βουλώμεθα ἐστὶν ἅμα καὶ τοὐναντίον, εἰ ἄρα ποτὲ δεῖ παύσασθαι αἰσχρῶς ἑτέροις ἀκολοθοῦντας, ἀλλὰ μηδ' ἀναμνησθῆναι μηδεμιᾶς φιλοτιμίας τῶν ἐξ ἀρχαιοτάτου καὶ πλείστων καὶ μάλιστα πάντων ἀνθρώπων ὑμῖν ὑπαρχουσῶν. ἐὰν οὖν κελεύητε, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, γράψω, 15 καθάπερ αἱ συνθῆκαι κελεύουσι, πολεμεῖν τοῖς παραβεβηκόσιν.

rium sequitur continuo: εἰ ἄρα ποτὲ δεῖ. Scilicet clausula illa formulae foederis, 'si volumus pacem communem participare,' orator sic utitur, ut dicat simul significari hoc: si tandem aliquando nos oportet (de) desinere &c. Hoc oportet (τὸ δεῖ) cum illo voluntario (ἐὰν βουλώμεθα) pacis servandae studio ita conjunctum esse ait, ut neget alterum ab altero posse sejungi.” That is, the wish to enjoy the general peace involves the

necessity for an entire change of policy. Mr. K. agrees with Schäfer, but thinks the sentence too ill-written to be worth a note. It will be seen that παύσασθαι takes a participle in one clause, and an infinitive in the other. To avoid this Dindorf reads μὴ παύσασθαι, but I cannot see with what sense. The Tò before the clause ἐὰν βουλώμεθα may be compared with τοῦ τὰ δίκαια ποιεῖν ἐθελόντων τῶν ἑτέρων, p. 370.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPEECH ON THE

CROWN.

AFTER Philip of Macedon had defeated the Athenians and Thebans at Chaeroneia (B.c. 338), he occupied and subjugated Thebes. The Athenians, fearing a similar fate, and following the advice of Demosthenes, immediately resolved to repair their city walls, and to make new trenches around it, for which purposes they appropriated a certain sum of money (Tà eis rà тEίxη XPημата, § 309). Either at the same time, or in the year following, ten commissioners (TexOTTOLOL) were appointed to superintend the repairs upon which the people had decided, and amongst these persons was Demosthenes himself, selected by his own tribe the Pandionid. His duty then was simply to superintend the execution of the work allotted to his tribe, but he did considerably more; for, the money allowed by the state not being sufficient, he supplied the deficiency from his own private resources. About the same time he held another office also, viz. the treasurership of the funds (rà fewpiká) assigned for theatrical representations and other public spectacles. In this capacity again he supplied the deficiency (éédwкEV) of the state allowance, by a contribution from his own means'.

Thereupon Ctesiphon, one of his political admirers, proposed by way of bill before the Athenian senate, that in grateful recognition of his general services to the state, and especially of his recent liberality, Demosthenes should be presented with a golden crown, and proclamation be made thereof in the city theatre, at the great

1 Thirlwall (Greece vii. 135) thinks that Droysen (Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswisschenschaft, 1839) has proved in his examination of the records of this oration that the reparation of the walls immediately after the battle of Chaeroneia is not the same as that to which Demosthenes contributed three talents, and which occasioned Ctesiphon's Proposal. He (Bp. Thirlwall) supposes an interval of a year between the two, and that Demosthenes was not treasurer of the Theoric Fund till B.C. 37.

Dionysiac festival, when the new tragedies were represented, and the city was crowded with visitors to see them. The senate passed this bill (poßoúλevua), and either by their order, or in the regular course of proceeding, it appears to have been deposited in the recordhouse of the state (Τὸ Μητρῷον).

But Philip's victory at Chaeroneia had made the Macedonian influence so irresistible, that its partizans imagined they would have no difficulty in crushing its great opponent and their own persevering adversary, Demosthenes. Accordingly, as he himself tells us (§ 310), they put forth all their strength, and used all their instruments against him, persecuting him every day (KaTà Tη ημépav KáσTηy) with indictments, impeachments, and all kinds of charges, upon every one of which he was honourably and triumphantly acquitted. Foiled in their attempts, the most distinguished of them, Aeschines, turned from these direct attacks upon Demosthenes to his friend and supporter Ctesiphon, and resolved to prosecute him on the pretence that his recent proposal was illegal, but really in the hope of blasting the character and annihilating the influence of his leader. Proceedings were accordingly instituted before the Archon of the year in which the bill was passed by the senate, but the actual trial upon which Demosthenes made this oration did not take place till six or seven years afterwards. As ancient authorities inform us, this battle of the Orators was fought in B.C. 330, during the archonship of Aristophon (τὴν ἐπ' ̓Αριστοφῶντός ποτε γενομένην τῶν pητóρwv μáxηv, Theophr. Charact. c. 7), when, as Cicero (de opt. gen. Orat. c. 7) says, Alexander was in possession of Asia (Alexandro jam Asiam tenente), and about the time (October B.C. 331) when he defeated Darius at Arbela (καθ' ὃν χρόνον ̓Αλέξανδρος τὴν ἐν ̓Αρβήλοις víka paxýv. Dion. ad Amm. vi. 746). This conjuncture indeed was peculiarly favourable for the designs of Aeschines, inasmuch as the Peloponnesian league formed against the Macedonian supremacy by Agis, king of Lacedaemon (Grote xii. 382), had just been crushed by Antipater, Alexander's lieutenant in Greece, and its troops defeated in a regular battle near Megalopolis, Agis himself also being slain. (Εἰσήχθη τότε καὶ ἡ περὶ τοῦ στεφάνου γραφὴ κατὰ τοῦ Κτησιφῶντος. Plutarch, Vit. c. 24. See also Aesch. c. Ctes. § 133.) In this crisis then, and after so many years of delay, expectancy, and preparation, at last came off the great trial-the most remarkable and celebrated of all the celebrated causes of antiquity. As Cicero (1. c.) observes, the cause itself was of most momentous interest-gravissima; the speakers of the highest order-oratores summi; their contention elaborated by careful preparation, and inflamed by personal and political hostility-accurata et inimicitiis incensa contentio ;

their audience an assembly from the whole of Greece-ad quod judicium concursus dicitur è tota Graecia factus esse. At the same time the formal issues in the case were of a very simple and apparently technical character.

Aeschines accused Ctesiphon of proposing an illegal and unconstitutional resolution on three distinct grounds. (1) Because Demosthenes had not passed his accounts of the expenditure of the public monies entrusted to him, and there was a law prohibiting the public coronation of any one who had state accounts to pass, before he did so: "Ne quis populi scitum faceret, ut quisquam corona donaretur in magistratu prius quam rationes retulisset." (2) Because there was a law which ordered the proclamation of an act of crowning to be made in the senate-house, if decreed by the senate, and in the assembly if decreed by the people, but not elsewhere: "Eos qui a populo donarentur, in contione donari debere: qui a senatu, in senatu." (3) Because it was not true that Demosthenes was a benefactor of the state as the resolution recited, and there was a law which forbad any untrue documents to be deposited in the public records. On the first two points, which do not affect the real issue, it will be seen that the defence was weak and unsatisfactory, and therefore Demosthenes skilfully placed it in the middle of his reply. His opening and conclusion he reserved for the third charge, which, involving as it did the whole question of his character and conduct as a citizen and statesman, enabled him to choose his topics at will, and to make those eloquent appeals which irresistibly carried his audience along with him, and so completely vanquished his opponent, that he could not bear to remain near the scene of his defeat, and soon afterwards left Athens for Rhodes. As regards the speech itself, "the unapproachable master-piece of Grecian oratory," we need not suppose that it has come down to us in precisely the same words and arrangement as Demosthenes actually used in his original reply, even though he was in the habit of carefully preparing (like other great orators), if not entirely composing, all his set speeches before he delivered them. But this oration & Teρì тoû Σrepávov, or ó iπèρ Kтησιŵvros as it was frequently intituled, is a Reply, and many parts of it are by far too elaborate and studied in the refutation of the arguments of his adversary, to allow us to believe that they were struck off in their present completeness on the spur of the moment. It is much more probable that in the published edition of his great oration (å кρáτwτos Távτшv λóywv, Dionys. Halic.), Demosthenes supplied any deficiency of matter or manner in what he had actually said. And if it be thought that this supposition in any way derogates from his oratorical fame, we need only call to mind the

anecdote of Aeschines reading to the Rhodians his own speech against Ctesiphon as well as the reply of Demosthenes. This he is reported to have done "suavissima et maxima voce," so as to have elicited their admiration, whereupon he turned to them and said, "How much greater would your admiration have been had you heard the speaker himself" ("Quanto magis admiraremini, si audissetis ipsum." Cicero de Orat. iii. 56).

Historically considered, the speech was, as Mr. Grote (xii. 393) well calls it," the funeral oration of extinct Athenian and Grecian freedom." As regards principles and morals it was cited with other orations of Demosthenes (Plut. in vit. c. 13) by the Stoic Panaetius in proof of his assertion, that the great orator always appealed to and based his arguments upon the laws of truth, and justice, and honour, rather than expediency or selfishness (où ρòs τὸ ἥδιστον ἢ ῥᾷστον ἢ λυσιτελέστατον ἄγει τοὺς πολίτας, ἀλλὰ πολλαχοῦ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν οἴεται δεῖν ἐν δευτέρᾳ τάξει τοῦ καλοῦ ποιεῖσθαι καὶ τοῦ πρέποντος). Perhaps it might with equal or more truth be affirmed that he endeavoured to convince his hearers that the principles of truth and justice dictated the same policy, and would produce the same results, as the suggestions of true prudence, and the calculations of real expediency.

It should be added that Aeschines was so completely unsuccessful in his accusation that he did not obtain even the fifth part of the votes of the judges. A translation of the rival speeches, " duorum eloquentissimorum nobilissimas orationes inter se contrarias," was made by Cicero, but it has not been preserved (de opt. gen. Orat. c. 7). It was however a very free one, as he informs us: "Nec converti ut interpres sed ut orator sententiis iisdem et earum formis tanquam figuris, verbis ad nostram consuetudinem aptis: in quibus non verbum pro verbo necesse habui reddere, sed genus omnium verborum vimque servavi."