state might require (p. 183). But Demosthenes nowhere points out in what proportions they were to share the expense among them; whether the richest citizens among the twelve were to pay only an equal sum with the poorest, or a sum greater in proportion to their wealth. There is nothing in his project to prevent the richer members from insisting that all should pay equally. This is the very abuse that he denounced afterwards (in 340 B.C.), as actually realized—and corrected by a new law. The oration of Demosthenes De Symmoriis, omitting as it does all positive determination as to proportions of payment, helps us to understand how the abuse grew up.

[1015] Æschines (adv. Ktesiph. p. 86) charges Demosthenes with “having stolen away from the city the trierarchs of sixty-five swift sailing vessels.” This implies, I imagine, that the new law diminished the total number of persons chargeable with trierarchy.

[1016] Deinarchus adv. Demosthen. p. 95. s. 43. ??s? t??e? ?? t? d??ast???? t?? ?? t??? t??a??s???? ?e?e??????, ??? ??t?? (Demosthenes) ?t??e? t?? pe?? t?? t????????? ????. ?? f??sete t??? p??s??? ?t? t??a t??a?ta ?a?? et???afe ?a? etes?e?a?e t?? ???? ?a?? ???st?? ?????s?a?, ?a? t? ?? ?p??e? ?? e???fe? t?? t???, t? d? ?p?d?e??? ??? ?ea???;

Without accepting this assertion of a hostile speaker, so far as it goes to accuse Demosthenes of having accepted bribes—we may safely accept it, so far as it affirms that he made several changes and modifications in the law before it finally passed; a fact not at all surprising, considering the intense opposition which it called forth.

Some of the Dikasts, before whom Deinarchus was pleading, had been included among the Three Hundred (that is, the richest citizens in the State) when Demosthenes proposed his trierarchic reform. This will show, among various other proofs which might be produced, that the Athenian Dikasts did not always belong to the poorest class of citizens, as the jests of Aristophanes would lead us to believe.

[1017] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 329. Boeckh (Attisch. Seewesen, p. 183, and Publ. Econ. Ath. iv. 14) thinks that this passage—d?t??a?t?? d? e??e? ??a??? d??e?? pa?? t?? ??e???? t?? s??????, ?f? ??? ?????? t?? t????a?????? ????—must allude to injury done by Æschines to the law in later years, after it became a law. But I am unable to see the reason for so restricting its meaning. The rich men would surely bribe most highly, and raise most opposition, against the first passing of the law, as they were then most likely to be successful; and Æschines, whether bribed or not bribed, would most naturally as well as most effectively stand out against the novelty introduced by his rival, without waiting to see it actually become a part of the laws of the State.

[1018] See the citation from Hyperides in Harpokrat. v. S????a. The Symmories are mentioned in Inscription xiv. of Boeckh’s Urkunden Über das Attische Seewesen (p. 465), which Inscription bears the date of 325 B.C. Many of these Inscriptions name individual citizens, in different numbers three, five, or six, as joint trierarchs of the same vessel.

[1019] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 262.

[1020] Chap. xxviii. p. 62 seqq.

[1021] For the topography of the country round Delphi, see the instructive work of Ulrichs, Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland (Bremen, 1840) chapters i. and ii. about Kirrha and Krissa.

[1022] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 69; compare Livy, xlii. 5; Pausanias, x. 37, 4. The distance from Delphi to Kirrha is given by Pausanias at sixty stadia, or about seven English miles: by Strabo at eighty stadia.

[1023] Æschines, l. c.; Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 277. t?? ???a? ?? ?? ?? ?f?sse?? sf?? a?t?? ?e???e?? ?fasa?, ??t?? d? (Æschines) t?? ?e??? ???a? ?t??t? e??a?, etc.

[1024] Diodor. xvi. 24; Thucyd. iii. 101.

[1025] Diodor. xvi. 25.

[1026] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 69.

[1027] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 277.

[1028] This must have been an ?p??at?stas?? t?? ??a???t?? (compare Plutarch, Demetrius, c. 13), requiring to be preceded by solemn ceremonies, sometimes specially directed by the oracle.

[1029] How painfully the Thebans of the Demosthenic age felt the recollection of the alliance of their ancestors with the Persians at PlatÆa, we may read in Demosthenes, De Symmoriis, p. 187.

It appears that the Thebans also had erected a new chapel at Delphi (after 346 B.C.) out of the spoils acquired from the conquered Phokians—? ?p? F????? ?a??, ?? ?d??sa?t? T?a??? (Diodor. xvii. 10).

[1030] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 70. The words of his speech do not however give either a full or a clear account of the transaction; which I have endeavored, as well as I can, to supply in the text.

[1031] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 277.

[1032] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 69.

[1033] Æschines adv. Ktesiph, p. 70.

[1034] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 277. ?? d? t? t?? p??e?? ????a ?a?? (Æschines) ?f??et? e?? t??? ?f??t???a?, p??ta t???? ?fe?? ?a? pa??d?? ?p??a??e? ?f? ??? ??s????, ?a? ?????? e?p??s?p??? ?a? ?????, ??e? ? ????a?a ???a ?a??e????, s???e?? ?a? d?e?e????, ?????p??? ?pe????? ????? ?a? t? ????? ?? p??????????, t??? ?f??t???a?, pe??e? ??f?sas?a?, etc.

[1036] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 71.

[1037] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 277. According to the second decree of the Amphiktyons cited in this oration (p. 278), some of the Amphiktyons were wounded. But I concur with Droysen, Franke, and others, in disputing the genuineness of these decrees; and the assertion, that some of the Amphiktyons were wounded, is one among the grounds for disputing it: for if such had been the fact, Æschines could hardly have failed to mention it; since it would have suited exactly the drift and purpose of his speech.

Æschines is by far the best witness for the proceedings at this spring meeting of the Amphiktyons. He was not only present, but the leading person concerned; if he makes a wrong statement, it must be by design. But if the facts as stated by Æschines are at all near the truth, it is hardly possible that the two decrees cited in Demosthenes can have been the real decrees passed by the Amphiktyons. The substance of what was resolved, as given by Æschines, pp. 70, 71, is materially different from the first decree quoted in the oration of Demosthenes, p. 278. There is no mention, in the letter, of those vivid and prominent circumstances—the summoning of all the Delphians, freemen and slaves above sixteen years of age, with spades and mattocks—the exclusion from the temple, and the cursing, of any city which did not appear to take part.

The compiler of those decrees appears to have had only Demosthenes before him, and to have known nothing of Æschines. Of the violent proceedings of the Amphiktyons, both provoked and described by Æschines, Demosthenes says nothing.

[1038] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 70. ?p???e d? ??? ?? ?p? t?? ????? ??s???a? t?? t?? ?f?ss??? pe?? t?? ??? t?? ?e??? ?see?a?, etc.

[1039] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 71. ?a? t?? p???e?? ??? ?p?de?a???? t?? d???, ?a? t?? p??e?? p?s?? p??a???????? e?see??, etc. ??? ?? (Demosthenes) e??s?a? t?? ?????, ??? ?? p??????? ??sa?, ??d? t?? ???? ??d? t?? t?? ?e?? a?te?a?.

[1040] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 275.

[1041] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 69-71.

[1042] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 71.

[1043] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 277; Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 72.

[1044] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 277, 278.

[1045] The chronology of the events here recounted has been differently conceived by different authors. According to my view, the first motion raised by Æschines against the Amphissian Lokrians, occurred in the spring meeting of the Amphiktyons at Delphi in 339 B.C. (the year of the archon Theophrastus at Athens); next, there was held a special or extraordinary meeting of Amphiktyons, and a warlike manifestation against the Lokrians; after which came the regular autumnal meeting at ThermopylÆ (B.C. 339—September—the year of the archon Lysimachides at Athens), where the vote was passed to call in the military interference of Philip.

This chronology does not, indeed, agree with the two so-called decrees of the Amphiktyons, and with the documentary statement—????? ???s??e?d??, ???est??????? ??t? ?p? d??a—which we read as incorporated in the oration De CoronÂ, p. 279. But I have already stated that I think these documents spurious.

The archon Mnesitheides (like all the other archons named in the documents recited in the oration De CoronÂ) is a wrong name, and cannot have been quoted from any genuine document. Next, the first decree of the Amphiktyons is not in harmony with the statement of Æschines, himself the great mover, of what the Amphiktyons really did. Lastly, the second decree plainly intimates that the person who composed the two decrees conceived the nomination of Philip to have taken place in the very same Amphiktyonic assembly as the first movement against the Lokrians. The same words, ?p? ?e???? ??e??a?????, ?a????? p??a?a?—prefixed to both decrees, must be understood to indicate the same assembly. Mr. Clinton’s supposition that the first decree was passed at the spring meeting of 339 B.C.—and the second at the spring meeting of 338 B.C.—Kleinagoras being the eponymus in both years—appears to me nowise probable. The special purpose and value of an eponymus would disappear, if the same person served in that capacity for two successive years. Boeckh adopts the conjecture of Reiske, altering ?a????? p??a?a? in the second decree into ?p?????? p??a?a?. This would bring the second decree into better harmony with chronology; but there is nothing in the state of the text to justify such an innovation. BÖhnecke (Forsch. p. 498-508) adopts a supposition yet more improbable. He supposes that Æschines was chosen Pylagoras at the beginning of the Attic year 340-339 B.C., and that he attended first at Delphi at the autumnal meeting of the Amphiktyons 340 B.C.; that he there raised the violent storm which he himself describes in his speech; and that he afterwards, at the subsequent spring meeting, came both the two decrees which we now read in the oration De CoronÂ. But the first of these two decrees can never have come after the outrageous proceeding described by Æschines. I will add, that in the form of decree, the president Kottyphus is called an Arcadian; whereas Æschines designates him as a Pharsalian.

[1046] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 278.

[1047] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 72 ... t?? ?? ?e?? t?? ??e???a? t?? e?see?a? ??? pa?aded???t??, t?? d? ???s?????? d???d???a? ?p?d?? ?e?e??????.

[1048] See Isokrates, Orat. V. (Philipp.) s. 22. 23.

[1049] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 73. ?pe?d? F???pp?? a?t?? ?fe??e??? ???a?a? Tetta???? pa??d??e, etc.

Compare Demosthen. ad Philipp. Epistol. p. 153. ?p?pte?eta? d? ?p? T?a??? ???a?a? ?? f????? ?at????, etc.

[1050] Philochorus ap. Dionys. Hal. ad AmmÆum, p. 742.

[1051] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 293-299. Justin, ix. 3, “diu dissimulatum bellum Atheniensibus infert.” This expression is correct in the sense, that Philip, who had hitherto pretended to be on his march against Amphissa, disclosed his real purpose to be against Athens at the moment when he seized Elateia. Otherwise, he had been at open war with Athens, ever since the sieges of Byzantium and Perinthus in the preceding year.

[1052] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 46, 47.

[1053] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 73; Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 281.

[1054] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 276, 281, 284. ???? ??e?se ?p??e??, ?t? t?? ?? ?f?ss? p??e?? t??t?? (Æschines) ?? p???sa?t??, s?pe?a?a???? d? t?? ????? t?? s??????? a?t?? t?? p??? T?a???? ??????, s???? t?? F???pp?? ???e?? ?f? ???, ??pe? ??e?a t?? p??e?? ??t?? s?????????, etc. ??t? ???? p???? p????a??? ??t?? t?? ??????.

[1055] Demosth. De Coron—??e? ???? (Philip) t?? d??a?? ?a? t?? ???te?a? ?at??ae?, ?? ??d? ?? e? t? ?????t? ?t? s?p?e?s??t?? ?? ??? ?a? t?? T?a???.

[1056] Philochorus ap. Dionys. Hal. ad AmmÆum, p. 742.

[1057] Demosth. Olynth. i. p. 16. ?? d? ??e??a F???pp?? ???, t?? a?t?? ????se? de??? ad??e??; T?a???; ??, e? ? ??a? p????? e?pe??, ?a? s??e?sa???s?? ?t????.

[1058] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 304. ? ??? ?? p???te?a, ?? ??t?? (Æschines) ?at????e?, ??t? ?? t?? T?a???? et? F???pp?? s??ea?e?? e?? t?? ???a?, ? p??te? ???t?, e?? ??? pa?ata?a????? ??e???? ????e?? ?p???se?, etc.

[1059] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 286, 287; Diodor. xvi. 84. I have given the substance, in brief, of what Demosthenes represents himself to have said.

[1060] This decree, or a document claiming to be such, is given verbatim in Demosthenes, De CoronÂ, p. 289, 290. It bears date on the 16th of the month Skirrophorion (June), under the archonship of Nausikles. This archon is a wrong or pseud-eponymous archon: and the document, to say nothing of its verbosity, implies that Athens was now about to pass out of pacific relations with Philip, and to begin war against him—which is contrary to the real fact.

There also appear inserted, a few pages before, in the same speech (p. 282), four other documents, purporting to relate to the time immediately preceding the capture of Elateia by Philip. 1. A decree of the Athenians, dated in the month Elaphebolion of the archon Heropythus. 2. Another decree, in the month Munychion of the same archon. 3. An answer addressed by Philip to the Athenians. 4. An answer addressed by Philip to the Thebans.

Here again, the archon called Heropythus is a wrong and unknown archon. Such manifest error of date would alone be enough to preclude me from trusting the document as genuine. Droysen is right, in my judgment, in rejecting all these five documents as spurious. The answer of Philip to the Athenians is adapted to the two decrees of the Athenians, and cannot be genuine if they are spurious.

These decrees, too, like that dated in Skirrophorion, are not consistent with the true relations between Athens and Philip. They imply that she was at peace with him, and that hostilities were first undertaken against him by her after his occupation of Elateia; whereas open war had been prevailing between them for more than a year, ever since the summer of 340 B.C., and the maritime operations against him in the Propontis. That the war was going on without interruption during all this period—that Philip could not get near to Athens to strike a blow at her and close the war, except by bringing the Thebans and Thessalians into coÖperation with him—and that for the attainment of this last purpose, he caused the Amphissian war to be kindled, through the corrupt agency of Æschines—is the express statement of Demosthenes, De CoronÂ, p. 275, 276. Hence I find it impossible to believe in the authenticity either of the four documents here quoted, or of this supposed very long decree of the Athenians, on forming their alliance with Thebes, bearing date on the 16th of the month Skirrophorion, and cited De CoronÂ, p. 289. I will add, that the two decrees which we read in p. 282, profess themselves as having been passed in the months Elaphebolion and Munychion, and bear the name of the archon Heropythus; while the decree cited, p. 289, bears date the 16th of Skirrophorion, and the name of a different archon, Nausikles. Now if the decrees were genuine, the events which are described in both must have happened under the same archon, at an interval of about six weeks between the last day of Munychion and the 16th of Skirrophorion. It is impossible to suppose an interval of one year and six weeks between them.

It appears to me, on reading attentively the words of Demosthenes himself, that the falsarius or person who composed these four first documents, has not properly conceived what it was that Demosthenes caused to be read by the public secretary. The point which Demosthenes is here making, is to show how ably he had managed, and how well he had deserved of his country, by bringing the Thebans into alliance with Athens immediately after Philip’s capture of Elateia. For this purpose he dwells upon the bad state of feeling between Athens and Thebes before that event, brought about by the secret instigations of Philip through corrupt partisans in both places. Now it is to illustrate this hostile feeling between Athens and Thebes, that he causes the secretary to read certain decrees and answers—?? ??? d? ?t? ?d? t? p??? ????????, t??t??? t?? ??f?s?t?? ????sa?te? ?a? t?? ?p????se?? e?ses?e. ?a? ?? ???e ta?ta ?a??.... (p. 282). The documents here announced to be read do not bear upon the relations between Athens and Philip (which were those of active warfare, needing no illustration)—but to the relation between Athens and Thebes. There had plainly been interchanges of bickering and ungracious feeling between the two cities, manifested in public decrees or public answers to complaints or remonstrances. Instead of which, the two Athenian decrees, which we now read as following, are addressed, not to the Thebans, but to Philip; the first of them does not mention Thebes at all; the second mentions Thebes only to recite as a ground of complaint against Philip, that he was trying to put the two cities at variance; and this too, among other grounds of complaint, much more grave and imputing more hostile purposes. Then follow two answers—which are not answers between Athens and Thebes, as they ought to be—but answers from Philip, the first to the Athenians, the second to the Thebans. Neither the decrees, nor the answers, as they here stand, go to illustrate the point at which Demosthenes is aiming—the bad feeling and mutual provocations which had been exchanged a little before between Athens and Thebes. Neither the one nor the other justify the words of the orator immediately after the documents have been read—??t? d?a?e?? ? F???pp?? t?? p??e?? p??? ?????a? d?? t??t?? (through Æschines and his supporters), ?a? t??t??? ?pa??e?? t??? ??f?sas? ?a? ta?? ?p????ses??, ??e? ???? t?? d??a?? ?a? t?? ???te?a? ?at??ae?, ?? ??d? ?? e? t? ?????t? ?t? s?p?e?s??t?? ?? ??? ?a? t?? T?a???.

Demosthenes describes Philip as acting upon Thebes and Athens through the agency of corrupt citizens in each; the author of these documents conceives Philip as acting by his own despatches.

The decree of the 16th Skirrophorion enacts, not only that there shall be alliance with Thebes, but also that the right of intermarriage between the two cities shall be established. Now at the moment when the decree was passed, the Thebans both had been, and still were, on bad terms with Athens, so that it was doubtful whether they would entertain or reject the proposition; nay, the chances even were, that they would reject it and join Philip. We can hardly believe it possible, that under such a state of probabilities, the Athenians would go so far as to pronounce for the establishment of intermarriage between the two cities.

[1061] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 298.

[1062] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 18. Daochus and Thrasylaus are named by Demosthenes as Thessalian partisans of Philip (Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 324).

[1063] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 298, 299. Aristot. Rhetoric. ii. 23; Dionys. Hal. ad AmmÆum, p. 744; Diodor. xvi. 85.

[1064] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 304-307. e? ?? ??? ? et????sa? e?????, ?? ta?t? e?d??, ?? T?a???, ?a? e?? ??? ??????t?, etc.

[1065] Theopompus, Frag. 239, ed. Didot; Plutarch, Demosth. c. 18.

[1066] We may here trust the more fully the boasts made by Demosthenes of his own statesmanship and oratory, since we possess the comments of Æschines, and therefore know the worst that can be said by an unfriendly critic. Æschines (adv. Ktesiph. p. 73, 74) says that the Thebans were induced to join Athens, not by the oratory of Demosthenes, but by the fear of Philip’s near approach, and by their displeasure in consequence of having NikÆa taken from them. Demosthenes says in fact the same. Doubtless the ablest orator must be furnished with some suitable points to work up in his pleadings. But the orators on the other side would find in the history of the past a far more copious collection of matters, capable of being appealed to as causes of antipathy against Athens, and of favour to Philip; and against this superior case Demosthenes had to contend.

[1067] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 299, 300.

[1068] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 74.

[1069] Philochorus Frag. 135, ed. Didot; Dionys. Hal. ad AmmÆum, p. 742.

[1070] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 73. Æschines remarks the fact—but perverts the inferences deducible from it.

[1071] Demosthen. De CoronÂ, p. 279. ??? d? ?? t?? ?p?st????, ??, ?? ??? ?p?????? ?? T?a???, p?pe? p??? t??? ?? ?e??p????s? s?????? ? F???pp??, ??? e?d?te ?a? ?? ta?t?? saf?? ?t? t?? ?? ????? p??fas?? t?? p?a??t??, t? ta?t? ?p? t?? ????da ?a? t??? T?a???? ?a? ??? p??tte??, ?pe???ptet?, ????? d? ?a? t??? ?f??t??s? d??a?ta p??e?? p??sep??e?t?, etc.

Then follows a letter, purporting to be written by Philip to the Peloponnesians. I concur with Droysen in mistrusting its authenticity. I do not rest any statements on its evidence. The Macedonian month LÖus does not appear to coincide with the Attic BoËdromion; nor is it probable that Philip in writing to Peloponnesians, would allude at all to Attic months. Various subsequent letters written by Philip to the Peloponnesians, and intimating much embarrassment, are alluded to by Demosthenes further on—???? ?? ??a? t?t? ?f?e? f???? ? F???pp?? ?a? ?? ??a?? ?? ta?a?a?? ?p? t??t???, ?? t?? ?p?st???? ??e???? a??ses?e ?? e?? ?e??p????s?? ?pepe? (p. 301, 302). Demosthenes causes the letters to be read publicly, but no letters appear verbatim.

[1072] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 300.

[1073] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 302; Plutarch, Vit. X. Orator., p. 848.

[1074] That Demosthenes was crowned at the Dionysiac festival (March 338 B.C.) is contended by BÖhnecke (Forschungen, p. 534, 535); upon grounds which seem sufficient, against the opinion of Boeckh and Winiewski (Comment. ad Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 250), who think that he was not crowned until the Panathenaic festival, in the ensuing July.

[1075] Pausanias, x. 3, 2.

[1076] Pausanias, x. 33, 4.

[1077] Pausanias, x. 36, 2.

[1078] Pausanias, iv. 31, 5. He places the fortifications of Ambrysus in a class with those of Byzantium and Rhodes.

[1079] Pausan. ix. 13, 2; Diodor. xv. 53; Xenoph. Hell. vi. 4, 3.

[1080] The chronology of this period has caused much perplexity, and has been differently arranged by different authors. But it will be found that all the difficulties and controversies regarding it have arisen from resting on the spurious decrees embodied in the speech of Demosthenes De CoronÂ, as if they were so much genuine history. Mr. Clinton, in his Fasti Hellenici, cites these decrees as if they were parts of Demosthenes himself. When we once put aside these documents, the general statements both of Demosthenes and Æschines, though they are not precise or specific, will appear perfectly clear and consistent respecting the chronology of the period.

That the battle of ChÆroneia took place on the 7th of the Attic month Metageitnion (August) B.C. 338 (the second month of the archon ChÆrondas at Athens)—is affirmed by Plutarch (Camill. c. 19) and generally admitted.

The time when Philip first occupied Elateia has been stated by Mr. Clinton and most authors as the preceding month of Skirrophorion, fifty days or thereabouts earlier. But this rests exclusively on the evidence of the pretended decree, for alliance between Athens and Thebes, which appears in Demosthenes De CoronÂ, p. 289. Even those who defend the authenticity of the decree, can hardly confide in the truth of the month-date, when the name of the archon Nausikles is confessedly wrong. To me neither this document, nor the other so-called Athenian decrees professing to bear date in Munychion and Elaphebolion (p. 282), carry any evidence whatever.

The general statements both of Demosthenes and Æschines, indicate the appointment of Philip as Amphiktyonic general to have been made in the autumnal convocation of Amphiktyons at ThermopylÆ. Shortly after this appointment, Philip marched his army into Greece with the professed purpose of acting upon it. In this march he came upon Elateia and began to fortify it; probably about the month of October 339 B.C. The Athenians, Thebans, and other Greeks, carried on the war against him in Phokis for about ten months, until the battle of ChÆroneia. That this war must have lasted as long as ten months, we may see by the facts mentioned in my last page—the reËstablishment of the Phokians and their towns, and especially the elaborate fortification of Ambrysus. BÖhnecke (Forschungen, p. 533) points out justly (though I do not agree with his general arrangement of the events of the war) that this restoration of the Phokian towns implies a considerable interval between the occupation of Elateia and the battle of ChÆroneia. We have also two battles gained against Philip, one of them a ??? ?e?e????, which perfectly suits with this arrangement.

[1081] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 306; Plutarch, Demosth. c. 17. In the decree of the Athenian people (Plutarch, Vit. X. Orat. p. 850) passed after the death of Demosthenes, granting various honors and a statue to his memory—it is recorded that he brought in by his persuasions not only the allies enumerated in the text, but also the Lokrians and the Messenians; and that he procured from the allies a total contribution of above five hundred talents. The Messenians, however, certainly did not fight at ChÆroneia; nor is it correct to say that Demosthenes induced the Amphissian Lokrians to become allies of Athens.

[1082] Strabo, ix. p. 414; Pausanias, vii. 6, 3.

[1083] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 48. Æschines (adv. Ktesiph. p. 74) puts these same facts—the great personal ascendency of Demosthenes at this period—in an invidious point of view.

[1084] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 18. ?ste e???? ?p??????e?es?a? de?e??? e??????, etc.

It is possible that Philip may have tried to disunite the enemies assembled against him, by separate propositions addressed to some of them.

[1085] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 74. Deinarchus mentions a Theban named Proxenus, whom he calls a traitor, as having commanded these mercenary troops at Amphissa (Deinarchus adv. Demosth. p. 99).

[1086] PolyÆnus, iv. 2, 8.

[1087] We gather this from the edict issued by Polysperchon some years afterwards (Diodor. xviii. 56).

[1088] PolyÆnus, iv. 2, 14.

[1089] Diodorus affirms that Philip’s army was superior in number; Justin states the reverse (Diodor. xvi. 85; Justin, ix. 3).

[1090] Pausanias, iv. 2, 82; v. 4, 5; viii. 6, 1.

[1091] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16.

[1092] Plutarch, Demosth. c. 19, 20; Æschin. adv. Ktesiph. p. 72.

[1093] Æschin. adv. Ktesiph. p. 74, 75.

[1094] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 75. ?? d? ?? p??se???? a?t? (???s???e?) ?? ?????te? ?? ?? ta?? T?a??, ???? ?a? t??? st?at??ta? t??? ?et????? p???? ???st?e?a? ??e??????ta?, ??a ???e?sa?s?e pe?? t?? e??????, ??ta??a pa?t?pas?? ??f??? ????et?, etc.

It is, seemingly, this disposition on the part of Philip to open negotiations which is alluded to by Plutarch as having been (Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16) favorably received by Phokion.

[1095] Diodor. xvi. 85. Alexander himself, after his vast conquests in Asia and shortly before his death, alludes briefly to his own presence at ChÆroneia, in a speech delivered to his army (Arrian, vii. 9, 5).

[1096] Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 18.

[1097] PolyÆnus, iv. 2, 2. He mentions Stratokles as the Athenian general from whom this exclamation came. We know from Æschines (adv. Ktesiph. p. 74) that Stratokles was general of the Athenian troops at or near Thebes shortly after the alliance with the Thebans was formed. But it seems that Chares and Lysikles commanded at ChÆroneia. It is possible, therefore, that the anecdote reported by PolyÆnus may refer to one of the earlier battles fought, before that of ChÆroneia.

[1098] PolyÆnus, iv. 2, 7; Frontinus.

[1099] Diodor. xvi. 85, 86.

[1100] Arrian, Exp. Alex. i. 2, 3, 10.

[1101] This is the statement of the contemporary orators (Demades, Frag. p. 179) Lykurgus (ap. Diodor. xvi. 85; adv. Leokratem, p. 236. c. 36) and Demosthenes (De CoronÂ, p. 314). The latter does not specify the number of prisoners, though he states the slain at one thousand. Compare Pausanias, vii. 10, 2.

[1102] Pausanias, vii. 6, 3.

[1103] Diodor. xvi. 88.

[1104] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 12; Deinarchus adv. Demosth. p. 99. Compare the Pseudo-Demosthenic Oratio Funebr. p. 1395.

[1105] Lykurgus adv. Leokrat. p. 164, 166. c. 11; Deinarchus cont. Demosth. p. 99.

[1106] Lykurgus adv. Leokrat. p. 146. Ge?e?????? ??? t?? ?? ?a????e?? ????, ?a? s??d?a??t?? ?p??t?? ??? e?? ?????s?a?, ???f?sat? ? d???, pa?da? ?? ?a? ???a??a? ?? t?? ????? e?? t? te??? ?ata????e??, etc.

[1107] Lykurgus adv. Leokrat. p. 177. c. 13.

[1108] Lykurgus adv. Leokrat. p. 170. c. 11. ????? ???? ?? t?? d??? ??f?s?e??? t??? ?? d?????? ??e???????, t??? d? ?????? ????a????, t??? d? ?t???? ??t????. The orator causes this decree, proposed by Hyperides, to be read publicly by the secretary, in court.

Compare Pseudo-Plutarch, Vit. X. Orat. p. 849. and Demosth. cont. Aristog. p. 803.

[1109] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 309; Deinarchus adv. Demosth. p. 100.

[1110] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 329; Deinarchus adv. Demosth. p. 100; Plutarch, Vit. X. Orat. p. 851.

[1111] Lykurgus adv. Leokrat. p. 172. c. 11; Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 87.

[1112] Thucyd. i. 93.

[1113] Lykurgus adv. Leokrat. l. c.

[1114] Lykurgus (adv. Leokrat. p. 171 c. 11) mentions these embassies; Deinarchus (adv. Demosth. p. 100) affirms that Demosthenes provided for himself an escape from the city as an envoy—a?t?? ?a?t?? p?ese?t?? ?atas?e?asa?, ??? ?? t?? p??e?? ?p?d?a??, etc. Compare Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 76.

The two hostile orators treat such temporary absence of Demosthenes on the embassy to obtain aid, as if it were a cowardly desertion of his post. This is a construction altogether unjust.

[1115] Leokrates was not the only Athenian who fled, or tried to flee. Another was seized in the attempt (according to Æschines) and condemned to death by the Council of Areopagus (Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 89). A member of the Areopagus itself, named Autolykus (the same probably who is mentioned with peculiar respect by Æschines cont. Timarchum, p. 12), sent away his family for safety; Lykurgus afterwards impeached him for it, and he was condemned by the Dikastery (Harpokration v. ??t??????).

[1116] Lykurgus adv. Leokrat. p. 149. ??t? d? sf?d?a ta?t? ?p?ste?sa? ?? ??d???, ?ste t????e?? p????sa?te? t? p???a ?at????, etc.

[1117] Diodor. xvi. 87. The story respecting Demades is told somewhat differently in Sextus Empiricus adv. Grammaticos, p. 281.

[1118] Plutarch, Vit. X. Orator, p. 849.

[1119] Justin, ix. 4; Polybius, v. 10; Theopomp. Frag. 262. See the note of Wichers ad Theopompi Fragmenta, p. 259.

[1120] Justin, ix. 4. Dienarch. cont. Demosth. s. 20. p. 92.

[1121] Pausanias, iv. 25, 5; ix. 1, 3.

[1123] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 319, 320.

[1124] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 319. ?? e????? et? t?? ???? p?ese?t?? ?p??e??? p??? F???pp??, etc. Compare Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16. Diogen. Laert. iv. 5. in his Life of the Philosopher Xenokrates.

[1125] Demades, Fragment. Orat. p. 179. ?????? taf? ????a??? a?t??e? ??, ??de??e?sa ta?? t?? ??a?t??? ?e?s??, ?? ??t? p??e??? f???a? ?p???sa t??? ?p??a???s??. ??ta??a ?p?st?? t??? p???as?? ???a?a t?? e??????? ??????. ???a?a ?a? F???pp? t???? ??? ?????a?? d?s??????? ??? a??a??t??? ??e? ??t??? ?a? ????a p???t?? s?ata ????? ???????, ?a? t?? ???p?? ??e? p?ese?a? ?a?? ???, ta?t? ???a?a. See also Suidas v. ???d??.

[1126] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 321.

[1127] Polybius, v. 10; xvii. 14; Diodor. Fragm. lib. xxxii.

[1128] Demades, Frag. p. 179. ???a?a ?a? F???pp? t???, ??? ?????a?, etc. Compare Arrian, Exp. Alex. i. 2, 3—?a? p?e???a ?t? t?? F???pp? d????t?? ??e???d?? ?? t??? ???????sa?, etc., and Clemens Alex. Admonit. ad Gent. p. 36 B. t?? ?a?ed??a F???pp?? ?? ????s???e? ????et???te? p??s???e??, etc.

[1129] Justin, ix. 4.

[1130] Demosth. De CoronÂ, p. 310-320.

[1131] Plutarch, Vit. X. Orat. p. 849.

[1132] Polybius, ix. 28, 33, xvii. 14; Tacitus, Annal. iv. 43; Strabo, viii. p. 361; Pausanias, ii. 20, 1. viii. 7, 4. viii. 27, 8. From Diodorus xvii. 3, we see how much this adhesion to Philip was obtained under the pressure of necessity.

[1133] Justin, ix. 5.

[1134] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16; Pausanias, i. 25, 3. ?? ??? ?t???a t? ?? ?a????e?? ?pas? t??? ????s?? ???e ?a???, ?a? ??? ???sta d?????? ?p???se t??? ?pe??d??ta?, ?a? ?s?? et? ?a?ed???? ?t????sa?. ??? ?? d? p????? F???pp?? t?? p??e?? e??e?. ????a???? d? ???? s????e???, ???? sf?? ???sta ?????se, ??s??? te ?fe??e??? ?a? t?? e?? t? ?a?t??? pa?sa? ?????.

[1135] Diodor. xviii. 56. S??? d? d?d?e? ????a????, ?pe?d? ?a? F???pp?? ?d??e? ? pat??. Compare Plutarch, Alexand. c. 28.

[1136] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16.

[1137] Arrian, vii. 9, 5.

[1138] Diodor. xvi. 93.

[1139] Justin, ix. 5; Diodor. xvi. 91.

[1140] AthenÆus, xiii. p. 557; Justin, ix. 7.

[1141] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 9; Justin, ix. 7; Diodor. xvi. 91-93.

[1142] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 10; Arrian, iii. 6, 5.

[1143] Pausanias (viii. 7, 5) mentions a son born to Philip by Kleopatra; Diodorus (xvii. 2) also notices a son. Justin in one place (ix. 7) mentions a daughter, and in another place (xi. 2) a son named Caranus. Satyrus (ap. AthenÆum, xiii. p. 557) states that a daughter named EurÔpÊ was born to him by Kleopatra.

It appears that the son was born only a short time before the last festival and the assassination of Philip, But I incline to think that the marriage with Kleopatra may well have taken place two years or more before that event, and that there may have been a daughter born before the son. Certainly Justin distinguishes the two, stating that the daughter was killed by order of Olympias, and the son by that of Alexander (ix. 7; xi. 2).

Arrian (iii. 6, 5) seems to mean Kleopatra the wife of Philip, though he speaks of EurydikÊ.

[1144] Diodor. xvii. 3.

[1145] This Kleopatra—daughter of Philip, sister of Alexander the Great, and bearing the same name as Philip’s last wife—was thus niece of the Epirotic Alexander, her husband. Alliances of that degree of kindred were then neither disreputable nor unfrequent.

[1146] Diodor. xvii. 2.

[1147] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 1, 13; Suetonius, Caligula, c. 57. See Mr. Clinton’s Appendix (4) on the Kings of Macedonia. Fast. Hellen. p. 230, note.

[1148] Diodor. xvi. 92.

[1149] Aristot. Polit. v. 8. 10. ? F???pp?? (?p??es??) ?p? ?a?sa????, d?? t? ??sa? ???s???a? a?t?? ?p? t?? pe?? ?tta???, etc. Justin, ix. 6; Diodor. xvi. 93.

[1150] Plutarch, Alex. c. 10.

[1151] Plutarch, Alex. c. 10.

[1152] Arrian, Exp. Alex. ii. 14, 10.

[1153] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4, 32.

[1154] Diodor. xvi. 94; Justin, ix. 7; Plutarch, Alex. c. 10.

[1155] Arrian, Exp. Alex. i. 25, 1.

[1156] Justin, xii. 14; Quintus Curtius, vii. 1, 5, with the note of MÜtzell.

[1157] Arrian, i. 25, 2; Justin, xi. 2. “Soli Alexandro Lyncistarum fratri pepercit, servans in eo auspicium dignitatis suÆ; nam regem eum primus salutaverat.”

[1158] Tacitus, Hist. ii. 80. “Dum quÆritur tempus locusque, quodque in re tali difficillimum est, prima vox; dum animo spes, timor, ratio, casus observantur; egressum cubiculo Vespasianum, pauci milites solito adsistentes ordine, Imperatorem salutavere. Tum cÆteri accurrere, CÆsarem, et Augustum, et omnia principatus vocabula cumulare: mens a metu ad fortunam transierat.”

[1159] Quintus Curtius, vii. 1, 3; Diodorus, xvii. 2, 5. Compare Justin, xi. 5.

[1160] Justin, ix. 7; xi. 2. Pausanias, viii. 7, 5; Plutarch, Alex. c. 10.

According to Pausanias, Olympias caused Kleopatra and her infant boy to perish by a horrible death; being roasted or baked on a brazen vessel surrounded by fire. According to Justin, Olympias first slew the daughter of Kleopatra on her mother’s bosom, and then caused Kleopatra herself to be hanged; while Alexander put to death Caranus, the infant son of Kleopatra. Plutarch says nothing about this; but states that the cruel treatment of Kleopatra was inflicted by order of Olympias during the absence of Alexander, and that he was much displeased at it. The main fact, that Kleopatra and her infant child were despatched by violence, seems not open to reasonable doubt; though we cannot verify the details.

[1161] After the solemn funeral of Philip, Olympias took down and burned the body of Pausanias (which had been crucified), providing for him a sepulchral monument and an annual ceremony of commemoration. Justin, ix. 7.

[1162] Justin (ix. 3) calls Philip forty-seven years of age; Pausanias (viii. 7, 4) speaks of him as forty-six. See Mr. Clinton’s Fast. Hellen. Appen. 4. p. 227.

[1163] Theopompus, Frag. 265. ap. AthenÆ. iii. p. 77. ?a? e?t???sa? p??ta F???pp??. Compare Demosth. Olynth. ii. p. 24.

[1164] Theopomp. Frag. 249; Theopompus ap. Polybium, viii. 11. ?d???tat?? d? ?a? ?a??p?a????stat?? pe?? t?? t?? f???? ?a? s????? ?atas?e???, p?e?sta? d? p??e?? ????d?ap?d?s???? ?a? pep?a????p???ta et? d???? ?a? ?a?, etc.

Justin, ix. 8. Pausanias, vii. 7, 3; vii. 10, 4; viii. 7, 4. Diodor. xvi. 54.

The language of Pausanias about Philip, after doing justice to his great conquests and exploits, is very strong—?? ?e ?a? ?????? ?e?? ?atep?t?se? ?e?, ?a? sp??d?? ?p? p??t? ??e?sat?, p?st?? te ?t?ase ???sta ?????p??, etc. By such conduct, according to Pausanias, Philip brought the divine wrath both upon himself and upon his race, which became extinct with the next generation.

[1165] A striking passage occurs, too long to cite, in the third Philippic of Demosthenes (p. 123-124) attesting the marvellous stride made by Philip in the art and means of effective warfare.

[1166] Theopomp. Frag. 249. ?p??? d? e?pe?? ... ????a? t??a?ta ????a ?e?????a?, ?a? t????t?? t??? f????? ?a? t??? ?ta????? F???pp?? p??sa???e????ta?, ????? ??te t??? ?e?ta????? t??? t? ?????? ?atas???ta?, ??te t??? ?a?st?????a? t??? ?e??t???? ped??? ????sa?ta?, ??t’ ?????? ??d? ?p?????.

Compare AthenÆ. iv. p. 166, 167; vi. p. 260, 261. Demosthen. Olynth. ii. p. 23.

Polybius (viii. 11) censures Theopompus for self-contradiction, in ascribing to Philip both unprincipled means and intemperate habits, and yet extolling his ability and energy as a king. But I see no contradiction between the two. The love of enjoyment was not suffered to stand in the way of Philip’s military and political schemes, either in himself or his officers. The master-passion overpowered all appetites; but when that passion did not require effort, intemperance was the habitual relaxation. Polybius neither produces any sufficient facts, nor cites any contemporary authority, to refute Theopompus.

It is to be observed that the statements of Theopompus, respecting both the public and private conduct of Philip, are as disparaging as anything in Demosthenes.

[1167] Satyrus ap. AthenÆ. xiii. p. 557. ? d? F???pp?? ?e? ?at? p??e?? ???e?, etc.

[1168] Æschines cont. Timarchum, p. 26. e?ta t? ?a????e? t?? ?????? ?p?a??a?, t????t?? ??t???? ?p? t?? t?? d??? ???a? ?p???af?????;

Æschines would ascribe this public inefficiency—which many admitted and deplored, though few except Demosthenes persevered in contending against it—to the fact that men of scandalous private lives (like Timarchus) were permitted, against the law, to move decrees in the public assembly. Compare Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 37.