Delphi Complete Works of Demosthenes

by Demosthenes

  You hear, men of Athens, the record which declares Arthmius, son of Pythonax, of Zelea, to be enemy and foeman of the Athenian people and their allies, him and all his kindred. His offence was conveying gold from barbarians to Greeks. Hence, apparently, we may conclude that your ancestors were anxious to prevent any man, even an alien, taking rewards to do injury to Greece; but you take no thought to discountenance wrongs done by your own citizens to your own city. [272] Does anyone say that this inscription has been set up just anywhere? No; although the whole of our citadel is a holy place, and although its area is so large, the inscription stands at the right hand beside the great brazen Athene which was dedicated by the state as a memorial of victory in the Persian war, at the expense of the Greeks. In those days, therefore, justice was so venerable, and the punishment of these crimes so meritorious, that the retribution of such offenders was honored with the same position as Pallas Athene’s own prize of victory. Today we have instead — mockery, impunity, dishonor, unless you restrain the licence of these men. [273]

  In my judgement, men of Athens, you will do well, not to emulate your forefathers in some one respect alone, but to follow their conduct step by step. I am sure you have all heard the story of their treatment of Callias, son of Hipponicus, who negotiated the celebrated peace under which the King of Persia was not to approach within a day’s ride of the coast, nor sail with a ship of war between the Chelidonian islands and the Blue Rocks. At the inquiry into his conduct they came near to putting him to death, and mulcted him in fifty talents, because he was said to have taken bribes on embassy. [274] Yet no one can cite a more honorable peace made by the city before or since; but that is not what they regarded. They attributed the honorable peace to their own valor and to the high repute of their city, the refusal or acceptance of money to the character of the ambassador; and they expected an honest and incorruptible character in any man who entered the service of the state. [275] They held the taking of bribes to be too inimical and unprofitable to the state to be tolerated in any transaction or in any person; but you, men of Athens, having before you a peace which at once has pulled down the walls of your allies and is building up the houses of your ambassadors, which robbed the city of her possessions and earned for them wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, instead of putting them to death of your own accord, wait for the appearance of a prosecutor. You are giving them a trial of words with their evil deeds before your eyes. [276]

  Yet we need not restrict ourselves to bygone history, or rely upon those ancient precedents in our appeal to retributive justice. Within your own lifetime, in the time of the generation now living, not a few men have been tried and condemned. Passing by other instances, let me recall to your memory one or two men who have been punished by death after an embassy far less mischievous to the city. Please take and read this decree.” Decree “ [277]

  By the terms of this decree, men of Athens, you condemned to death the ambassadors named. One of them was Epicrates, who, as I am informed by persons older than myself, was an honest, useful, and popular politician, and one of the men who marched from Peiraeus and restored the democracy. No such consideration availed him; and that was right, for a man who accepts so important a mission is not to be virtuous by halves. He must not use the public confidence he has earned as an opportunity for knavery; his duty is simply to do you no wilful wrong at all. [278] Well, if the present defendants have omitted any single one of the misdeeds for which those persons were sentenced to death, execute me on the spot. Look at the decree: “Whereas the said ambassadors have disobeyed their instructions.” That is the first charge alleged. And did not these men disobey their instructions? Did not the decree say, “for the Athenians and the Allies of the Athenians,” and did not they declare the Phocians to be excluded? Did it not instruct them to swear in the magistrates in the several cities, and did they not swear in only such persons as Philip sent to them? Did not the decree say that they were not to meet Philip alone in any place whatsoever, and did they not continually have private dealings with Philip? [279] “Whereas,” says the old decree, “certain of them are convicted of making untruthful reports to the Council.” Why, these men are convicted of making untruthful reports even to the Assembly. On what evidence? — you remember that brilliant quibble. On the evidence of facts: the report was exactly contradicted by the event. It goes on: “and of sending untruthful dispatches.” So did they. “And of bearing false witness against allies, and of taking bribes.” For “bearing false witness” read “utterly destroying” — a vastly greater injury. But as to their having taken bribes, we should still, if they denied it, have to make the charge good; but since they admit it, surely there should have been a summary arrest and punishment. [280]

  What follows, men of Athens? Such being the facts, will you, the descendants of these men, some of whom are still living, be content that Epicrates, the champion of democracy, the hero of the march from Peiraeus, should have been degraded and punished; that more recently Thrasybulus, a son of Thrasybulus the great democrat, who restored free government from Phyle, should have paid a fine of ten talents that even a descendant of Harmodius and of the greatest of all your benefactors, the men to whom, in requital of their glorious deeds, you have allotted by statute a share of your libations and drink-offerings in every temple and at every public service, whom, in hymns and in worship, you treat as the equals of gods and demigods, — [281] will you be content that all these men should have been subjected to the inexorable penalty of law; that they should find no succor in mercy or compassion, in weeping children bearing honored names, or in any other plea? And then, when you have in your power a son of Atrometus the dominie, and of Glaucothea, the fuglewoman of those bacchanalian routs for which another priestess suffered death, will you release the son of such parents, a man who has never been of the slightest use to the commonwealth, neither he, nor his father, nor any member of his precious family? [282] Has the state ever had to thank any one of them in the whole course of his life for so much as a horse, or a war-galley, or a military expedition, or a chorus, or any public service, assessed contribution, or free gift, or for any deed of valor or any benefit whatsoever? Yet even if he could claim credit for all those services, but could not add that he has been an honest and disinterested ambassador, he ought assuredly to suffer death. If he has neither the one claim nor the other, will you not punish him? [283] Remember what he told you himself when he prosecuted Timarchus, — that there is no merit in a city that is nerveless in its dealings with malefactors, or in a polity where indulgence and importunity are stronger than the laws. You must not, he said, have any pity for Timarchus’s mother, an aged woman, or his children, or anyone else: you must fix your mind on the thought that, if you desert the laws and the constitution, you will find no one to pity you. [284] The unfortunate Timarchus is still disfranchised because he was a witness of Aeschines’ misdeeds, and why should you allow Aeschines to go scot-free? If he demanded such severity of retribution from men who had transgressed only against himself and his friends, what retribution are you, a legal jury bound by oath, to exact from men who have grievously transgressed against the commonwealth, and of whom he is proved to be one? [285] He will say that the trial of Timarchus will improve the morals of our young men. Then this trial will improve the integrity of our statesmen, on whom depend the gravest political hazards; and they also have a claim on your consideration. But let me show you that he did not bring Timarchus to ruin because of his anxious care — Heaven help us! for the modesty of your children. Your children, men of Athens, are already modest; and God forbid that Athens should ever be in such evil case as to require an Aphobetus or an Aeschines to teach young people modesty! [286] He did it because Timarchus had moved in the Council a decree making the conveyance of arms or ships’ tackle to Philip a capital offence. As evidence of that, let me ask how long Timarchus had been a public speaker? A very long time; and during all that time Aeschines was in Athens; yet he never took offence, he never began to think it a
shame that a man of such character should make speeches, until he had visited Macedonia and sold himself. Please take and read the actual decree of Timarchus.” Decree “ [287]

  The man who for your sake proposed the prohibition, under penalty of death, of carrying arms to Philip is vilified and disgraced; the man who surrendered to Philip the armaments of our allies is his accuser. Immorality — save the mark! — was the theme of his speech, while at his side stood his two brothers-in-law, the very sight of whom is enough to set you in an uproar, — the disgusting Nicias, who went to Egypt as the hireling of Chabrias, and the abominable Cyrebio, the unmasked harlequin of the pageants. But that was nothing: under his eyes sat his brother Aphobetus. In truth, on that day all that declaiming against immorality was like water flowing upstream. [288]

  And now, to illustrate the discredit into which our city has been dragged by this man’s trickery and mendacity, omitting much that I might mention, I will point to a symptom that you have all observed. In former times, men of Athens, all Greece used to watch anxiously for your decisions. Today we prowl the streets wondering what the other communities have resolved, all agog to hear what is the news from Arcadia, what is the news from the Amphictyons, what will be Philip’s next movement, whether he is alive or dead. [289] You know that such is our behavior. What alarms me is the thought, not that Philip is alive, but that in Athens the spirit that loathes and punishes evil-doers is dead. Philip does not terrify me, if only your condition is healthy; but if there is to be impunity in this court for men who hunger after Philip’s pay, and if men who have won your confidence, men who have hitherto scorned the imputation of intriguing for Philip, are to appear as their advocates, that does terrify me. — [290] What does this mean, Eubulus? At the trial of your cousin Hegesilaus, and recently at that of Thrasybulus, an uncle of Niceratus, before the first vote of the jury you would not even answer when you were called; on the question of damages you did get up to speak, but you had not a word to say in their favor, and merely asked the jury to excuse you. So you do not mount the tribune for your own kinsmen and for men who have a claim on your services, and will you mount it for Aeschines, [291] who, when Aristophon prosecuted Philonicus, and in denouncing him denounced your own policy, joined in the attack upon you, and so ranged himself with your enemies? After terrifying the people, and telling them that they must go down to Peiraeus at once, pay the war-tax and turn the theatric fund into a war-chest, or else vote for the resolution that was supported by Aeschines and moved by that abominable Philocrates, with the result that we got a discreditable instead of an equitable peace, [292] and after all the ruin that has been wrought by their subsequent misdeeds, are you reconciled with them after that? In the Assembly you solemnly cursed Philip; you swore by the head of your children that you desired his utter destruction, and will you now be the defender of Aeschines? How can Philip be utterly destroyed, if you rescue the men who take his bribes? [293] Why did you prosecute Moerocles, because he had extorted twenty drachmas apiece from the lessees of the silver-mines; why did you indict Cephisophon for misappropriating sacred funds, because he was three days late in paying seven minas into the bank, if, instead of prosecuting, you now try to rescue men who have confessed, who have been caught in the act, who are convicted of taking bribes for the destruction of our allies? [294] Yes, these are formidable offences, calling for the utmost vigilance and precaution; while the charges you brought against those two men were comparatively ludicrous, as these considerations will show. Were there any persons in Elis who embezzled public money? In all probability, yes. Did any one of them take part in the recent overthrow of free government there? [295] Not one. When there was still such a city as Olynthus, were there any thieves there? I take it there were. Did Olynthus perish through their sins? No. Do you suppose there were no thieves and pilferers of public funds in Megara? There must have been such. Has any one of them been shown to be responsible for the present political troubles there? Not one. Then who are the people who commit these monstrous crimes? Persons who fancy themselves important enough to be called friends of Philip, men itching for military commands and eager for political distinction, men who claim superiority over the common herd. At Megara the other day was not Perillus tried before the Three Hundred on a charge of visiting Philip? And did not Ptoeodorus, the first man in all Megara for wealth, birth, and reputation, come forward and beg him off, and then send him back to Philip? The sequel was that one of the pair returned with an alien army at his back, while the other was hatching the plot at home. Take that as a specimen. [296] Indeed, there is no danger, no danger whatsoever, that requires more anxious vigilance than allowing any man to become stronger than the people. Let no man be delivered, and let no man be destroyed, merely because this man or that so desires; let hem who is delivered or destroyed by the evidence of facts be entitled to receive from this court the verdict that is his due. That is the democratic principle. [297] Furthermore, at Athens many men have upon occasion risen to power — the great Callistratus, for instance, Aristophon, Diophantus, and others of earlier date. But what was the field of their supremacy? The popular assembly. In courts of justice no man to this day has ever been superior to the people, or to the laws, or to the judicial oath. Then permit no such superiority to Aeschines today. To enforce the warning that it is better to take those precautions than to be credulous, I will read to you an oracle of the gods, — to whom Athens owes her salvation far more than to her most prominent politicians. Read the oracles.” Oracles “ [298]

  Men of Athens, you hear the admonitions of the gods. If they are addressed to you in time of war, they bid you beware of your commanders, for commanders are the leaders of warfare; if after conclusion of peace, of your statesmen, for they are your leaders, they have your obedience, by them you may haply be deceived. The oracle also bids you keep the commonwealth together, that all may be of one mind, and may not gratify the enemy. [299] What do you think, men of Athens? Will Philip be gratified by the deliverance or by the punishment of the man who has done all this mischief? By his deliverance surely; but the oracle bids you strive that the enemy shall not rejoice. Therefore, you are all exhorted by Zeus, by Dione, by all the gods, to punish with one mind those who have made themselves the servants of your enemies. There are foes without; there are traitors within. It is the business of foes to give bribes, of traitors to take bribes, and to rescue those who have taken them. [300]

  Moreover, it can be shown by mere human reasoning that it is extremely injurious and dangerous to permit the intimacy of a prominent statesman with men whose purposes are at variance with those of the people. If you will consider by what means Philip acquired his political supremacy and performed his most signal achievements, you will find that it was by buying treachery from willing sellers, and by corrupting leading politicians and stimulating their ambition. [301] Both these practices it is within your power, if you so choose, to frustrate today, if you will first refuse to listen to the defenders of treachery, and prove that they cannot exercise that authority over you of which they boast, and then punish before the eyes of the world the man who has traitorously sold himself. [302] You have good reason, men of Athens, to be indignant with every man who by such conduct has thrown overboard your allies, your friends, and those opportunities on which, for any nation, success or failure depends, but with no man more fiercely or more righteously than with Aeschines. For a man who once ranged himself with those who distrusted Philip, and made unassisted the first discovery of Philip’s hostility to all Greece, and then became a deserter and a traitor and suddenly appeared as Philip’s champion — does he not deserve a hundred deaths? [303] Yet that such are the facts, he will not be able to deny. For who originally introduced Ischander to you, declaring him to have come as the representative of the Arcadian friends of Athens? Who raised the cry that Philip was forming coalitions in Greece and Peloponnesus while you slept? Who made those long and eloquent speeches, and read the decrees of Miltiades and Themistacles and the oath which our you
ng men take in the temple of Aglaurus? [304] Was it not Aeschines? Who persuaded you to send embassies almost as far as the Red Sea, declaring that Greece was the object of Philip’s designs, and that it was your duty to anticipate the danger and not be disloyal to the Hellenic cause? Was it not Eubulus who proposed the decree, and the defendant Aeschines who went as ambassador to the Peloponnesus? What he said there after his arrival, either in conversation or in public speeches, is best known to himself: what he reported on his return I am sure you have not forgotten. [305] For he made a speech in which he repeatedly called Philip a barbarian and a man of blood. He told you that the Arcadians were delighted to hear that Athens was really waking up and attending to business. He related an incident which, he said, had filled him with deep indignation. On his journey home he had met Atrestidas travelling from Philip’s court with some thirty women and children in his train. He was astonished, and inquired of one of the travellers who the man and his throng of followers were; [306] and when he was told that they were Olynthian captives whom Atrestidas was bringing away with him as a present from Philip, he thought it a terrible business, and burst into tears. Greece, he sorrowfully reflected, is in evil plight indeed, if she permits such cruelties to pass unchecked. He counselled you to send envoys to Arcadia to denounce the persons who were intriguing for Philip; for, he said, he had been informed that, if only Athens would give attention to the matter and send ambassadors, the intriguers would promptly be brought to justice. [307] Such was his speech on that occasion; a noble speech, worthy of our Athenian traditions. But after he had visited Macedonia, and beheld his own enemy and the enemy of all Greece, did his language bear the slightest resemblance to those utterances? Not in the least: he bade you not to remember your forefathers, not to talk about trophies, not to carry succor to anybody. As for the people who recommended you to consult the Greeks on the terms of peace with Philip, he was amazed at the suggestion that it was necessary that any foreigner should be convinced when the questions were purely domestic. [308] And as for Philip, — why, good Heavens, he was a Greek of the Greeks, the finest orator and the most thorough — going friend of Athens you could find in the whole world. And yet there were some queer, ill-conditioned fellows in Athens who did not blush to abuse him, and even to call him a barbarian! [309]