From Macedonia, Antipater soon returned with a large reinforcement. The forces of the Greeks were now much diminished and dispirited, and were defeated by Antipater with great slaughter. A consultation among the Greek generals immediately after the defeat, resulted in a plan to sue with Antipater for peace. But he refused to treat with them altogether, and proposed to treat with individual states. The treaty and alliance being thus dissolved, Athens found herself alone, exposed to the fury of the enemy. In dismay she turned to the Macedonian party, and sent Demades and Phocion to sue for mercy. Antipater spared Athens only on the most humiliating conditions-changing her constitution, securing the banishment of a large proportion of her citizens, and obliging the remainder to be awed by a Macedonian garrison. So fell Athens, and Demosthenes could not survive his country. Already with other orators of his own party he had retired from the city. They were condemned to death. Antipater sent Archias with troops to execute the sentence. Demosthenes had betaken himself to the temple of Neptune in the isle of Calauria near Troezena. After a somewhat humorous conversation with Archias who had formerly been an actor, he retired as if to write, and took poison long secreted for the purpose. He sank down by the altar.

Having now considered Demosthenes as a man and a statesman, let us proceed to consider him as an orator.

Eloquence has been defined by Kant--die Kunst durch die Rede zu tauschen-the art of deceiving by speech. But that is defining a thing from its occasional effects. Where is the art which has not been so abused? From the history of eloquence it will be seen that it was not founded in such an aim.

It is somewhat remarkable that eloquence took its rise not in the free states of Greece but in Sicily, under different political influences. The statesmen and generals of Athens seem to have commended themselves by the straight-forward preservation of a good cause rather than by any skilful or artful collocation of words and sentences. Even Pericles could have little cultivation, and the speeches commonly attributed to him are known to be the work of his historian Thucydides. Coran in Sicily seems to have been the first who employed peculiar forms of words to secure favor and influence. Of his pupils were Tisias and Gorgias of Leontium, the latter of whom being sent on an embassy by his countrymen to Athens, introduced the art there, and remained there as a teacher. He invented

oratorical numbers and paid great attention to the cultivation of external oratory, but the internal-the thought he much neglected. This school of oratory was too superficial for Athenian tastes, and ended with Alcidamas his pupil. Antiphon the disciple of Gorgias was the first who applied the art to any purposes of utility. First he introduced it into court, afterwards with Lysias and Andocides, into the interesting political matters now agitated, till the art of oratory began to be found indispensable to success, and its cultivation universal.

There were two men who did much to form the taste of the Athenians for oratory, Isocrates and Isaeus. The former, probably a pupil of Gorgias, prevented by his own diffidence from appearing in public as a speaker, disseminated the principles of rhetoric by his written lectures and instructions. He lectured also on the various sciences important to a statesman, and from his school there came out more historians than orators. The other, Isaeus, probably a pupil of Isocrates, but far superior in original powers of mind to his instructor, formed his scholars for the severe conflict of the bar and the popular assembly, and taught them how to convince and persuade. He represented weight of thought clothed with strong yet agreeable expressions as the chief desideratum. While Isocrates cultivated chiefly the external, he attended chiefly to the argument and arrangement, with a partial sacrifice of that smoothness and elegance which we find wanting in all the speeches of his great pupil Demosthenes. From this time the state began to patronize the art, and the office of an orator became one of great responsibility and influence as well as of arduous labor. In the time of Demosthenes, Philip gave much occupation to the orators, and the whole situation of the state increased the importance of the profession. One characteristic by which the orations of Demosthenes are distinguished from all others is the thorough and complete preparation they evince, so that he seems to exhaust his subject. This is particularly true of the oration on Leptines, that on the Crown, the third Philippic, and that for the Rhodians. There is a completeness about the argument that perfectly satisfies, and leads us to feel that no more could be said. Hence David Hume has said that of all human productions these orations come nearest perfection. In others of his public speeches we are not conscious of that degree of perfectness, from the fact that other orators had preceded him, that the people were already well informed, or that the time for speaking was limited.

The old rhetoricians divided eloquence into three parts. 1. Invention—the discovery of arguments. 2. Disposition-the arrangement of them. 3. Elocution-the working up of the arranged arguments into an effective speech. We shall see that Demosthenes excelled in each of these particulars.

The first thing which strikes us under the head of invention, is his admirable skill in arranging his arguments. Ordinarily he places the best arguments at the commencement, follows them up with the weaker, and concludes with such as will produce the greatest impression. Sometimes, however, he mixes promiscuously the good and the bad, that they may mutually support each other. Thus in the speech against Leptines, the orator ventures upon the doubtful assertion that only a few had been exempted from public duties, and to strengthen it urges the very proper consideration that those thus privileged would return the favor by new services at another time. Again, the orator separates his arguments from one another, so that those received from considerations of expediency may stand out distinct from those received from considerations of propriety and duty. Thus in his Philippics he presents the utility of war, the fame of the state, and the claims of duty, as each separately yet all in unison tending to favor his measures.

The ancient rhetoricians attributed the great success of Demosthenes to his enthymemes. An enthymeme is defined by Aristotle as a syllogism which has not so many members as a dialectic syllogism.* They are of especial use in legal arguments. A good instance of the enthymeme occurs in the oration against Leptines, where the orator shows that favor to the bad is an amiable weakness, ingratitude to the good, a crime. And as the latter is worse than the former, so the law of Leptines, guarding against all immunities, lest they should be abused, is worse than the old system of conferring promiscuously. Another instance occurs at the close of sec. 8, De Corona. Another passage of this kind is quoted by Quinctilian,† “When the law has been before violated and you imitate the violation, can you on that account plead an exemption of punishment? So much the more must you be punished, since if your predecessors had been punished, you would not have imitated them. And now if you are punished, no one in future will dare to respect the sin." These examples might be greatly multiplied. This figure adds much to the force of his eloquence, as

it concentrates the whole argument upon a single point, and
forces more readily the assent of the hearers.

Another source of our orator's success was his frequent use
of лaçà Seizμata-reasoning from examples. This is rightly
judged to be of great importance.* Of especial force was it
among a people who revered their ancestry like the Athenians.
The orator uses this method in the third Olynthiac, where he
endeavors to awaken the spirit of Miltiades and Themistocles,
and to bring back the better times of the state. In the first
Philippic he incites them to energy and hope under discour-
agement, from the existence of similar virtues in former strug-
gles, and the glorious consequence. In the third Philippic, the
object is to prove that Philip notwithstanding the peace is the
foe of Athens, which is sustained by the following induction :
he who disturbs Greece, destroys cities and disorganizes states,
is our enemy. In the speech against Leptines, to prove the
injury effected by his law, he describes the miseries of those
deprived by it of exemptions.

Demosthenes is also distinguished for the elevated sentiments
with which his speeches are so plentifully strewed. Very dif-
ferent is he in this respect from Aeschines or Isocrates or Lysi-
as, and the only ancient orator who is like him is Isaeus.† From
this quality the stoic Panaetius has expressed the opinion, that
almost all these speeches seem to favor the stoical doctrine that
virtue is to be preferred for its own sake, as almost all prefer
virtue to the good of the state.

To come now to speak of the Disposition; this was divided
by the ancients into introduction, narration, proposition, proof
and refutation of opponents, and peroration. According to
Aristotle, the object of the introduction is to make known to
the hearers the subject; according to Cicero and Quinctillian
it is to make the hearers attentive and favorable.

In

Almost all the introductions of Demosthenes are short.
some cases they are comprised in a single sentence. In his
Philippics one or two thoughts are sufficient for introduction.
He begins either with an apology, as in the first Philippic, or a
statement of the nature of the subject as in the first and second
Olynthiacs, or a contradiction of some previously expressed

*Cic. De Orat. 34.

t See Philip. III. sec. 4, tò d' ¿voɛßis, etc. Olynth. II. sec. 4, ov
ἐστὶν οὐκ ἐστίν, Sec. 7, ἄλλομαι νύν. Sec. 8, μεγάλη γὰρ ῥοπή.
De Corona, passim.

opinion as in the third Olynthiac, or a reprehension of preceding orators as in the Chersonese oration, or there is no introduction at all as in the Megalopolitan oration. In the private cases, he begins either with a complaint against the character of his opponent, as in his speeches against Lacritus, Callicles and Boeotus, or a profession of inexperience, as in that against Phormio, or a recommendation of the subject as more important than it seems, as against Polycles, or more frequently with a single statement from which to proceed directly to the subject, and sometimes there is none at all, as against Zenothemis. Demosthenes by following the rule of Aristotle avoids the errors of more modern orators in his introductions. He skilfully makes them the key-note to which the sequel of his oration is attuned, and of course they are fitted to prepare the hearers for what follows. On extraordinary occasions Demosthenes would expend more labor on his introductions. The ancients made two kinds, προοίμιον and ἔφοδον. Of the former class would be those already described; of the latter such as would be necessary to calm the prejudices and appease the irritation of the hearers. A fine instance of this last kind occurs in the De Corona. He rose under unfavorable circumstances. Aeschines had made a great impression against him. His remarks on the law had been acute. His claim on the judges to restrict his opponent to the same arrangement was urgent. But still worse was the impression conveyed that Demosthenes was an irreligious man, and disbelieved the gods. Demosthenes commences with an appeal to all the gods, fitted to dispel their suspicions, speaks of the advantage of his opponent, and again prays the gods to incline the judges not to grant his request.

After the introduction followed the narration. This was designed to give the bearers the necessary information as to the case before them. Of course in speeches advising for the future, like the public harangues of Demosthenes, it was unnecessary, but in legal argument, it was of the highest importance to remove prejudice from the minds of the judges, and give them that information which would lead to a favorable decision. According to Aristotle the qualities of this part should be clearness, probability, and conciseness. Among ancient orators Lysias was most distinguished in this part. But Dionysius, by a comparison of extracts from the two orators, has shown that Demosthenes was in no way inferior. This excellence may be particularly seen in the argument against Conon.

Next comes the proposition, and statement of the plan. An