mosthenes sometimes exhibits an air of dulness and a minuteness of detail, which make him less pleasing than many of his less valuable contemporaries. Of this character is the last part of the third Olynthiac. Some passages of the De Corona appear tedious, and there is much repetition in the speech against Leptines. But many of the circumstances of an auditory might require peculiarities in a speech which would detract from its merit as a rhetorical performance.

But how much we lose in being deprived of the orator's own elocution, we may judge not only from descriptions of the ancients, and from the temperament of the man, but from the structure of his style. The very rhythm and arrangement of his sentences show how everything was adapted for oral delivery. The fact that he held them so long in close attention -in the De Corona five hours-would also lead to the same inference in regard to his style of speaking. His tones appear to have been deep and impressive while those of Aeschines were clear and musical.

The expression of his countenance was such as we should expect. A furrow of sadness marked his visage.* His eye brightened in the enthusiasm of discourse, and sometimes glistened with a tear. Sometimes he forgot himself, permitting the excitement of the moment to carry him beyond the bounds of propriety. One great source of his power was the moral grandeur of his character. Rhetoricians have discussed the comparative merits of Demosthenes and Cicero. For the former, see Longinus, Fenelon and Blair; for the latter Quinctilian and Nigronius.

In the time of the Reformation the orations of Demosthenes were highly esteemed. Melancthon was particularly distinguished for the attention he paid to them. He edited several of his orations and delivered lectures upon them. In the same century Hieronymus Wolf published his valued edition of the whole works of the orator. In the following century Greek literature was almost entirely neglected in Gerinany, and of course Demosthenes. More recently the influence of Ernesti has been to make more prominent the Latin orator, as a model and text book for study, and the merit of Reiske's edition has not been sufficient to counteract opposing tendencies.

*Plutarch.

† Aeschines

Aeschines 53.

V.

ANALYSIS OF THE ORATION OF DEMOSTHENES ON THE CROWN, WITH NOTES.

Analysis.

1. Demosthenes invokes the gods, and asks the privilege of arranging his argument as he pleases.

2. Two circumstances particularly give his opponent the advantage: (1) Demosthenes has everything to lose. (2) He is obliged to perform the inglorious and ungrateful task of selfpraise.

3. Yet he claims to be heard impartially, according to the laws provided by Solon.

4. He again prays the gods, (1) that they may favor him as he has favored the state, (2) that the judges may so decide as to secure the favor of heaven and the welfare of their country.

5. Passing by for the present the abuse heaped upon his private character, as the judges know what his whole life has been, he proceeds to enter on a defence of his political career.

6. He complains that Aeschines had now for the first time, brought accusations out of all season, and had used the form of proceeding against Ctesiphon, only as a pretence.

7. Proceeding to reply to the accusations of Aeschines, he notices first the peace. It was proposed by Philip, to prevent their uniting with the Thebans, and was accepted by the Athenians because they were weary of maintaining the fight alone without assistance from other Greeks.

8. Demosthenes asserts that he was not the author of this peace, and demonstrates the folly and absurdity of the charge, that at the same time they called on the Greeks to take up

arms.

9. The cause of the haste of which Aeschines complains, in ratifying the treaty was if possible, immediately to prevent Philip from continuing his depredations in the then defenceless state of the city.

He defends his attentions to the ambassadors.

10. The ambassadors of whom Aeschines was one, appointed to hasten the treaty, had proceeded with the most unpardonable delay.

11. After the ratification, Philip bribed Aeschines to delay

communicating it, that he might have opportunity to pursue his conquests.

12. The disastrous consequences to Athens of the quiet proposed by Aeschines.

13. The disastrous consequences to Thebes, occasioned by the same man who now affects such pity for the Thebans.

14. The corruption and iniquity of certain demagogues had been the real cause of all difficulties.

15. Traitors if they succeed, always become odious to their employers. Aeschines was bribed, because Athens had such vigilant guardians of her safety; and to these very men he owes it, that his treachery was not successful enough to bring ruin upon himself.

16. Demosthenes does not call him the friend, but the mercenary of Philip and Alexander.

17. The Impeachment.

18. Demosthenes proposes to examine the different articles in order, beginning with a defence of his political career, as meriting the praise and honor bestowed in the decree of Ctesiphon.

19. He first gives an account of the state of Greece, at the commencement of his administration, full of traitors, torn by faction, exposed to Philip's arts.

20. The part of Athens at such a juncture was certainly not cooperation with Philip, nor indifference at his progress, but the very part recommended by himself.

21. In view of their own glory, in view of the self-denials of their enemy, such a course became them.

22. In view of Philip's progress, it became them.

23. The first hostilities indeed commenced with Philip, and Demosthenes had no part in the retaliation, as may be seen from the decrees and Philip's rejoinder.

24. Demosthenes describes the rapidity and efficiency of his own movements to check Philip.

25. He shows that he was influenced by no bribery, while Aeschines had entertained at his house the enemies of the state, and had been influenced to act for them.

26. The crown was proposed in a similar way by Aristonicus, in reward for the services of Demosthenes. Aeschines never made the least complaint.

27 Through his instrumentality in counseling Athens to aid Byzantium and the Chersonesus against Philip, the city had been honored.

28. The practice of assisting enemies in times of danger, is justified by the example of his ancestors who aided Lacedaemon against the Thebans.

29. They had also aided the Euboeans against the Thebans. 30. Demosthenes mentions his law for equalizing taxation according to property, by which a heavy burden was removed from the poor.

31. The advantages of this law.

32. Demosthenes proposes now, to notice the proclamation and accounts.

33. With regard to accounts he was not obliged to render any, for expending his own private fortune, in the service of the state-but it was for this very expenditure, that Ctesiphon proposed the crown.

34. Precedents justify this proceeding—as in case of Nausicles and Charidemus.

35. By referring to the decree of Ctesiphon, he proves that the reward was offered for his voluntary and gratuitous contributions.

36. As to the proclamation in the theatre, it was justified by precedent, utility and law.

37. Demosthenes complains of the malice and irregularity of the prosecution.

38. He warns Aeschines, lest in opposing a patriot, he be found not only an enemy to him but to the state.

39. He inveighs against the ignorance and bombast of Aeschines.

40. He alludes to the private character of Aeschines, and to the meanness of his family.

41. Aeschines raised from such degradation by the state, had been ungrateful and betrayed it.

42. Aeschines had defended the traitor Antiphon, and had been in consequence degraded from office by the Areopagus. 43. He had also held private communion with the spy, Anaxinus.

44. The condition of a calumnious traitor is made more enviable than that of a patriot.

45. Aeschines had not only favored Philip before but after hostilities commenced, and by his silence showed either acquiescence with Demosthenes, or favor to his enemies.

46. Demosthenes calls attention to the conduct of Aeschines with regard to the Amphisseans; the danger was, that such meanness was almost too great to be believed.

47. Aeschines was the contriver of the Amphissaean war, but had been opposed in it by Demosthenes, although in vain.

48. Philip hoping to secure the Thebans and Thessalians, as allies, designed to raise an Amphictyonic war, and in order to remove all suspicion he employed an Athenian to propose the plan.

49. Aeschines was the man hired, who being appointed a Pylagoras of the Amphictyonic council from Athens, feigned the story of the sacred Cirrhean Region.

50. It was so contrived that Philip should be at the head of the expedition. He marches as if for Cirrha, but seizes Elatea, then Thebes took alarm and left him.

51. This is proved from the decrees of the Amphictyonic council, and the letter of Philip.

52. The real object of the contrivance was, division among the states, and the exposure of Athens to the fury of Philip.

53. Consternation occasioned by Philip's capture of Elatea. 54. Demosthenes gives the speech he made on the occasion, calming their fears and recommending pacific and conciliatory measures with Thebes.

55. He contrasts his own energetic conduct with the utter inefficiency of Aeschines.

56. He challenges Aeschines even now to point out any better course, that could have been pursued.

57. If a counsellor had given the best possible advice, he was not to be blamed, if fortune had ordered a failure, but rather should be commended, because without his interposition, the result might have been worse.

58. Aeschines could be as properly accused as Demosthenes, for he was silent while the city was in danger.

59. The course pursued, is justified by the conduct of their

ancestors.

60. No other conduct would have been worthy of those an

cestors.

61. Demosthenes resumes the subject of the embassy to Thebes.

62. The ambassadors from Macedon praised Philip and opposed Athens; their accusations were repelled by the Athenian embassy.

63. The Thebans received our aid with marks of affectionate confidence. Success and victory attended our exertions, and if Aeschines participated in the joy, why should he now change his feelings? If he sorrowed when Athens rejoiced, must he not be considered an enemy?