[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. τοὺς περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης πρέσβεις πέμπειν ὡς Φίλιππον ἐπείσθητε ὑπ᾽ Ἀριστοδήμου καὶ Νεοπτολέμου καὶ Κτησιφῶντος, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπαγγελλόντων οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ὑγιὲς, 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. ... ὁ γὰρ εἰς τὴν προτέραν γράψας ἐπιστολὴν, ἣν ἠνέγκαμεν ἡμεῖς, ὅτι “ἔγραφόν τ᾽ ἂν καὶ διαῤῥήδην, ἥλικα ὑμᾶς εὖ ποιήσω, εἰ εὖ ᾔδειν καὶ τὴν συμμαχίαν μοι γενησομένην,” 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. παρηγγέλλετο δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν (Kersobleptes) ἤδη στρατεία, etc.

[816] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 34. c. 20. τῆς ἐν τοῖς πότοις ἐπιδεξιότητος—συμπιεῖν δεινὸς ἦν (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—ταὐτὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις πρέσβεσιν ἀπήγγειλε, 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. ἕτερον ψήφισμα, 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—προγράψαι τοὺς πρυτάνεις ἐκκλησίας δύο κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, 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. τήν τε γὰρ εἰρήνην οὐχὶ δυνηθέντων ὡς ἐπεχείρησαν οὗτοι, “πλὴν Ἁλέων καὶ Φωκέων,” γράψαι—ἀλλ᾽ ἀναγκασθέντος ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν τοῦ Φιλοκράτους ταῦτα μὲν ἀπαλείψαι, γράψαι δ᾽ ἀντικρὺς “Ἀθηναίους καὶ τοὺς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχους,” 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 Falsâ 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—οὐ δεῖν ἀποῤῥῆξαι τῆς εἰρήνης τὴν συμμαχίαν, 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. παρεμβάλλων (Demosthenes) τὰς ἐμὰς δημηγορίας, καὶ ψέγων τὴν εἰρήνην τὴν δι᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ Φιλοκράτους γεγενημένην, ὥστε οὐδὲ ἀπαντήσεσθαί με ἐπὶ τὸ δικαστήριον ἀπολογησόμενον, ὅταν τὰς τῆς πρεσβείας εὐθύνας διδῶ, etc. ... Φίλιππον δὲ νῦν μὲν διὰ τὴν τῶν λόγων εὐφημίαν ἐπαινῶ, etc.

[831] Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 434. φήσας (Eubulus) καταβαίνειν εἰς Πειραιᾶ δεῖν ἤδη καὶ χρήματ᾽ εἰσφέρειν καὶ τὰ θεωρικὰ στρατιωτικὰ ποιεῖν—ἢ χειροτονεῖν ἃ συνεῖπε μὲν οὗτος (Æschines) ἔγραψε δ᾽ ὁ βδελυρὸς Φιλοκράτης.

[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 Vœmel (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. ἕκτῃ φθίνοντος τοῦ Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος μηνὸς, 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 ἑβδόμῃ φθίνοντος—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 ἕκτῃ, in the oration against Ktesiphon, and ἑβδόμῃ 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 Vœmel, Prolegg. ad Demosth. Orat. De Pace, p. 257; Böhnecke, Forschungen, p. 399.

[837] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. ἤδη δὲ ἡμῶν κεχειροτονημένων εἰς τοὺς ὅρκους, οὔπω δὲ ἀπῃρκότων ἐπὶ τὴν ὑστέραν πρεσβείαν, ἐκκλησία γίνεται, etc.

This ἐκκλησία 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. καίτοι δύο χρησιμωτέρους τόπους τῆς οἰκουμένης οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς ἐπιδείξαι τῇ πόλει, κατὰ μὲν γῆν, Πυλῶν—ἐκ θαλάττης δὲ τοῦ Ἑλλησπόντου· ἃ συναμφότερα οὗτοι πεπράκασιν αἰσχρῶς καὶ καθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐγκεχειρίκασι Φιλίππῳ.

[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.—τὸ ψήφισμα ἐπεψηφίσθη—ἐψηφισμένου δὲ τοῦ δήμου. 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. ἐντεῦθεν οἱ μὲν παρ᾽ ἐκείνου πρέσβεις προὔλεγον ὑμῖν ὅτι Φωκέας οὐ προσδέχεται Φίλιππος συμμάχους, οὗτοι δ᾽ ἐκδεχόμενοι τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐδημηγόρουν, ὡς φανερῶς μὲν οὐχὶ καλῶς ἔχει τῷ Φιλίππῳ προσδέξασθαι τοὺς Φωκέας συμμάχους, διὰ τοὺς Θηβαίους καὶ τοὺς Θετταλοὺς, ἂν δὲ γένηται τῶν πραγμάτων κύριος καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης τύχῃ, ἅπερ ἂν συνθέσθαι νῦν ἀξιώσαιμεν αὐτὸν, ταῦτα ποιήσει τότε. Τὴν μὲν τοίνυν εἰρήνην ταύταις ταῖς ἐλπίσι καὶ ταῖς ἐπαγωγαῖς εὕροντο παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἄνευ Φωκέων.

Ibid. p. 409. Εἰ δὲ πάντα τἀναντία τούτων καὶ πολλὰ καὶ φιλάνθρωπα εἰπόντες Φίλιππον, φιλεῖν τὴν πόλιν, Φωκέας σώσειν, Θηβαίους παύσειν τῆς ὕβρεως, ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις μείζονα ἢ κατ᾽ Ἀμφίπολιν εὖ ποιήσειν ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν τύχῃ τῆς εἰρήνης, Εὔβοιαν, Ὠρωπὸν ἀποδώσειν—εἰ ταῦτ᾽ εἰπόντες καὶ ὑποσχόμενοι πάντ᾽ ἐξηπατήκασι καὶ πεφενακίκασι, etc.

Compare also, p. 346, 388, 391, about the false promises under which the Athenians were induced to consent to the peace—τῶν ὑποσχέσεων, ἐφ᾽ αἷς εὑρίσκετο (Philip) τὴν εἰρήνην. 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), τὰς ὑποσχέσεις, ἐφ᾽ αἷς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔτυχεν (Philip)—p. 72. τοὺς ἐνεγκόντας τὰς ὑποσχέσεις, ἐφ᾽ αἷς ἐπείσθητε ποιήσασθαι τὴν εἰρήνην. This second Philippic is one year earlier in date than the oration de Falsâ 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. τραχέως δ᾽ ὑμῶν τῷ “μηδὲ προσδοκᾷν” σχόντων, 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. τίς γὰρ ἂν ἠνέσχετο, τηλικαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα ἔσεσθαι προσδοκῶν ἀγαθὰ, ἢ ταῦθ᾽ ὡς οὐκ ἔσται λέγοντός τινος, ἢ κατηγοροῦντος τῶν πεπραγμένων τούτοις;

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. οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα “οὐδαμοῦ μόνους ἐντυγχάνειν Φιλίππῳ,” οὗτοι δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐπαύσαντο ἰδίᾳ χρηματίζοντες;

[845] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 41. c. 32. Τὸ δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν ὅλων ὀρθῶς βουλεύσασθαι, ὅσα καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐστιν ἢ Φίλιππον, τοῦτο ἤδη ἔργον ἐστὶ πρεσβέων φρονίμων.... Ἀφίγμεθα δ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἔχοντες τοῦ δήμου ψήφισμα, ἐν ᾧ γέγραπται, Πράττειν δὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις, καὶ ἄλλ᾽ ὅ,τι ἂν δύνωνται ἀγαθόν.

[846] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. c. 26.

[847] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 40. c. 29. ὅτι Κερσοβλέπτης ἀπολώλεκε τὴν ἀρχὴν, καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ὄρος κατείληφε Φίλιππος.

There is no fair ground for supposing that the words ἀπολώλεκε τὴν ἀρχὴν 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. ἢ γὰρ παρόντων (we the envoys) καὶ κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα αὐτὸν (Philip) ἐξορκωσάντων, ἃ μὲν εἰλήφει τῆς πόλεως, ἀποδώσειν, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἀφέξεσθαι—ἢ μὴ ποιοῦντος ταῦτα ἀπαγγελεῖν ἡμᾶς εὐθέως δεῦρο, etc.

[855] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 42. c. 33. πορεύεται Φίλιππος εἰς Πύλας· ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐγκαλύπτομαι, 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. Τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀρχὴν τῆς στρατείας ταύτης ὁσίαν καὶ δικαίαν ἀπεφηνάμην εἶναι, etc.

... Ἀπεφηνάμην ὅτι ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ δίκαιον εἶναι, μὴ περιορᾷν κατεσκαμμένας τὰς ἐν Βοιωτοῖς πόλεις, ὅτι δὴ ἦσαν Ἀμφικτυονίδες καὶ ἔνορκοι.

[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. καὶ τὴν μὲν γραφεῖσαν ἐπιστολὴν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀπεψηφίσαντο μὴ πέμπειν, αὐτοὶ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ὑγιὲς γράψαντες ἔπεμψαν. Compare p. 419.

[861] Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 445. ἐγὼ δ᾽, ὥσπερ ἀκηκόατ᾽ ἤδη πολλάκις, οὐχὶ δυνηθεὶς προαπελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μισθωσάμενος πλοῖον κατακωλυθεὶς ἐκπλεῦσαι. Compare p. 357.—οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐμὲ, ἡνίκα δεῦρο ἀποπλεῖν ἐβουλόμην, κατεκώλυεν (Philip), etc.

[862] The Lacedæmonian troops remained at Thermopylæ until a little time before Philip reached it (Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 365).

[863] Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 41. αὐτοὶ δὲ οὐκ ἠπόρουν καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο οἱ τῶν Θηβαίων πρέσβεις; ... τῶν δ᾽ ἑταίρων τινες τῶν Φιλίππου οὐ διαῤῥήδην πρός τινας ἡμῶν ἔλεγον, ὅτι τὰς ἐν Βοιωτίᾳ πόλεις κατοικιεῖ Φίλιππος; Θηβαῖοι δ᾽ οὐκ ἐξεληλύθεσαν πανδημεὶ, ἀπιστοῦντες τοῖς πράγμασιν;

Demosthenes greatly eulogizes the incorruptibility and hearty efforts of the Theban envoys (Fals. Leg. p. 384); which assertion is probably nothing better at bottom, than a rhetorical contrast, to discredit Æschines—fit to be inserted in the numerous list of oratorical exaggerations and perversions of history, collected in the interesting Treatise of Weiske, De Hyperbolê, errorum in Historiâ Philippi commissorum genitrice (Meissen, 1819).

[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. τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους μετεπέμπετο, πάντα τὰ πράγματα ὑποσχόμενος πράξειν ἐκείνοις, etc.

Æschines, Fals. Leg. p. 46. c. 41. Λακεδαιμονίοι δὲ οὐ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τἀναντία Θηβαίοις ἐπρέσβευον, καὶ τελευτῶντες προσέκρουον φανερῶς ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ, καὶ διηπείλουν τοῖς τῶν Θηβαίων πρέσβεισιν;

[866] This thought is strikingly presented by Justin (viii. 4), probably from Theopompus—“Fœdum 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. τοῦτο δ᾽ εἰς Φωκέας ὡς πρὸς συμμάχους ἐπορεύετο, καὶ πρέσβεις Φωκέων ἦσαν οἳ παρηκολούθουν αὐτῷ πορευομένῳ· καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἤριζον πολλοὶ, Θηβαίοις οὐ λυσιτελήσειν τὴν ἐκείνου πάροδον. The words παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 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. ἦν γὰρ τοῦτο πρῶτον ἁπάντων τῶν ἀδικημάτων, τὸ τὸν Φίλιππον ἐπιστῆσαι τοῖς πράγμασι τούτοις, καὶ δέον ὑμᾶς ἀκοῦσαι περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, εἶτα βουλεύσασθαι, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ πράττειν ὅ,τι δόξαι, ἅμα ἀκούειν κἀκεῖνον παρεῖναι, καὶ μηδ᾽ ὅ,τι χρὴ ποιεῖν ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν εἶναι. Compare Demosth. De Coronâ, p. 236. πάλιν ὠνεῖται παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ὅπως μὴ ἄπίωμεν ἐκ Μακεδονίας ἕως τὰ τῆς στρατείας τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς Φωκέας εὐτρεπῆ ποιήσαιτο, etc.