Demosthenes was born in Athens in 384 and died in the island of Poros in 322 BC.  He is considered the perfect orator (by Cicero).  He was a professional speech writer (a logographer), a lawyer, a statesman, and even an actor.  Politically he remained steadfast in his defense of Athenian liberty and democratic government.  Hence, he opposed the expansionist and centralist policies of King Philip II (359-336 BC) of the northern Kingdom of Macedonia, as well as the imperialist policies of his son Alexander the Great (336-323 BC).  Demosthenes' speeches cost Athens dearly, for they merely prolonged Philip II's ambitions to conquer the entire city-states of Greece.  However, he never lost the support or the love of the Athenians.  In 336 BC, an orator named Ctesiphon proposed to honor Demosthenes with the bestowal of a golden crown for his virtue (services to the state).  Another famous orator and statesman, Aeschines (389-314 BC), a pragmatist who had previously been won over by Philip II and, consequently, was attacked and denounced by Demosthenes, opposed Ctesiphon's proposal on three legal grounds.  In his famous speech Against Ctesiphon, Aeschines claimed that Ctesiphon's motion was illegal because: 1) The Code of Solon forbade crowning a public official until the expiration of his term in office (and Demosthenes had been commissioned at that time to repair the walls of the city and to supervise the Dionysian Festival Funds); 2) The law prescribed that golden crowns could only be bestowed by the city in a public assembly on the Pnyx (a hill in Athens where the Ecclesia [assembly of the democracy of ancient Athens] met) [Ctesiphon had suggested that the crown be bestowed at the theater on the occasion of the new tragedies of the Dionysia], and 3) Ctesiphon had brought false statements in his motion by asserting that Demosthenes had always been a patriotic and useful citizen.  At this time, Thebes and Sparta had been destroyed by Alexander; hence, to honor Demosthenes (who had opposed Philip and Alexander) would have angered the new powers even more than necessary.  The motion was delayed for six years.  When it was finally brought to court in August, 330 BC (to a jury of 500 Athenian citizens), Demosthenes responded with his most famous judicial speech, On the Crown.  Aeschines, the prosecutor, lost the case (he failed to get the votes of 1/5 of the jury).  A year later Demosthenes received his crown and Aeschines, who suffered opprobrium, moved to Rhodes, where he founded a school of rhetoric (Aeschines, like Demosthenes, belongs to Greece's "Alexandrian Canon" or the "Canon of Ten" Attic Orators, a list of the greatest orators of Greece's classical period [510-323 BC or 187 years], which includes Isocarates and Isaeus, two of Demosthenes' teachers]), and later to Samos, where he died.  In his private life, Demosthenes seems to have been at times corrupt (he apparently took bribes and was guilty of larceny), was a somewhat opportunistic pederast (he used wealthy boy lovers for their money), and a cowardly man in matters of war (he was accused of desertion).  After Alexander's death, Antipater, his successor, requested the rendition of Demosthenes.  The Athenian Ecclesia subsequently condemned anti-Macedonians agitators to death.  Demosthenes escaped to Poros and, upon being found, committed suicide by poison.

DE CORONA (ON THE CROWN) [330 BC]:

EXORDIUM (pp. 1-8):
       Notice the many instances of captatio benevolentiae: "Men of Athens."  He seeks "benevolence towards me."  Demosthenes prays for the Atehnians, their conscience, and their honor.  Demosthenes discusses the impartial hearing, the lack of prejudice.  Demosthenes asks that he be granted the favor of arranging his speech according to his discretion and judgment.  He fears loss of favor, kindness, and goodwill.  He is concerned equally with Ctesiphon in these proceedings.  He asks to be listened to and for them to proceed with justice.   He appeals to Solon, "a good democrat and friend of the people."  He alludes to the calumnies of the prosecutor (Aeschines).

PROTEST AGAINST IRRELEVANT CHARGES (p. 9):
       Aeschines has brought false accusations and irrelevant topics.

REPLY TO CHARGES AGAINST PRIVATE LIFE (pp. 10, 11):
       Demosthenes will give an honest and straightforward reply.  He is also a better man and better born.

INTRODUCTION TO DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC POLICY (pp. 12-17):
       Aeschines has brought malicious charges, denouncing him, Demosthenes, but indicting Ctesiphon. Aeschines' accusations are dishonest and untruthful, reflecting more the prosecutor's faults than Demosthenes' crimes.

FIRST PERIOD: THE PEACE OF PHILOCRATES (346 BC) [pp. 18-52]:
       Allusion to the Phocian War (355–346 BC), which ended with Philip II's destruction of Phocis. Phocis, Thebes, and other Greek city-states were experiencing strife and confusion.  Philip II of Macedonia observed those conditions, bribed traitors, and tried to promote embroilment and disorder.  The Thessalians and Thebans saw Philip II as their friend, benefactor, and deliverer.  Demosthenes opposed Philip II, but Aeschines did not, nor did he oppose Demosthenes.  Now he bewails the fate of those city-states that have lost their independence.  But no more should be said of this matter (notice the aposiopesis).

INTRODUCTION TO CHARGES RELEVANT TO THE INDICTMENT (pp. 53-59):
       Demosthenes reads Aeschines' indictment against Ctesiphon (whom Demosthenes is defending): 1) It is false that Demosthenes has consistently shown good will to Athenians and Greeks to merit a golden crown.  2) It is illegal to crown someone subject to audit (Demosthenes was then Commissioner of Fortifications and a trustee of the Theatrical Fund).  3) It is illegal to crown someone at the Theater of the Dionysia instead of the Council-house (the Ecclesia) on the Pnyx. 

SECOND PERIOD: THE RENEWAL OF WAR (340 BC) [pp. 60-109]:
       Demosthenes asks Aeschines what the duty of Athens was when she perceived that Philip's purpose was to establish a despotic empire over all Greece.  Philip was committing injustices, breaking treaties, and violating the terms of peace.  He, Demosthenes, stood in his way and warned and admonished the Greeks to surrender nothing.  And yet, the peace was broken (and not by Athens) when Philip seized some merchant men.  The People resolved to send ambassadors to Philip concerning the removal of the vessels (which Philip eventually lets go).  However, even he, Philip, did not blame Demosthenes in respect to the war (although the king blames others).  As far as the crown is concerned, Demosthenes says no dishonor, contempt, or ridicule has befallen the city.  The decree shows the gratitude of Athens to Demosthenes, not censure.  Philip then tried to control the carrying trade in corn, which the Athenians consume in greater quantities than other nations.  Demosthenes is proud of his refusal to compromise.  Demosthenes has maintained the same character in domestic and Hellenic affairs.  At home he never preferred the gratitude of the rich to the claims of the poor; in foreign affairs he never coveted the gifts and friendship of Philip rather than the common interests of all Greece. 

REPLY TO THE TWO MINOR COUNTS (pp. 110-25):
       Demosthenes has created good policies and has been the people's friend.  It should perhaps be illegal for men holding office in government to make presents to the government.  Demosthenes held office and was audited for his offices though not for his gifts (which he had given the state in the form of a donation).  Demosthenes reads a decree where he is commended for his donations; yet that is not mentioned in the indictment.  Acceptance of gifts, hence, is legal (like Demosthenes giving donations to the state), but gratitude for gifts is illegal and grounds for indictment.  Aeschines is dishonest and malignant.  Aeschines should be ashamed for prosecuting for spite, not for crime.  An accusation implies crimes punishable by law.  Is Aeschines the enemy of Athens or of Demosthenes?  Aeschines poses as Demosthenes's enemy, but is he not the enemy of the people?

ATTACK ON THE PRIVATE CHARACTER OF AESCHINES (pp. 126-31):
       Aeschines is the son of Tromes, a slave.  His mother Glaucothea was not as the Banshee for the pleasing diversity of her acts and experiences.  Aeschines was raised from servitude to freedom by the favor of his fellow-citizens, whom he has betrayed to the enemy, to their detriment.

ATTACK ON THE PUBLIC MISDEEDS OF AESCHINES (pp. 132-38):
       Demosthenes reads a decree wherein is stated that Aeschines came at night to the house of Thraso to communicate with Anaxinus, a proven spy from Philip II of Macedon.  Aeschines is helping the enemy and maligning him, Demosthenes!  Demosthenes says he omits thousands of stories he could tell about him (notice the paralipsis or ocultatio).

ATTACK ON AESCHINES' PROVOCATION OF THE AMPHISSIAN WAR (339 BC) [pp. 139-59]:
       Demosthenes states that by false reports, Aeschines contrived the destruction of the Phocians.  The war at Amphissa that brought Philip to Elatea and ruin to Greece was also caused by Aeschines.  Demosthenes protested to no avail.  Philip needed to make Thebes and Thessaly the enemies of Athens.  Philip hired (bribed) Aeschines as his Athenian representative to carry out his conquests with Aeschines's favor.  War against the Amphissians was provoked.  Aeschines is responsible for providing Philip with the right pretexts to invade and destroy the Greeks.  Do not blame Philip alone, but all the other traitors from the city-states who sided with Philip, including Aeschines

THIRD PERIOD: THE BATTLE OF CHAERONEIA (338 BC) [pp. 160-87]:
       The Battle of Chaeroneia (338 BC) was fought between Philip II of Macedonia and an alliance of sundry Greek city-states, the principal being Athens and Thebes.  It resulted in a decisive victory for Philip and Macedonia.  Demosthenes claims that he alone among Athens' orators did not desert the post of patriotism in the hour of peril.  Demosthenes suggested an alliance between Thebes and Athens, since the Athenians and the Thebans have always had good relations.  Demosthenes' suggestion was applauded and followed.

GENERAL DEFENSE OF THE ATHENIAN POLICY OF RESISTANCE (pp. 188-210):
       Demosthenes states that he should not be accused of crime because Philip won the battle, for the event was in God's hands, not his.   Demosthenes' deliberation then (to unite with Thebes against Philip) was a sound and honorable one.  Things might have been worse if Athens had fought alone or if Thebes had sided with Philip against Athens.  If Aeschines had not approved of this policy then he should have spoken, but he didn't.  Demosthenes behaved honorably; Aeschines did not.  Demosthenes' deliberation was unanimously approved by the Athenians, also.  Hence, Aeschines's attack on Demosthenes is also an attack on all Athenians.  And even if Aeschines had suggested a different policy (one of conciliation or alliance with Philip), Athens would have followed the honorable course.  Had Athens sided with Philip she would have betrayed Greece and freedom.  But that is not part of Greek character (servility or betrayal).  To condemn Ctesiphon for suggesting that the Greeks should honor an honorable man (Demosthenes) would be tantamount to condemning all Greece.

THIRD PERIOD RESUMED (pp. 211-51):
       The Athenians assisted the Thebans, and, hence, war damages did not ensue to Athens.  Philip is a despotic ruler and an autocrat.  Demosthenes' only weapon to defy Philip was his public speaking, by which he created alliances between Athens and the Euboeans, Achaeans, Corinthians, Thebans, Megarians, Leucadians, and Corcyraeans.   They provided 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, not counting the citizen-soldiery.  [NB: Philip II's phalanx formation consisted of 16,384 soldiers].  And Athens contributed twice as much than anybody else to the common deliverance.  Demosthenes also was sent as a representative to talk to Philip, but he was not corrupted by him, as was Aeschines.  Philip was successful on account of his superior army, his bribery of ambassadors, and his corrupting of politicians.  Demosthenes did his job as ambassador honestly and without corruption.

RENEWED ATTACK ON THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF AESCHINES (pp. 252-75):
       Demosthenes believes it is a stupid thing to reproach one's fellow man on the score of fortune.  Demosthenes claims that in his boyhood, he, Demosthenes, had the advantage of attending respectable schools.  When he came of age, his circumstances were in accordance with his upbringing.  He rendered good service to the commonwealth.  Even his enemies thought he, Demosthenes, was honorable.  But Aeschines was born in abject poverty and not holding the position at first of a free-born boy.  He was a clerk and errand-boy to minor officials.  But Demosthenes will omit other things about Aeschines's life so as not to discredit himself.  Aeschines has served the enemies of Greece; Demosthenes has served his country.  In private life, Demosthenes has been generous and courteous, has ransomed captives and provided dowries as a matter of principle.  Fate can overturn good intentions and honorable causes; yet, Aeschines is savage and malignant in turning misadventures into crimes.

REPLY TO THE IMPUTATION OF RHETORICAL ARTFULNESS (pp. 276-84):
       Demosthenes has exercised his skill in speaking on public concerns and for the advantage of the Greeks, not on private occasions and for their detriment.  But Aeschines is peevish and seems to have gone to school not to get satisfaction for any transgression but to make a display of his oratory and vocal powers. But diction and vigor are of no value if they are not used to support the policies of the people.  As soon as Philip won the war, Aeschines went to see him and sided against the interests of his countrymen.  Who is then the traitor? 

CLAIM THAT THE ORATOR'S PUBLIC ACTS HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THE APPROVAL OF THE PEOPLE (pp. 285-96):
       When the city wanted a speaker to honor the slain soldiers at war, they chose Demosthenes over Aeschines.  Moreover, Aeschines when he recounted the disasters that befell the city of Athens, expressed no feelings and shed no tears.  Thus he showed his inability to sympathize with the sorrows of the common people.  People like Aeschines and his followers are traitors and sycophants who measure their happiness by their belly and baser parts while they betray forever the freedom and independence of the Greeks.

EPILOGUE AND RECAPITULATION (pp. 297-323):
       Demosthenes has been upright, honest, and incorruptible.  He administered in all purity and righteousness.  He built fortifications for the protection of the city and made provision for the passage of corn-supply.  If fate intervened against the destiny of Athens, is he, Demosthenes guilty?  Had fate intervened positively, Demosthenes' policies would have brought the country's well-being, alliances, revenues, commerce, and good legislation.  But what alliances does Athens owe to Aeschines?  What war-galleys, or munitions, or fortifications?  "Of what use in the wide world are you?" Aeschines never contributed anything positive towards the state.  Demosthenes has proven himself to be the better patriot.  There are two traits that mark a solid citizen: honor and loyalty.  Demosthenes never renounced his loyalty to Athens and always chose honor.

SHORT PERORATION (p. 324):
       Demosthenes appeals to the Powers of Heaven to grant the citizens a better purpose and spirit.  Should that not be possible, Demosthenes asks for the destruction of the unworthy and a speedy deliverance for those who remain.

Philip II of Macedonia

Alexander the Great

Page created by
A. Robert Lauer

arlauer@ou.edu

12 Nov. 2014