Dikastery. Among the accusers was Hyperides, whose name had not been comprised in the Areopagitic report. Demosthenes was brought to trial, first of all the persons accused, before a numerous Dikastery of 1500 citizens', who confirmed the report of the Areopagites, found him guilty, and condemned him to pay fifty talents to the state. Not being able to discharge this large fine, he was put in prison; but after some days he found means to escape, and fled to Trozen in Peloponnesus, where he passed some months as a dispirited and sorrowing exile, until the death of Alexander2. What was done with the other citizens included in the Areopagitic report, we do not know. It appears that Demades-who was among those comprised, and who is especially attacked, along with Demosthenes, by both Hyperides and Deinarchus-did not appear to take his trial, and therefore must have been driven into exile; yet if so, he must have speedily returned, since he seems to have been at Athens when Alexander died. Philokles and Aristogeiton were also brought to trial as being included by the Areopagus in the list of delinquents; but how their trial ended, does not appear*. 'Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 108, 109. 2 Plutarch, Demosth. 26. 3 Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 104. See the two orations composed by Deinarchus, against Philokles and Aristogeiton. In the second and third Epistles ascribed to Demosthenes (p. 1470, 1483, 1485), he is made to state, that he alone had been condemned by the Dikastery, because his trial had come on first-that Aristogeiton and all the others tried were acquitted, though the charge against all was the same, and the evidence against all was the same also-viz. nothing more than the simple report of the Areopagus. As I agree with those who hold these epistles to be probably spurious, I cannot believe, on such authority alone, that all the other persons tried were acquitted-a fact highly improbable in itself. CHAP. XCV.] DEMOSTHENES CONDEMNED. 407 mosthenes such cor propria as known This condemnation and banishment of Demo- Was Desthenes-unquestionably the greatest orator, and guilty of one of the greatest citizens, in Athenian antiquity, rupt ap-is the most painful result of the debates respect- tion? Ciring the exile Harpalus. Demosthenes himself cumstances denied the charge; but unfortunately we possess in the case. neither his defence, nor the facts alleged in evidence against him; so that our means of forming a positive conclusion are imperfect. At the same time, judging from the circumstances as far as we know them-there are several which go to show his innocence, and none which tend to prove him guilty. If we are called upon to believe that he received money from Harpalus, we must know for what service the payment was made. Did Demosthenes take part with Harpalus, and advise the Athenians to espouse his cause? Did he even keep silence, and abstain from advising them to reject the propositions? Quite the reverse. Demosthenes was from the beginning a declared opponent of Harpalus, and of all measures for supporting his cause. Plutarch indeed tells an anecdote that Demosthenes began by opposing Harpalus, but that presently he was fascinated by the beauty of a golden cup among the Harpalian treasures. Harpalus, perceiving his admiration, sent to him on the ensuing night the golden cup, together with twenty talents, which Demosthenes accepted. A few days afterwards, when the cause of Harpalus was again debated in the public assembly, the orator appeared with his throat enveloped in woollen wrappers, and affected to have lost his voice; upon which the people, detecting this simu lated inability as dictated by the bribe which had been given, expressed their displeasure partly by sarcastic taunts, partly by indignant murmuring'. So stands the anecdote in Plutarch. But we have proof that it is untrue. Demosthenes may indeed have been disabled by sore throat from speaking at some particular assembly; so far the story may be accurate; but that he desisted from opposing Harpalus (the real point of the allegation against him) is certainly not true; for we know, from his accusers Deinarchus and Hyperides, that it was he who made the final motion for imprisoning Harpalus and sequestrating the Harpalian treasure in trust for Alexander. In fact, Hyperides himself denounces Demosthenes, as having, from subservience to Alexander, closed the door against HarDemosthe- palus and his prospects. Such direct and continued opposition is a conclusive proof that Demosthenes was neither paid nor bought by Harpalus. The only service which he rendered to the exile was, by refusing to deliver him to Antipater, and by not preventing his escape from imprisonment. Now in this refusal even Phokion concurred; and probably the best Athenians, of all parties, were desirous of favouring the escape of an exile whom it would have been odious to hand over to a Macedonian executioner. Insofar as it was a crime not to have prevented the escape of nes cou'd not have received money from Har palus, since he opposed him from first to last. 1 Plutarch, Demosth. 25 : compare also Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 846; and Photius, Life of Demosth. Cod. 265. p. 494. 2 See the fragment of Hyperides in Mr. Babington's edition, pp. 37, 38 (a fragment already cited in a preceding note), insisting upon the prodigious mischief which Demosthenes had done by his decree for arresting (ouλnis) Harpalus. CHAP. XCV.] CONDUCT OF demosthenES REVIEWED. 409 Harpalus, the crime was committed as much by Phokion as by Demosthenes; and indeed more, seeing that Phokion was one of the generals, exercising the most important administrative dutieswhile Demosthenes was only an orator and mover in the assembly. Moreover, Harpalus had no means of requiting the persons, whoever they were, to whom he owed his escape; for the same motion. which decreed his arrest, decreed also the sequestration of his money, and thus removed it from his own control'. The charge therefore made against Demosthenes by his two accusers, that he received money from Harpalus, is one which all the facts known to us tend to refute. But this is not quite the whole case. Had Demosthenes the means of embezzling the money, after it had passed out of the control of Harpalus? To this question also we may reply in the negative, so far as Athenian practice enables us to judge. Demosthenes had moved, and the people had voted, that these treasures should be lodged, 1 In the Life of Demosthenes apud Photium (Cod. 265), the service alleged to have been rendered by him to Harpalus, and for which he was charged with having received 1000 Darics, is put as I have stated it in the text-Demosthenes first spoke publicly against receiving Harpalus, but presently Δαρεικούς χιλίους (ως φασι) λαβὼν πρὸς τοὺς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντας μετετάξατο (then follow the particular acts whereby this alleged change of sentiment was manifested, which particular acts are described as follows)—καὶ βουλομένων τῶν ̓Αθηναίων ̓Αντιπάτρῳ προδοῦναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀντεῖπεν, τά τε ̔Αρπάλεια χρήματα εἰς ἀκρόπολιν ἔγραψεν ἀποθέσθαι, μηδὲ τῷ δήμῳ τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν ἀποσημηνάμενος. That Demosthenes should first oppose the reception of Harpalus— and then afterwards oppose the surrender of Harpalus to Antipater's requisition is here represented as a change of politics, requiring the hypothesis of a bribe to explain it. But it is in reality no change at all. The two proceedings are perfectly consistent with each other, and both of them defensible. in trust for Alexander, in the acropolis; a place where all the Athenian public money was habitually kept-in the back chamber of the Parthenon. When placed in that chamber, these new treasures would come under the custody of the officers of the Athenian exchequer; and would be just as much out of the reach of Demosthenes as the rest of the public money. What more could Phokion himself have done to preserve the Harpalian fund intact, than to put it in the recognized place of surety? Then, as to the intermediate process, of taking the money from Harpalus up to the acropolis, there is no proof,-and in my judgment no probability,that Demosthenes was at all concerned in it. Even to count, verify, and weigh, a sum of above £80,000 -not in bank notes or bills of exchange, but subdivided in numerous and heavy coins (staters, darics, tetradrachms), likely to be not even Attic, but Asiatic-must have been a tedious duty requiring to be performed by competent reckoners, and foreign to the habits of Demosthenes. The officers of the Athenian treasury must have gone through this labour, providing the slaves or mules requisite for carrying so heavy a burthen up to the acropolis. Now we have ample evidence, from the remaining Inscriptions, that the details of transferring and verifying the public property, at Athens, were performed habitually with laborious accuracy. Least of all would such accuracy be found wanting in the case of the large Harpalian treasure, where the very passing of the decree implied great fear of Alexander. If Harpalus, on being publicly ques tioned in the assembly-What was the sum to be |