Athenian ideology in Demosthenes' deliberative oratory : hailing the dēmos

ATHENIAN IDEOLOGY IN DEMOSTHENES’ DELIBERATIVE ORATORY: HAILING THE DĒMOS. by SARAH JANET ALEXANDRINA BREMNER A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology School of History and Cultures College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham May 2016 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis examines Demosthenes’ rhetorical use of Athenian ideology in his deliberative speeches from 351-341 BCE. I argue that during this period of crisis, which is usually narrated in terms of conflict with Macedonia, Demosthenes confronts an internal crisis within the Assembly. While Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches have traditionally been defined as ‘Philippic’, this thesis argues that the speeches do not prioritise an ‘AntiMacedonian’ agenda, but rather focus on confronting the corruption of the deliberative decision-making process. Through an attitude of apathy and neglect, the Athenians have created an environment for men such as Philip II to exploit and flourish in. For Demosthenes, their external problems are a direct product of this internal crisis, both of which are perpetuated by their failure to recognise how self-sabotaging practices undermine the polis from within. As he asserts in On the Chersonese and the Third Philippic, they cannot hope to deal with their external situation before they deal with their internal crisis. To address this, I argue that Demosthenes’ parrhēsia interweaves criticism of the dēmos with the praise of Athens, using social memory and past exempla both to recall and prescribe didactically the attitudes central to Athenian identity. As such, I propose that the deliberative speeches do not confront a ‘Macedonian Question’, but a fundamentally Athenian one. DEDICATION When his consultant told him he had only months left to live, my Grandad’s immediate response was: ‘that’s not long enough, my Best Pal hasn’t finished her PhD yet’. In our last conversation he told me to keep going and to never be defeated. This thesis is dedicated to his memory, and of my beloved Nan. In memoriam Donald & Florence Bremner 17th March 1931 - 21st December 2012 1st September 1923 - 15th January 2015 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by the College of Arts and Law at the University of Birmingham, and I offer my sincere thanks to the panel that awarded my scholarship. I wish to thank my supervisor Dr Niall Livingstone, who from my undergraduate to my PhD has had the faith to let me run with ideas and the trust to follow wherever they led, and also to Dr Will Mack for taking on this role and seeing us over the finish line. I would not have been able to complete this research without the support of my friends and family. I would like to thank St Giles Hospice for their bereavement support, and I owe many cups of tea to my fellow Birmingham PhD colleague and dear friend, Polly Stoker, who has supported me throughout my research. I wish to thank my parents, Janet and Paul Wilkowski, for their constant support and for the many years that they surrendered their home to my scattered books. I also wish to thank my Grandparents who took every step of my education with me, from infants to the start of my PhD. Their unswerving belief that I could go beyond any expectations has driven me to complete this thesis and it is dedicated to their memory. Finally, my inexpressible thanks go to Aaron, my bigger picture, who always provides me with perspective. My thanks to him, and for surrendering our own home to my scattered books, are beyond the scope of words. CONTENTS Introduction I.1 The fallacy of a ‘Philippic Model’ 3 I.2 A Third Wave: the middle path 6 I.3 Interpellation and the Assembly as a self-aware collective of Chapter One Chapter Two Chapter Three Athenian Citizens
9 I.4 The Idea of Athens: Epitaphic and Thucydidean Parallels 13 I.5Additional Key Scholarship 20 I.6 Methodology 22 The First Philippic 26 Date 27 Historical Context 29 Analysis 30 The Olynthiacs 75 Historical Context
76 Kairos 77 On the Speeces 79 Dates and Order 81 2.1 The First Olynthiac 84 2.2 The Second Olynthiac 106 2.3 The Third Olynthiac 128 On the Peace 157 The Fall of Olynthus 157 The Peace of Philocrates 160 The Fallout 162 Chapter Four Conclusion Date 164 On the Speech 164 Analysis 167 The Post-Peace Speeches 188 4.1 The Second Philippic 190 Historical Context
191 Analysis 193 4.2 On the Chersonese 223 Date and Historical Context
223 Analysis 226 4.3 The Third Philippic 273 Date and Historical Context 273 Analysis 275 The Mirror of Demosthenes 341 C.1 the Corruption of the Assembly and the 345 Misuse of Rhetoric
C.2 An Athenian reflection: Athenian Ideology 349 and the use of the Athenian Past
Bibliography 355 ABBREVIATIONS Names of journals are abbreviated as in L’Année Philologique and liste des périodiques Dépoullés. AIO Attic Inscriptions Online BNJ Brill’s New Jaboby BNP Brill’s New Pauly FGrH F. Jacoby Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. IG Inscriptiones Graecae LSJ H.G. Liddell, R. Scott and H.S. Jones (eds.) Greek-English Lexicon, with a revised supplement. Nineth Edition. Oxford. 1996. OCT Oxford Classical Text AJPh American Journal of Philology. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Pr. AncW The Ancient world : a scholarly journal for the study of antiquity. Chicago. University of Chicago Pr. BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. London. University of London, Institute of Classical Studies. C&M Classica et Mediaevalia: revue danoise de philologie et d’histoire. Copenhagen CA Classical Antiquity. Berkeley. University of California Pr. CFC(G) Cuadernos de lología clásica. Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos. Madrid. Universidad Complutense, Servicio de Publicaciones. CJ The Classical Journal. Ashland. Randolph-Macon College, Department of Classics, Classical Association of the Middle West and South. CPh Classical Philology: a journal devoted to research in classical antiquity. Chicago. University of Chicago Pr. CQ Classical Quarterly. Oxford. Oxford University Pr. CR Classical Review. Oxford. Oxford University Pr. G&R Greece and Rome. Oxford. Clarendon Pr. GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Durham (N.C.). Duke University, Classics. Hermes Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie. Stuttgart. Steiner. Historia Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte = revue d’histoire ancienne. Stuttgart. Steiner. JHI Journal of the History of Ideas. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Pr. JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies. London. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Klio Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte. Berlin. Akademie Verl. Kodai Journal of Ancient History. Tokyo. University of Tokyo, Department of History. Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Classica Batava. Leiden. Brill. PAPhS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia. American Philosophical Society. Philologus Zeitschrift für antike Literatur und ihre Rezeption. Berlin. Akademie Verl. Phoenix Journal of the Classical Association of Canada. Revue de la Société canadienne des études classiques. Toronto. University of Toronto Pr. REG Revue des études grecques. Paris. Les Belles Lettres. Rhetorica Journal of the history of rhetoric. Berkeley. University of California Pr. SH Scripta Hierosolymitana. Publications of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Magnes Pr. SO Symbolae Osloenses. Norwegian journal of Greek and Latin studies. Basingstoke. Taylor & Francis. TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Pr. INTRODUCTION This thesis examines Demosthenes’ rhetorical use of Athenian ideology and identity in his deliberative speeches from 351-341 BCE. I argue that during this period of crisis, which is usually narrated in terms of conflict with Macedonia, Demosthenes confronts an internal identity crisis within the Assembly. 1 Through an attitude of apathy and neglect, the Athenians have created an environment for men such as Philip II to exploit and flourish in. 2 For Demosthenes, their external problems are a direct product of their internal crisis, both of which are perpetuated by their failure to recognise how self-sabotaging practices undermine their identity as Athenians. As he asserts in On the Chersonese and the Third Philippic, they cannot hope to deal with their external situation before they deal with their internal crisis. 3 To address this, Demosthenes’ parrhēsia interweaves criticism of the dēmos with praise of Athens, using social memory and past exempla both to recall and prescribe didactically the attitudes and behaviour central to Athenian identity. I believe Demosthenes’ focus on this internal crisis has been overshadowed by approaches that view these speeches as primarily against Philip, and specifically in terms of an external conflict with Macedonian expansionism and the fall of democratic Athens. For example, Milns and Elis argue that, ‘Eleven of Demosthenes’ extant speeches are devoted to Karvounis’ 2000 study of the First Philippic and Olynthiacs are all grouped under the heading ‘Warnung vor Philipp’, situating the speeches within a conflict against Philip, and with Philip as Demosthenes’ antagonist. Carlier 1990, which focuses on Demosthenes, titles Chapter Three ‘Athènes et Démosthène avante Philippe’, Chapter Four: ‘La résistible ascension de Philippe de Macédoine.’ This particular chapter title is remarkable because it implicitly compares Philip with Hitler: the title of Bertolt Brecht’s 1941 play Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui, parodying the Nazis’ rise to power, is translated into English as The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui but into French as La résistible ascension d’ Arturo Ui; and since ‘resistible rise’, a reversal of the cliché ‘irresistible rise’, was not a standard expression in any of these languages before Brecht used it, ‘La résistible ascension’ arguably alludes to it. 1 Throughout this thesis when I refer to ‘the Assembly’, ‘the Athenians’ or ‘the dēmos’ I mean those present within the Assembly/ listening to the speeches/ making decisions based on the deliberative speeches. Specifically, I am referring to those whom Demosthenes is addressing in the context of the speech, not necessarily any wider readership outside of Athens. For more on the Assembly see Ober 1989: 132-8; Hansen 1987. 2 3 Demosthenes 8.61, 9.53. 1 Philip, or more specifically attacks against him’, and how they are ‘an attempt to stimulate hostility against Philip’. Pearson views the speeches as, ‘a series of prosecutor’s speeches against the same defendant, Philip’, while Trevett remarks that, from the First Philippic, ‘all his surviving deliberative speeches are characterised by ancient critics as “Philippics”, that is, as speeches concerned with policy towards Philip.’ Kennedy states that, historically, ‘Demosthenes’ energies were directed against Macedon’, and Usher argues that the deliberative speeches are directed against Philip and that the Third Philippic builds up to the ‘final showdown with Philip.’ Likewise, Edwards states that when ‘Demosthenes began his crusade of opposition to Philip in the Philippics (the term is usually extended to cover the three Olynthiacs, On the Peace, and On the Chersonese) he dispensed with notions of honour and justice, and responded to Philip’s aggression by advocating opposition to him as the only possible course of action.’ I disagree with this in particular as my research demonstrates that Demosthenes’ arguments focus on Athenian identity, of which honour, justice and duty are integral. Edwards continues that to fight Philip, Demosthenes develops the ‘concept of a national character’, but I argue this national character is developed to confront an apathetic Assembly, as in Demosthenes’ view, the crisis is rooted in their failure to act in manner worthy of the Athenian past .4 In my opinion, to approach the deliberative speeches with this retrospective determinism is to apply to them a false teleology which over-determines the outcome of Chaeronea, and presumes that Demosthenes had a systematic plan against Philip from the First Philippic onwards.5 This risks overlooking how Demosthenes’ appeal to send forces 4 Milns and Elis 1970: 2; 11. Pearson 1976: vii. Trevett 2011: 68. Kennedy 1963: 208. Usher 2010: 230-234. Edwards 1994: 45. Such as Goodwin 1901: 171 ‘No one can read the earlier orations of Demosthenes in light of later events without feeling the justice of his claim to sagacity’(see further discussion on pronoia in I.2 with Mader 2007b). Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that for and Demosthenes (and later Cicero) the ‘fall’ of Athenian democracy and the Late Republic were neither obvious nor inevitable outcomes. Defining literature as part of the ‘fall of Athens’ or belonging to the ‘Late Republic’, risks forgetting that contemporary writers would not have viewed themselves as ‘late’ at all. 5 2 against Philip always returns to condemning the Assembly’s reluctance to act in the first place. What the speeches fight against is not Philip, but rather the self-destruction of Athens by its internal corruption: the corruption of logos, the gap between logos and ergon, and the refusal to recognise that their neglectful attitude undermines their very identity and thus their security.6 This, I argue, is what resonates throughout the deliberative speeches rather than an ‘anti-Macedonian’ or ‘Philippic’ rhetoric. 7 Indeed, statements such as ‘Philippic I is the first act of the drama of Demosthenes and Philip’ overlook the extent to which the drama is actually between Demosthenes and a broken Assembly. 8 Such approaches reveal a desire for a ‘drama’ which fits neatly into a grand historical narrative requiring, with hindsight, a smooth transition from ‘Classical’ to ‘Hellenistic’ Greece. By looking for one thing, they fail to see what else is occurring within the speeches, and the construction of this drama with Philip distracts scholarship from what I argue was the main event, a far more immediate and compelling one to Demosthenes and his contemporaries: the crisis within Athens itself. I.1 The Fallacy of a ‘Philippic’ model This doctoral thesis grew out of an MA dissertation on Ciceronian invective in his Philippics. My initial plan was to define a ‘Philippic’ model of invective drawn from – what I then considered to be - the original Philippic writer: Demosthenes. In the course of my research, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the idea that such a paradigm, as set out in 6 Rather than the traditional view of a logos/ergon antithesis associated mainly with Thucydides (Parry 1957), I argue that Demosthenes views logos and ergon as necessary (not opposite) parts of effective decision-making. Logos without ergon is empty and vain; ergon without consideration is rash. Demosthenes does not want them to replace one with the other, but to use both effectively. 7 Indeed, I argue that Philippic rhetoric is a Ciceronian creation that is applied retrospectively to Demosthenes. This has created an impression of Demosthenes, where people think they know him without the need to read his speeches: Carlier 1990: 7 ‘Parler de Démosthène: notait déjà un humoriste de l'Anitquité, est plus facile que parler d'Homère, car il n'est pas indispensable de lire son oeuvre’. Carlier is perhaps referring to pseudo-Lucian’s comparison of Homer and Demosthenes in his In Praise of Demosthenes, but Carlier’s comment that you do not have to have read Demosthenes is something quite different. 8 Ellis and Milns 1970: 11. 3 Wooten’s Cicero’s Philippics and their Demosthenic Model, could be derived from Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches. 9 I was increasingly drawn to the conclusion that ‘Philippic’ as a form of invective rhetoric is a Ciceronian construction. Backwards projection of Cicero’s Philippics has played a role in fostering a false assumption that Demosthenes’ Philippics are defined by an anti-Macedonian agenda in the same manner as Cicero’s systematic attack on Antony. 10 Cicero’s Second Philippic does indeed resonate strongly with Demosthenes’ forensic speech On the Crown, delivered in 330, and it is the popularity of this speech that has been decisive in associating Demosthenes’ deliberative corpus with Ciceronian ‘Philippic’ invective. 11 The ad hominem invective and character assassination in these two speeches is contrary to the norms of the Athenian Assembly, and hence it is no surprise that they are absent in Demosthenes’ deliberative corpus. In spite of this, On the Crown is presented as a crystalisation of Demosthenes’ speeches. 12 However, to approach the speeches before Chaeronea as if Demosthenes had the same foresight (pronoia) that he is able to claim retrospectively in On the Crown, presents a false impression that Demosthenes’ 9 I argue that the influence of Wooten 1989 has promoted this misleading association, particular in his view that ‘the best way to approach these [Cicero’s speeches] would be to compare them with those of Demosthenes against Philip of Macedon’ (Wooten 1989: ix). Wooten’s priority is Cicero, and I argue he approaches Demosthenes with a Ciceronian lens. In suggesting that ‘it is only through a penetration into their psyches that we can truly understand, and thus justify, the stands they took’, this approach risks an anachronistic assumption that we can ever access the psyches of Classical orators. It also tries to make Demosthenes fit a Ciceronian model, which misses the different purposes of their speeches, and risks glossing over significant difference in the oratory of Democratic Athens and the Roman Republic. 10 A case in point being the description of the Trevett 2011 translation of speeches 1-17 on the University of Texas Press website, ‘the Philippic speeches later inspired the Roman orator Cicero in his own attacks against Mark Antony, and became one of Demosthenes' claims to fame throughout history.’ This can be fairly said about On the Crown, but not of the deliberative speeches in this volume. 11 Ramsey 2003: 17 -18 notes that as early as June 60, Cicero had associated his Antonian speeches to Demosthenes’ Philippics (Atticus 2.1.3), and that On the Crown bears the closest resemblance to Cicero’s Second Philippic. Ramsey also adds that in De optimo genere oratorum 14 Cicero claims to have recently translated, or intends to produce a translation of Demosthenes’ On the Crown and Aeschines’ speech. Yunis 2007: 372 notes that ‘at one time the speech [On the Crown] was considered one of the greatest literary and rhetorical masterpieces and determined how the fourth-century struggle between Greece and Macedonia was understood.’ Swain 1996: 94 notes how On the Crown was a ‘much loved oration’ by the Second Sophistic. Such as Kennedy 1963: 224-227 who discusses Demosthenes’ public speeches up to On the Crown before discussing the fall of Olynthus and the Peace of Philocrates. (See too Kennedy 1993: 74-5). As Kennedy can be considered a key introductory text for students approach Classical rhetoric, his presentation of Demosthenes is very influential and formative in scholarship. 12 4 career was dedicated to fighting Philip and risks an anachronistic misunderstanding of the speeches.13 Moreover, it has created a version of ‘Demosthenes’ which is more the product of reception than a reflection of his deliberative speeches in their true historical context. Indeed, this view arguably shaped Demosthenic reception, where a stereotyped idea of ‘Demosthenes’ became a part of the social memory of democratic Athens, crafted and transformed to suit the needs of the times. It was an idealised Demosthenes that Cicero emulated in his political swansongs and this idealised (and arguably Ciceronian) Demosthenes was emphasised further in Plutarch’s pairing of the two orators in his Parallel Lives.14 The patriotic and ‘pure’ Demosthenes was standardised and emulated in the Second Sophistic, and in the Early Modern Period Demosthenes became the ideal defender of freedom and duty: Thomas Wilson used his translations to advise Elizabeth I on an alliance with the Netherlands to block Spanish expansionism. 15 With readers seeing their own milieu in the tropes of Classical Athens, it was Demosthenes who was Pickard-Cambridge’s ‘Hero of the Nation’ following the aggressive mobilisation and increasingly volatile climate of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Europe, and Winston Churchill viewed Hitler as a new Philip.16 The very idea of Demosthenes has become a product of cultural memory, epitomised in Carlier’s statement that speaking about Demosthenes is easier than talking about Homer, Mader 2007b: 341 makes the key point that Demosthenes’ self-portrait in On the Crown is ‘with the benefit of hindsight’, and that pronoia is ‘by definition valourised only ex eventu and with historical hindsight…at the time of his political debut in the 350s no such claim was possible.’ However, I believe Mader’s additional caveat ‘(although he is demonstrably laying the groundwork)’ falls into this false teleology, and is a result of his view that On the Crown is the idealised summation of ‘the period of his anti-Macedonian agitation.’ (Mader 2007b: 340.) I agree with the retrospective rhetorical use of pronoia in On the Crown, but I do not agree that this informs our understanding of Demosthenes’ speeches before Chaeronea. 13 14 Also Plutarch also frequently uses Cicero as a source, e.g. Cicero’s Second Philippic for his Life of Antony. Evoking the situation at Olynthus. Peltonen 2013: 108-11 notes that Wilson wrote ‘he that loues hys countrye, and desires to procure the welfare of it, let him reade Demosthenes, and he shall not want matter to doe hymselfe good’ (jr-v); Wilson’s translations of the Philippics and Olynthiacs in 1570 show how ‘classical sources were seen as being directly relevant to the early modern world of politics and the extent to which they advocated liberty and wide civic participation.’ 15 16 Pickard-Cambridge 1914. Worthington 2013: 343-344. Richard 2009: 6 suggests that Churchill drew solace from the example of Demosthenes as a martyr of freedom. 5 because it is not necessary to read any of his works.17 This is a fundamental problem as this stereotype maintains a specific and preconditioned image of Demosthenes, which places limits on the variable interpretations of the speeches, and overshadows how his arguments were independent of Philip. In removing the ‘Philippic’ lens, I argue that Demosthenes’ reputation as ‘the uncompromising defender of liberty’, should not be solely measured in terms of Philip, but in terms of his defence of democracy within Athens itself.18 Removing this lens also saves Demosthenes from the obligation of being the ‘hero’ and enables a new perspective to understand his speeches as a discussion on Athenian democracy. I.2 A Third Wave: the middle path In his discussion on the burden of the Athenian past in On the Crown, Yunis presents the two overarching trends that have dominated Demosthenic scholarship: the ‘Old Literary Model’ that upheld the post-classical heroic ‘Demosthenes’ with reverence, and the critical historical theorists, most notably George Cawkwell, who sought to re-evaluate Demosthenes’ historical reliability and the soundness of his policy. 19 Both approaches have their flaws: the students of rhetoric ‘simply perpetuated that old literary model whilst labelling Cawkwell an extremist’ and in ignoring his argument have ‘failed to perceive that the work of Cawkwell and other historians has rendered the old literary model of Demosthenic rhetoric obsolete.’ 20 The 17 Carlier 1990: 7 noted above. The influence of Carlier 1990 should not be underestimated, Carlier was the most complete treatment of Demosthenes before the publications of Worthington 2000; 2013. One of the most recent descriptions of Demosthenes is Brun 2015: cover description ‘défenseur intransigeant de la démocratie.’ Hernández-Muñoz 2013b also demonstrates this tendancy to view Demosthenes fighting Philip in the defence of democracy by his title ‘Demóstenes vs. Filipo: la democracia en juego’ Demosthenes vs. Philip: democracy at stake. 18 19 Yunis 2007: 374-6. The old literary model as seen in Pickard-Cambridge 1914, Clemenceau 1926, Jaeger 1938. For recent scholarship I add Carlier 1990, Karvounis 2000 and Wooten 2009. For the critical theorist Yunis lists Schäfer 1885-7, Beloch 1922. Cawkwell 1978, Ellis 1976, Griffith 1979. Yunis notes in particular that Cawkwell ‘completely reversed the traditional assessment of Demosthenes.’ Yunis 2007: 377 citing Schindel 1987 and Carlier 1990. I particularly object to Carlier’s comment that you do not have to have read any of Demosthenes’ works to know him (1990: 7). This is an example of the assumptions that I wish to challenge in this thesis. 20 6 historians, however, in their focus on historical value and utility, fail to see how Demosthenes offers an ‘anti-utilitarian perspective on action…the expression of a way of life, an ideal way of life, that will not be abandoned or sacrificed.’ 21 I arrive at the same conclusion as Yunis, but from a different angle: both of these traditions, in my opinion, view Demosthenes’ speeches through the lens of conflict with Philip and thus continue the notion that Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches are fundamentally anti-Macedonian.22 Consequently, I believe they hinder the nuances within Demosthenes’ rhetoric and miss his contribution to our understanding of Athenian identity, ideology, and the use of social memory in fourth-century Athens.23 Yunis offers a middle path, which responds to the complaints of the critical theorists without needing to challenge them. 24 His focus is not an evaluation of Demosthenes’ policy, but rather on his method of persuasion. Yunis accounts Demosthenes’ success to his decision to move outside of a success-oriented model of politics, to appeal to the Athenians’ sense of identity and ideology.25 Demosthenes returned to the tropes of Homeric and tragic poetry that resonated with his mass audience, where actions were judged on their moral integrity rather than their actual outcome (essentially the means, not the end). 26 Rather than admitting fault in On the Crown, Demosthenes presents his advice as correct even in the hindsight of defeat, 21 Yunis 2007: 385, and Hampshire 1978. 22 I believe one of the reasons my thesis draws the conclusions it does is because I approach Demosthenes outside of these traditional frameworks of scholarship. It is important to note the wide opinions on what constitutes ‘ideology’, as Eagleton 1994: 15 notes it ‘can mean, too vaguely “thought” or too narrowly, “false ideas which help to legitimate an unjust political power”. The term may be pejorative, as with Marx or Mannheim, positive as (sometimes) with Lenin, or neutral, as with Althusser.’ See further discussion on ideology at section I.3. 23 24 Yunis specifically addresses Cawkwell 1969 who could not understand why the Athenians chose to endorse Demosthenes’ policy when it led to the Athenian defeat at Chaeronea. Todd 1993: 306 ‘Athenian public discourse rest on a success-oriented model of politics in which incompetence is criminal.’ In this I believe Demosthenes appeals to the virtues of Athenian ideology which transcend the realities of defeat. 25 Yunis 2007: 380. Actions were ‘evaluated as admirable or contemptible, noble or base, good or bad, without regard to their success or failure on a scale of advantage or disadvantage. He adds that the models of Homeric and tragic poetry offered the advantage of being ‘well accepted and even cherished’ by the dēmos. 26 7 because it was the only honourable course of action: ‘the city could not have departed from that policy, if she had any regard for honour, or for our ancestors, or for the days that are to come.’27 Reminding them too of their role at Marathon, Demosthenes used the ‘burden of the past’ to transcend practical realities and create ‘an emotionally resonant awareness of the rightness of action.’ 28 My approach takes this middle path, seeking neither to maintain Demosthenes as a literary hero nor to analyse his historical accuracy. I argue that the use of the Athenian past to define ‘a whole way of life’ resonates throughout Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches. 29 I develop this beyond Yunis’ argument, as I believe Demosthenes equates the practical concerns facing Athens with their failure to live up to their ancestral ideology. 30 In removing Philip as the target, I argue that the burden of the Athenian past plays a critical role in Demosthenes’ method to confront the corruption within the Assembly. Important to this approach is Steinbock’s research on how the ideological and emotive power of shared memories offers more than empty rhetorical phrases, or propaganda, but is a crucial factor in political decision-making.31 I link Yunis’ approach to Steinbock’s assertion that references to the past by the orators were not attempts at historical accuracy, but rather sought to engage with the historical consciousness of the Athenian community where past events became symbols of national character. 32 I argue that Demosthenes uses the burden of the Athenian 27 Demosthenes 18.199. 28 Yunis 2007: 384. 29 Yunis 2007: 385. Whilst Yunis 2007: 389 argues that the burden of the past was used retrospectively, and ‘may have played no role at all in the formulation of the original policy,’ I suggest it did. 30 Steinbock 2013: 4. Steinbock 2013: 2 notes that his central premise is that he deals with ‘social memory and not history per se.’ 31 32 Steinbock 2013: 2. Steinbock, like Yunis, addresses the complaints of the critical historians by offering a new approach to the old problem of understanding historical allusions in oratory. Steinbock 2013: 7 argues that ‘collective memories generally do not stand up to the scrutiny of professional historians’, but he argues that they are real in the sense that they remember community, and that remembering shapes ‘collective identity and determines their friends and enemies.’ On historical events becoming symbols of national character through memory see A. Assmann 2001: 6824. 8 past to engage with the collective self-understanding of the dēmos, using Athenian social memory as a persuasive technique to trigger cues within the dēmos that are generative, implicitly motivating them to reflect self-critically by reminding them of the ideology to which they subscribe, and how their current behaviour is antithetical to Athenian identity. I.3 Interpellation and the Assembly as a self-aware collective of Athenian Citizens My approach presupposes the self-identification of the Assembly as Athenian, and can be illuminated using Althusserian ideas on interpellation. Louis Althusser argued that ‘ideology interpellates individuals as subjects,’ and that ‘there is no ideology except by the subject and for the subjects.’ 33 To explain this Althusser asserts that ‘all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects.’ 34 From this, he then states that ideology ‘transforms the individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) by that very precise operation which I have called interpellation or hailing.’35 To demonstrate this, Althusser famously uses the example of a policeman in the street hailing, ‘Hey, you there!’ He continues that: Assuming that the theoretical scene I have imagined takes place in the street, the hailed individual will turn around. By this mere one-hundred-and-eighty-degree physical conversion, he becomes a subject. Why? Because he has recognised that the hail was ‘really’ addressed to him, and that ‘it was really him who was hailed’ (and not someone else).36 Brady and Shirato define interpellation as ‘the process whereby power calls, addresses and categorises subjects’, and it is in this most essential form that I apply 33 Althusser 1977: 115. 34 Althusser 1977: 117. 35 Althusser 1977: 118. 36 Althusser 1977: 118. 9 Althusser’s theory of interpellation on my view of the Athenian Assembly as a collective of Athenian citizens. By considering oratory as an Ideological State Apparatus (as MorsteinMarx does for the Roman Republic37) and noting that oratory is the medium through which democracy functions as both logos and political praxis, my approach presupposes that by simply addressing the Assembly, Demosthenes takes part in the process of addressing and categorising which constructs his audience as Athenian citizens. Specifically, when Demosthenes addresses the Assembly, in that interpellative moment, ‘ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι’, he hails the dēmos as – categorically – Men of Athens. This hail, however, only makes sense with a collective and prior understanding of what being ‘men of Athens’ means, and in accepting the hail – the Assembly becomes a constructed subject: a collective of Athenian citizens. This is not necessarily a passive process, as interpellation also involves understanding ideological discourse. 38 As such, my view of interpellation is not as authoritarian a process as Althusser suggests. I propose that, in practice, oratory hails its audience within a collective ideological framework of shared knowledge – knowledge of what it means to be an Athenian citizen in fourth-century Athens, and this is key to the interpellative process.39 Indeed, I argue that this can be considered the same knowledge that Ober defines as ‘democratic knowledge’: Athenian civic ideology was founded neither on a formal constitution, nor on a set of epistemological certainties, but rather on a socially and politically constructed truth regime that I call ‘Democratic knowledge’. The practical functioning of democratic knowledge depended on the implicit willingness of the citizen-participants to accept Morstein-Marx 2004: 16 views oratory as an ISA if one considers ‘oratory in the contro as ideological discourse and acknowledge the force of Althusser’s observation that individual subjects are produced by discourse and located thereby within ideology.’ 37 38 Močnik 2013: 311. 39 Just as Wohl 1998: xxxiii argues that ‘tragedy interpellated its audience as Athenian citizens.’ 10 the truths they lived by as political artefacts rather than as absolutes denoted by a transcendent natural order. 40 Thus, Athenian deliberative oratory rested on presuming the collective understanding of both speakers and addressees, which in turn informs the democratic decision-making process.41 Hunt’s definition of ideology likewise views ‘a system of intellectual beliefs and emotional judgments’, comprised from ‘the opinions and principles which are common to the great majority’, and is therefore far removed from the early Marxist sense of ideology as a means for the ruling classes ‘to secure the consent of their subordinates to be ruled’, in an oppressive manner.42 Like Ober and Hunt, I take for granted that the Athenian Assembly function upon a system of collective knowledge, with established ideas regarding their ideology and identity, informed by their historical consciousness and carriers of social memory (via institutions such the epitaphioi logoi, civic theatrical performances, historiography, philosophy and public monumental architecture). 43 In answer to her question ‘what practically speaking, is the milieu and the means by which collective identity and values are shaped?’, Kallet-Marx uses the example of Pericles’ funeral oration as a unifier of different types of people, collected as Athenians, and in doing so asserts that: A unified “dēmos” or “the Athenians” does not exist as a fact or reality, however; it has to be constructed, reconstructed and reinforced by rhetoric.44 40 Ober 1994: 103. Ober 1993: 106 ‘Athenian Assembly speakers based their arguments on democratic knowledge, which took for granted both a citizenry with a good grasp of past and present political practices and the validity of public opinion.’ See too Ober 1989a 156-79; 177-82. 41 42 Hunt 1998: 19- 20; Ober 1989: 38. Steinbock 2013: 14. Eagleton 1994: 13. Ober 2008: 197 notes ‘As carriers of readily accessible informational content, public monuments may present spectators with a commonly available, relatively clear, and therefore “unitary” account of some aspect of shared culture or history.’ Ober 2008: 202 continues that ‘Democratic Athens stands out among the Greek poleis in its efforts to construct and improve inward facing public spaces.’ 43 While it is impossible to say that all citizens in the Assembly would have read Thucydides or Isocrates, I believe we can postulate that those who had access to these thinkers arguably would have been politically active and present at debates on important issues, such as the decision to send aid to Olynthus. As such, I argue that there would have been an informed section of the dēmos present for the speeches discussed in this thesis. 44 Kallet-Marx 1994: 326. 11 It is this collective awareness, which unites the Athenians as the dēmos, that I argue Demosthenes both presumes and engages with when he hails them in his speeches. This framework emphasises that engagement with ideology is by definition implicit: as Althusser notes, ‘one of the effects of ideology is the practical denegation of the ideological character of ideology by ideology: ideology never says ‘I am ideological’. 45 Likewise, Demosthenes does not need to be obviously ideological as ideology is never obvious – that in itself is the point, particularly if we consider ideology as non-historical, ‘ideology has always-already interpellated individuals as subjects, which amounts to saying that individuals are always-already interpellated by ideology as subjects, which necessarily leads us to one last proposition: individuals are always-already subjects.’46 Consequently, all addresses to the dēmos engage within this ideological framework. Indeed, in noting Althusser’s use of Pascal’s maxim ‘Kneel down, move your lips in prayer...you will believe’, ideology does not even require a belief in the ideology but it is rather a matter of habit and practice. 47 The simplicity of this hail of the dēmos may appear trivial, but as Rehmann observes this is ‘exactly what Althusser is trying to demonstrate. It is in this very obviousness, this self-evident reaction of all of us (namely, that when called we turn around), that the ideological subjection has its foundation.’ 48 That being said, while I argue that Demosthenes’ ideological engagement with the dēmos is not necessarily complex or deliberate, but simply the nature of being an Athenian orator in the fourth century, I do argue that his references engage with the collective knowledge of the Assembly, and arguably prescribe the mores of their ancestors in a didactic pedagogical manner. To this end, I maintain that Demosthenes uses the awareness and burden 45 Althusser 1977: 118. 46 Althusser 1977: 119. 47 Althusser 1977: 114. 48 Rehmann 2013: 156. 12 of the Athenian past to remind the Assembly of the behaviours that define Athenian ideology, as a means to explain and resolve their current crisis. As such, interpellations to the dēmos as Athenians are a matter of consciousness reflecting upon itself, and I argue that Demosthenes’ rhetoric relies upon the subjection, self-identification, self-narratives and collective consciousness of the dēmos as Athenian. 49 I.4 The Idea of Athens: Epitaphic and Thucydidean Parallels This thesis, therefore, draws upon intertextual parallels from historiography and oratory, which form an integral part of the intellectual tradition of Demosthenes’ Athens. Indeed, in drawing such parallels, we can view Demosthenes’ speeches as part of the wider intellectual conversations on Athenian identity, and in doing so reveal nuances in his oratory that have previously been unavailable due to an overwhelming focus on these speeches as ‘Philippic’. Consequently, the idea of Athens, what constitutes Athenian identity, and how the Athenians view themselves (and wish to be perceived), is in my opinion, integral to Demosthenes’ argument throughout these speeches. Through his use of social memory, which ‘creates collective identity by giving individuals a shared image of their past, providing them with an explanation of the present and a vision of the future’, I propose that Demosthenes presents a specific version of Athenian identity to confront the Assembly with the realities of their internal identity crisis. 50 By reminding them of their past actions during the Persian and Corinthian War, Demosthenes reasserts the behaviour expected of Athenians 49 On counsciousness and reflection Brady and Schirato 2011: 117 make links to Nietzsche 1887 (1956). 50 Steinbock 2013: 7. Steinbock 2013: 8n22 supports his argument with A. Assmann 2001: 6824 on how social memory is also known as ‘cultural memory’ or ‘believed history’ or ‘intentional history’; Fentress and Wickham 1992: 25 define it as an ‘expression of collective experience’; Gehrke 2001: 286 uses ‘intentional history’; Misztal 2003: 158 ‘a group’s representation of its past…that enacts and gives substance to that group’s identity, its present conditions and its vision of the future.’ 13 by Athenians, and juxtaposes their current state to their virtuous past actions. 51 Demosthenes’ persuasion relies on their collective memory to urge his fellow-citizens to recognise their moral degeneration and equates their external problems with their failure to act in manner worthy of their past. 52 While Demosthenes’ use of social memory rests on what Gehrke defines as the ‘interdependence between the Athenians’ historical experience and their resultant self-image’, it also relies on using the emotive response that memories of past events trigger, as a method of persuasion. 53 In this regard, I propose that there are parallels between the praise and didactic functions of the funeral oration (epitaphios logos) and Demosthenes’ own balance of praise and blame to support his persuasion with the emotive power of their ancestral identity. 54 In particular, my argument develops from Loraux’s research on how the epitaphioi logoi praise: an imaginary, or at least ideal, city…in this sense, and in this sense only, the oration may be called ideological, since it expresses what the city wants to be in its own eyes rather than describing what it is in reality. It has been said that “at all times…the Polis is at once a reality and an ideal.” 55 Loraux 1986: 86 speaks of how the epitaphios logos preserves ‘the athanatos mnėmē (immortal memory) of the city’, which I view as linked to their immutable ideology, untouchable and essentially unchanging, despite specific political situations and contexts. 51 Steinbock 2013: 30: for the Attic orators, social memory ‘provides a pool of collective experience for the perception and analysis of present realities, but it also serves as a repository of symbols and metaphors.’ This builds upon Ober 1989: 40 who writes that ‘communication between the members of a society, especially in the context of political decision making, will make use of symbols (metaphors, signs) which refer to and derive from ideology…thought and perception, and therefore language, are symbolic and metaphoric; thus, communication is based on complex and intertwined symbolic references and cross-references.’ 52 53 Gehrke 2003: 22 in Steinbock 2013: 20. Steinbock 2013: 38 remarks that to view oratorical references to the past as rhetorical commonplaces ‘ignores that the memories of these events were deeply meaningful to the respective community.’ Ober 1989: 44 argues that rhetorical topoi were ‘familiar but certainly not empty of content. Indeed, topoi were reiterated precisely because of their symbolic value’ and their power to influence an audience. 54 Steinbock 2016: 51 notes the didactic function of the use of the past in the epitaphioi logoi. Loraux 1986: 251 citing Ehrenberg 1937: 158. Loraux 1986: 42 views the epitaphios logos as ‘a way of conceiving of Athenian history between the fragmented time of battle and the paradigmatic timelessness of the citizen’ valour. It is a discourse on “democracy”, the geometric locus of arête, forever protected from conflicts and tensions…it is a political genre in which, governed by civic laws, the logos becomes in turn a civic norm for speaking of Athens. From epitaphios to epitaphios, a certain idea that the city wishes to have of itself emerges, beyond the needs of the present.’ 55 14 I argue that Demosthenes utilises a relationship between the past/ideal and current Athens in his deliberative oratory by presenting both of these images to the Assembly: their current state and their full potential. Demosthenes’ proposals are essentially to act in a manner worthy of the city and approach their deliberations in the same manner as their ancestors. Such reminders of their past behaviour presents an impression of an eternal aspect of Athenian honour – it can always be emulated and achieved, and Athenians are reminded of this annually in the institution of the epitaphios logos, which presents an eternal and immutable form of Athenian ideology as a consistent reminder to the Athenians of their own expectations. As Loraux remarks: the funeral oration wants to be the political expression of the city as a whole, and to ensure the cohesion of Athenians against others, it must first proclaim it to the Athenians themselves. Is it not the peculiarity of the epideictic oration, which was always bound up with traditional values, to “strengthen a disposition to action by increasing adhesion to the values that it exalts?” 56 I argue that Demosthenes’ rhetoric likewise takes on this peculiarity (perhaps unconsciously) and through his parrhēsia he provokes the Assembly to shake off their detrimental attitudes and be inspired to act in a manner worthy of their past. Just as the epitaphioi logoi function as ‘the most official of lessons’, and offer a coherent reality on ‘the unchanging lesson that they had to draw from the city’s shifting affairs’, I argue that Demosthenes’ arguments throughout these speeches use an awareness of the past, and the expectations of Athenian identity, to safely criticise the current Assembly via their collective awareness of their ancestral deeds, and thus didactically instructs the Assembly to conform to these civic norms. 57 This, again, 56 Loraux 1986: 253, citing Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1970: 66-67. Loraux 1986: 144; 189. Steinbock 2013: 51 notes in the funeral oration ‘the praise of past and recent Athenian achievements…was normative, and all Athenians were encouraged to emulate their example.’ Clarke 2008: 312 comments on oratory’s ‘symbiotic relationship with the “official tradition” of the dēmos both influencing and being determined by it.’ Cf. also Thomas 1989: 202, cited by Clarke that ‘the vision of Athenian history presented in 57 15 is not necessarily explicit as Brady and Schirato observe with Judith Butler, ‘norms are usually implied rather than explicitly articulated; they are neither rules nor laws,’ and are discernible ‘most clearly and dramatically in the effects that they produce.’ 58 Equally informative for the deliberative speeches are the parallels that can be drawn between Demosthenes’ opinions on rhetoric and Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. While such parallels potentially suggest that Demosthenes was an informed reader of Thucydides, and that the History may have been formative to his oratory, such a discussion is not the priority of this current research. 59 Thus my approach does not analyse whether Demosthenes consciously modelled his rhetoric on Thucydides, but rather considers the History as an informative part of the wider collective intellectual milieu of fourth-century Athens, which informs the Assembly’s ‘democratic knowledge’. In particular, the History is important for understanding the role of the advisor in democratic Athens, and in understanding Demosthenes’ similar, yet different, approach to the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric in mass decision-making. Nevertheless, Demosthenes’ association with Pericles was already noted in antiquity, and most recently Yunis and Mader have suggested Demosthenes consciously modelled his deliberative oratory on: oratory must express what orators and dēmos know’. Hunt 2010: 20 notes that because the epitaphioi logoi ‘aim to appeal to a mass audience, they allow us to discern the guiding ideals of Athenian policy.’ 58 Brady and Schirato 2011: 105, with reference to Butler 2004: 41. Edwards 1994:36 notes that Demosthenes ‘made an extensive study of prose literature, including Thucydides, Plato and the orators.’ Hornblower 2011: 295 observes a resonance between Demosthenes and Thucydides particularly between the Third Philippic 9.30 and the Melian Dialogue. I argue that Demosthenes’ speeches demonstrate what Fromentin and Gotteland 2015: 15 describe as the ‘second moment in the reception of Thucydides in antiquity […] when his presence becomes an influence, when his history moved from being a work of reference to being a model worthy of imitation.’ While they are referring to a later period in history, I think Demosthenes’ use of Thucydides demonstrates an understanding of the History beyond just reference, but as formative and influential on his own idea developments. 59 16 the civic rhetoric of (the Thucydidean) Pericles, whose special ability was not just to persuade the assembly but to instruct them as well, and that instruction (didaxis) is also a defining feature in Demosthenes’ symbouleutic project. 60 Demosthenes particularly draws on Pericles as the ideal adviser to defend his criticism of the dēmos with the ‘canonical virtues’ of Pericles as an honest, incorruptible patriot. 61 I propose that Demosthenes appears to draw parallels with ‘Periclean’ virtues to give his advice a sense of authority, and to temper the criticism of his blunt parrhēsia.62 While there is an element that all advisors would have sounded ‘Periclean’, Demosthenes’ awareness of Thucydides throughout the corpus appears as more than just a coincidence or topoi of advice.63 Furthermore, Demosthenes’ criticisms of the dēmos also draw parallels to Thucydidean complaints at popular rhetoric in the Mytilenean debate. Thucydides presents the problems of demagogues and an indecisive malleable Assembly, where the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric displayed by both Cleon and Diodotus equates to an Assembly that is both suspicious of, but ultimately helpless to, the deception of others. As Hesk notes, Thucydides favours neither of them, but rather reveals the counter-productive and dwindling state of decision-making in a post-Periclean democratic constitution that lacks strong and virtuous leadership.64 Democratic deliberation and effective action is, therefore, at the mercy of its 60 Mader 2007: 155, citing Yunis 1996: 59-86; Wooten 1983: 20, 170; Carlier 1990: 240; Banfi 2003: 207-8. For the association of Demosthenes and Thucydides in antiquity: Plutarch Demosthenes 6.5, 9.2; Zosimus of Ascalon claimed Demosthenes could recite Thucydides in his Life of Demosthenes 2:523 [trans. Müller 1858.] Yunis 1996: 257 notes in particular that to counteract his blunt instructions to the dēmos Demosthenes ‘uses Thucydidean, Platonic and even Aristophanic ideas.’ Cf. Thucydides 2.60.5 ‘And yet if you are angry with me, it is with one who, as I believe, is second to no man either in knowledge of the proper policy, or in the ability to expound it, and who is moreover not only a patriot but an honest one.’ Mader 2007: 10; Yunis 2001: 204. 61 Mader 2007: 165 notes in On the Peace 11-12 that Demosthenes uses Periclean rhetoric in his assertion that ‘if he is outstanding in any respect, it is in virtue of his democratic disposition and public spirit.’ 62 Hesk 1999: 183. Mader 2007: 155 notes that this ‘risks attenuating the close intellectual affiliation between Demosthenes and Thucydides, and by extension also that between the rhētors and the Thucydidean Pericles.’ Mader 2007: 159 also argues that Demosthenes uses Pericles’ pronoia to ‘project himself as symboulos who combines clear-sighted pronoia with fearless criticism of the dēmos.’ I argue that this is to validate his own arguments, but this sense of pronoia is only applicable to the post-peace speeches. 63 64 Hesk 2000: 248-255. 17 citizens and their moral unreliability results in an unstable constitution. Demosthenes’ complaints at a corrupt Assembly that refuses to acknowledge the dangers of basing their decisions on rhetorical flattery resonate with Thucydides’ criticism of democratic deliberation. Demosthenes’ warnings about their errors in judgement mirror the same decision-making errors which Thucydides presents as instrumental to the disastrous Sicilian Expedition. Moreover, his purpose of writing resonates with Thucydides in the potential parallel of the Corinthian war, which Demosthenes uses as a lesson on what the Athenians could achieve when they act in a ‘manner worthy of the city.’ 65 However, Thucydides suggests that Athenian democracy was dependent on individuals such as Pericles, without whom the deliberative-process became a dystopia, and for the notoriously multifaceted Thucydides, Pericles was a tragic hero with an unrealistic vision of Athens.66 For Demosthenes, the problem is not with the democratic-process itself, but the degeneration of its citizens: the corruption of logos is not an inherent fault of the democratic system, but occurs through the deliberate manipulation of citizens to act in a manner that neglects their civic duties. It is not that a post-Periclean democratic system cannot function without a Pericles-figure, but that the dēmos fails to deliberate effectively as a collective. Indeed, it is their failure to recognise that deliberation is a two-way process that rests on the cooperation of individual rhētors and the dēmos, as he asserts in On the Chersonese, which prevents the polis taking effective and informed action. Munn 2006: 201-202, Thucydides ‘was prepared to provide instruction to a democratic council, and to instruct its members on the limits of their abilities to judge the future for the benefit of a democratic state…Thucydides’ ktema es aiei was conceived as a possession for democracy.’ 65 Hesk 2000: 32 notes that just as Thucydides constructs the ideal in Pericles, he likewise “deconstructs” the ideal in Alcibiades where ‘in his account of Alcibiades’ ruse, the historian narrates an unmasking of the way in which national stereotypes are reproduced and given authority. In book 5.45 Alcibiades was fearful that the Spartan delegates would be successful in persuading the Assembly against an Argive alliance: His plan was to drive a wedge between the Spartans and Nicias, and to attack them in the assembly for having no sincerity in their intentions and for never saying the same thing twice. Thucydides 5.45. 66 18 Thus, while Demosthenes’ speeches appear to have parallels to the concerns addressed in Thucydides’ History, Demosthenes, in my opinion, differs crucially in that the polis does not rest on any certain indispensable individual to lead it, but rather requires its individual citizens to uphold Periclean/Athenian virtues to maintain the integrity of their deliberative process. Both Mader and Harding observe this ‘Periclean’ aspect in Demosthenes’ own self-fashioning, noting that the image of Pericles is ‘most conspicuous’ in Demosthenes’ presentation of himself as an advisor, and how ‘Demosthenes chose to play the role of the adviser (σύμβουλος).’ 67 I conclude this thesis with a proposal that Demosthenes’ speeches function as a mirror to the Assembly to confront the reality of their current situation. Throughout the speeches, I maintain that Demosthenes consistently calls on the Athenians to reflect self-critically on their current behaviour, which is juxtaposed with their ancestral Athenian reputation. 68 Whilst Hartog’s two-way mirror in Herodotus serves as a means to define and understand both self and other (and self via other), I maintain that Demosthenes’ rhetoric of reflection functions within Athens as a means to understand the causes of their current crisis, and particularly the divergence between the current Assembly and their ancestral ideology. By confronting the dēmos in such a manner I argue that Demosthenes weaves his criticism of their current behaviour with their idealised past, to motivate them to change.69 As such, this is a crisis of self, not other. 67 Mader 2007: 155. Harding 1987: 36. In this I am deliberately evoking Hartog’s Mirror of Herodotus, but asserting something fundamentally different. To my knowledge, Demosthenes’ speeches are yet to be described as a mirror. Reference to Demosthenes’ actual physical mirror which he practiced in front of are evident in antiquity: Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 11.3.68.2 ‘idiosque Demothenes grande quoddan intuens speculum composonere’; Plutarch, Demosthenes 11.1; Apuleius Apologia 15. Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant 1997: 78 in Dan l’Oeil du miroir comment on how Demosthenes’ mirror was exceptional for its size (Le miroir de Démosthène, miroir masculine et professionnel, est exceptionnel aussi par sa taille.) 68 Hartog 1988: 212-4. Hartog’s mirror focused on perceiving the Scythians through inversion and the rhetoric of the ‘other’ where ‘the principle of inversion is thus a means of communicating otherness, by making it easy to comprehend…the inversion is a fiction which “shows how it is” and makes it possible to understand: it is one of the figures of rhetoric which help to elaborate a representation of the world.’ 69 19 I.5 Additional Key Scholarship The work of Ian Worthington is, in my opinion, unparalleled in Demosthenic scholarship and has been invaluable in developing my understanding of the historical and political context of the fourth century. 70 Prior to his 2013 biography on Demosthenes (the first in English for nearly a century), the most detailed treatment of Demosthenes in one volume was Carlier 1990.71 MacDowell’s Demosthenes the Orator likewise presents a thorough account of the Demosthenic corpus and Mader’s series of articles over last two decades provide a fresh and insightful approach to the Demosthenic corpus, and have been informative to my own arguments on Demosthenes’ use of praise and blame, speech-act logic and his frustration at an apathetic Assembly. 72 Roisman’s work on the rhetoric of conspiracy informs my argument that Demosthenes equates the crisis in Northern Greece (of lost Athenian posessions) with the corruption of the deliberative process, through the damaging practices of self-serving rhētors working to undermine the polis.73 However, Roisman’s argument focuses primarily on Demosthenes’ forensic speeches as he argues that ‘Demosthenes does not privilege the rhetoric of conspiracy by, or with Philip in his deliberative speeches.’ 74 This thesis demonstrates that the deliberative speeches do engage with the rhetoric of conspiracy to both explain their current internal crisis, and in Demosthenes’ self-presentation as the dutiful 70 Most notably Worthington 2013; 2014; 2007; 2000 and 1994. 71 As noted by Gagarin 2011: 7. As argued above, I have reservations about Carlier’s opinion on Demosthenes. 72 Mader 2003; 2004; 2006; 2007. I do however, disagree with Mader 2007b in his assertion that there were ‘exemplary moments of self-constitution in the Philippic cycle where Demosthenes, in the thick of things, constructs an ideal version of himself in order to mediate and legitimate his strenuous anti-Macedonian line’ which he views as ‘suggestively externalising the need for the kind of pronoia that Demosthenes claims to embody’ which are on the ‘trajectory leading up to the Crown speech.’ (Mader 2007b: 341) This is from the assumption that Demosthenes’ focus was anti-Macedonian and that the earlier speeches provide evidence that his claim to pronoia in On the Crown was justified and ‘impressive’. As argued above, I view this as a false teleology. 73 I argue that Demosthenes insinuates the concept of enemies within conspiring against Athens as early as the First Philippic in 351. 74 Roisman 2006: 124. 20 citizen who exposes collaborators working to undermine the polis from within the Assembly itself. Likewise, as mentioned above, the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric is important for understanding Demosthenes’ argument that the corruption of logos undermines the deliberative process. My arguments build on Hesk’s work on deception in Athens and how Demosthenes engages in the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric to define his own honest parrhēsia in comparison to the deceptive manipulation of self-serving rhētors. 75 Indeed, in his parrhēsia, Demosthenes assimilates his advice with civic duty, using the constitutional value of isēgoria to assert his own definition of Athenian identity. This is of imperative importance for the speeches discussed in this thesis, given that isēgoria was ‘for Herodotus the very symbol of democracy, or, to be more precise, the most suitable word to describe the Cleisthenean constitution.’76 In the epitaphioi logoi too, Athenian autochthony and the equality of birth is equated with democratic equality through isēgoria and isōnomia.77 Whilst Hansen equates parrhēsia as ‘free speech’ and associates isēgoria with eleutheria (freedom/ liberty) 78, Balot and Monoson note the dangers (both legal and reputational) of engaging with parrhēsia, with Balot noting its use by the Attic orators to stress their patriotism and sincerity, and to generate a form of democratic civic courage. 79 Demosthenes’ parrhēsia could be taken as a Hesk 2000: 208 notes how ‘forensic orators frequently represent themselves as innocent of various procedures associated with rhetorical training and preparation.’ Hesk 1999: 218 observes that for Aristotle the difference between the sophist and the rhētors lay not in a ‘difference in faculty’ (dunamis) but in moral purpose (Prohairēsis).’ Aristotle Rhetoric 1355b18-21. 75 Loraux 1981: 223. Loraux continues that ‘it is in defending isēgoria that Protagoras shows himself to be a theorist of democracy.’ 76 Forsdyke 2012: 136-7 uses the examples of Pericles’ funeral oration in Thucydides and Plato’s Menexenus to demonstrate this association: ‘an equation enhanced rhetorically by the rhyming (in Greek) of the two central concepts: ἰσογονία and ἰσονομία.’ 77 78 Hansen 1991: 400; 83-85. Hansen 1991: 400; 83-85. Monoson 2000: 51-63 discusses the citizen parrhēsiastēs. Balot 2004: 234 observes the risks ‘resulted in the orators’ development of a discourse on civic courage – a virtue that, they claimed, enabled them to steer an honourable course in public life.’ As such, the Orators, ‘rationally justified free speech by linking it to other values, institutions, and practices of the democracy.’ This is particularly evident in Chapter 2.3 Third Olynthiac. For more on free speech and parrhēsia, see Sluiter and Rosen 2004: 7 ‘the parrhêsiast must necessarily believe in the truth of what he is saying, or at least in the fact that to the best of his knowledge what he is saying is true.’ They cite Demosthenes 11.17 as an example, ‘it is not possible to turn away parrhēsia from making clear the 79 21 form of the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric itself, differentiating his logos to popular rhetoric, which he argues corrupts the Assembly’s decision-making process. Demosthenes’ rhetoric of deception also further demonstrates his use of Athenian collective memory in his persuasion, as references to deception build upon ‘shared ideological presuppositions.’ 80 Unless otherwise stated I have used Trevett’s 2011 translations of Demosthenes’ speeches, at times informed by Vince’s 1954 revised Loeb translation. The Greek text is the Butcher 1903 Oxford Classical Text, however, to differentiate between the manuscript variations in the Third Philippic I have followed the Loeb practice of putting the additional Greek into square brackets, as the OCT’s practice of using a decreased font size is not practical in a footnote format. 81 My analysis of the Greek is informed by Wooten’s commentary on the First Philippic, Karvounis’ German commentary on Demosthenes 1-4, Milns and Elis’ analysis on Demosthenes 1-5, and Sandys 1910 and 1920 which, despite the date, is in my opinion still the most informative and accessible commentary for the deliberative corpus. 82 I.6. Methodology I take a chronological approach both in the thesis structure, and in my analysis of the individual speeches, to examine the development of Demosthenes’ arguments sequentially across the deliberative corpus in the context of unfolding events. I believe this approach of situating the speeches firmly within their historical, social and political context is crucial for understanding the development and continuity of Demosthenes’ arguments from 351-341, truth, since it depends on the truth.’ See also Wallace 2004: 221: ‘isēgoria, ‘equal speech’ in public assemblies, was complemented by parrhēsia, open and candid speech in private and public life.’ 80 Kremmydas 2013: 53. 81 This is explained further in the discussion of manuscript ‘S’ in the introduction of Chapter 4.3. 82 Wooten 2009; Karvounis 2000; Milns and Ellis 1969; Sandys 1914 and 1924. 22 and how these on-the-spot reactions are informed by his previous (often failed) arguments. 83 My analysis is not primarily concerned with the debate over the publication of the corpus, but rather the immediacy of the context in which they were delivered to the Assembly. 84 I view the speeches as representative (although not necessarily verbatim) of what Demosthenes delivered to the Assembly, which includes the practical reality that they could be unrevised preparatory drafts or revised accounts after delivery for Demosthenes’ own personal records.85 This view that the texts reflect the actual delivered speech is also suggested by Dionysius’ comment on his emotional reaction when reading the speeches, and how much more extraordinary it must have been to have heard it delivered. 86 Each chapter and speech is introduced with a discussion on the historical context and the relevant debates in scholarship, before my commentary-style analysis of each speech. I have structured my analysis with the traditional divides of oratory (proemium, narrative, argument (proof) and epilogue), however, it is important to note that these are by no means arbitrary and should not be viewed as definite. Indeed, in his analysis of the Olynthiacs, MacGregor emphasised that ‘no attempt has been made to discriminate formally between narrative (διήγησις) and proof (πίστις) since the two are everywhere merged in each other.’ 87 This time-frame is important for understanding that Demosthenes’ speeches do not form a grand systematic plan (such as Cicero’s systematic attack in the space of one year), but are spread across a decade and react to events. 83 84 Trevett 1996: 425 argues that previous views that the deliberative speeches were revised and circulated after delivery [Blass 1893: 49; Kennedy 1963: 204-6; Worthington 1991: 425-8], are ill founded. Trevett argues that there is no reliable evidence to support these views, and rejects the reference of the 3rd Century BC biographer Hermippos by Plutarch (11.4) that Demosthenes’ contemporary Aision commented on the effect of reading the speeches, because as a sole example it does not constitute proof, especially as it does not suggest any deliberate mass circulation. Trevett rather views the speeches as unrevised drafts. Yunis 1996: 243, conversely, uses Hermippos as evidence that Demosthenes circulated his speeches himself. I, however, do not view the speeches as intentional ‘political pamphlets’, nor political fiction. Thomas 2002: 180-1 notes with regard to epideictic speeches that the ‘there is little indication that the written and spoken versions of performances might differ fundamentally in style’, and that written versions show the characteristics suitable for delivery. A sense of similarity could be supported by Plutarch Demosthenes 8, which presents a methodical Demosthenes who practiced/ worked on his speeches the point that he was mocked for smelling like candle oil. Simultaneously, however, we must acknowledge the possible unreliability of late anecdotes of Demosthenes’ life. 85 86 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosthenes 22. Hunter 2003: 218 87 MacGregor 1950: xiv. 23 In my opinion, the divisons of speech are more a product of theory than practice, and as MacDowell observes, ‘some of Demosthenes’ speeches do adopt this arrangement, but not all; it is clear that he did not regard it as a requirement.’88 As such, I have used these divisions for the purposes of presentation and structure, while acknowledging that ‘even in the fourth century, speeches that divide neatly into four parts are fewer than those that do not.’ 89 Indeed, for speeches 8 and 9, I found that my analysis resisted this framework, and that such divisions were particularly unhelpful to present these lengthy speeches and Demosthenes’ repeated and layered argumentation. In this regard, and following my chronological approach, I have prioritised the immediate historical context of the speeches over a focus on rhetorical theory. Part One examines the Pre-Peace of Philocrates speeches: the First Philippic (Chapter One) and the Olynthiacs (Chapter Two). Following a discussion on the Peace of Philocrates, its aftermath and On the Peace, Part Two examines the Post-Peace speeches. These maintain that the deterioration of Athens’ external situation is a direct product of their failure to address their internal crisis. Chapter One examines the First Philippic and what I consider to be Demosthenes’ core arguments for the corpus. I argue that his proposals, and his method of juxtaposing praise of their past actions/ Athenian virtues with critical parrhēsia on their present apathy/corruption, are maintained throughout the corpus.90 88 MacDowell 2009: 5. 89 de Brauw 2010: 190. 90 I maintain that these proposals are more than just the topoi of deliberative rhetoric, but a consistent policy maintained by Demosthenes throughout the period between the First Philippic in 351 and the Third Philippic in 341. 24 Chapter Two analyses the three Olynthiac speeches, which reiterate and develop the proposals and methods of the First Philippic in the context of the kairos (opportunity) presented by Olynthus. 91 Chapter Three examines On the Peace and Demosthenes’ view of the crises facing Athens after the Peace of Philocrates. Demosthenes argues that events have now vindicated his previous proposals and, accordingly, I argue that he maintains his original arguments with increased conviction. Chapter Four focuses on Demosthenes Post-Peace speeches: the Second Philippic, On the Chersonese, and the Third Philippic, where Demosthenes continues to confront the internal crisis he challenged in the First Philippic and Olynthiacs.92 This thesis concludes by drawing together the main themes of Demosthenes’ speeches, which centre on asserting a specific version of Athenian identity to confront the internal crisis. C.1 examines Demosthenes’ assertion that the corruption of the Assembly created a hostile and counter-productive environment where democratic functions became essentially paralysed. C.2 concludes how Demosthenes addresses this corruption through social memory and collective self-awareness of the Assembly as a means to persuade them to enact his proposals which become an enactment of their civic duty and idealised identity. 91 Chapter 2.1 First Olynthiac, Chapter 2.2 Second Olynthiac, Chapter 2.3 Third Olynthiac. 92 Chapter 4.1 Second Philippic, Chapter 4.2 On the Chersonese, Chapter 4.3 The Third Philippic. I do not include the Fourth Philippic in my analysis as I contests its authenticity. I argue that its use of repetition and less forceful arguments than those in the Third Philippic suggests it aimed to emulate Demosthenes’ arguments. Worthington 1991: 426 argues that the Fourth Philippic may have been delivered by Demosthenes but not revised for written publication as he argues the first three were. 25 CHAPTER ONE THE FIRST PHILIPPIC This chapter establishes my prime argument that Demosthenes is primarily concerned with confronting an internal crisis within the Athenian Assembly and, consequently, the conceptualisation of the deliberative corpus as principally ‘anti-Macedonian’ is unhelpful. I maintain that the arguments established in the First Philippic are the foundations for his speeches over the next decade, being repeated almost verbatim in the Third Philippic.93 Thus instead of viewing the First Philippic as ‘a prelude to that decade of struggle’ against Philip, my approach asserts that Demosthenes’ struggle is primarily against internal corruption within the Assembly, and the external issues with Philip are actually a product of this internal crisis.94 In my opinion, Demosthenes consistently implores the Athenians to see how their current situation is a direct result of their own apathy and neglect, especially when held up against the ideological exempla of their past actions and ancestors. Rather than attacking Philip, Demosthenes diminishes the image of Philip’s power as it is based upon lost Athenian possessions. This diminishment is used not as a form of invective against Philip, but as a device to shame the Athenians and shift the focus from Philip to their own culpability. Indeed, Demosthenes uses examples from the past to confront the Assembly with their exemplary ancestors, both as a means to explain their current situation (their lack of action), and to remind the Athenians of what can be done when they choose to act. This alternative ‘reality’ asserts that challenging Philip is both a realistic aim, and their duty as the inheritors Worthington 2013: 116 argues that viewing the First Philippic as setting a ‘trend for his later speeches’ results in a ‘misleading impression not only of the speech’s importance but also of when and why Demosthenes focused exclusively on Philip is generated’, however, this complaint is based on viewpoints such as Harding 2006: 244 that Demosthenes became ‘a one-policy politician’ [against Philip] with the First Philippic, and this is not a viewpoint I share but contradict. 94 Badian 2000: 33. Worthington 2013: 116 notes this is because ‘throughout history, Demosthenes has been best remembered for his opposition to Philip. Because of this, a great deal of importance has been attached to the First Philippic.’ 93 26 of the Athenian past. 95 As such the speech rebukes the dēmos so as to force them to reflect self-critically on their current attitude, and confront the neglectful corruption within the Assembly.96 Demosthenes asserts that by simply acting on the situation they will resolve their internal and external issues, and in this approach I differ from Pearson that, ‘the First Philippic is to change the attitude of the Assembly towards Philip’, because I argue that Demosthenes maintains the greatest threat to Athens is not Philip, but the self-sabotaging practices within the Assembly. 97 I also question Karvounis’ point that Demosthenes had neither to refute nor defend a certain point, which is why there is neither a positive nor a negative argument in this speech: Die Diskussion über Philipp hatte rein präventiven Charakter, obwohl Athen seit dem Vorfall mit Amphipolis theoretisch Krieg gegen Philipp führte. Aufgrund des Diskussionsthemas hatte Demosthenes weder einen bestimmten Punkt zu widerlegen noch einen anderen zu verteidigen; deshalb gibt es in dieser Rede weder eine positive noch einer negative Beweisführung. 98 As I argue below, Demosthenes states in the proemium that he is taking a new direction from other speakers, thus creating a new and consistent argument against the apathy of the Assembly and the consequences of their negligence. Date The date of the First Philippic, much like the ordering of the three Olynthiac orations, is still a matter of debate, but general consensus dates it to 351.99 This is based largely on Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Letter To Ammaeus where he provides dates for the Demosthenic corpus, 95 Yunis 2006 analyses this concept with regard to On the Crown. Which I argue includes the corruption of logos by the abuse of rhetoric, their misguided priorities, and the gap between logos and ergon. 97 Pearson 1976: 125. 98 Karvounis 2002: 233. 99 Trevett 2011: 69; MacDowell 2009: 211-113; Worthington 2013: 117; Badian 2000:11. 96 27 and Blass’ systematic approach, which remains the basis of most scholarship. 100 Blass dates the speech to the second half of 351 making reference to Philip’s Thracian campaign, but adds how the dating for the First Philippic was contested in antiquity. Indeed in Blass’ own time Dionysius’ view that the speech was split in two, was proven inadmissible. 101 While some scholars are sceptical of Dionysius’ dates, Badian argues that Sealey’s 1955 survey proves that they are reliable where we can test them. 102 I assume a date of 351, based on Demosthenes’ reference to Philip’s ‘sudden campaigns from his own land to Thermopylae and the Chersonese and Olynthus’. 103 This would date the speech to after Philip’s victory at Crocus field in 352 when the Athenians stopped his continued march south at Thermopylae, but before Philip took Heraion Teichos, which was after he returned to Pella. 104 Moreover, the rumours of Philip’s death/ illness at 4.10-11 would arguably put it after the siege of Methone in 355 where Philip took an arrow to the eye.105 Furthermore, I propose that we can rule out a terminus ante quem of 349/8 because the level of concern for Olynthus is certainly not at the stage of Olynthiacs where the threat against them has intensified. 106 100 Dionysius of Halicarnassus To Ammeaus 1.4. Blass 1877: 261-265. Blass 1877: 262, ‘Die erste philippische Rede fällt in die zweite Hälfte des attischen Jahres 351, indem hier auf Philipps Erkrankung auf seinem Thrakischen Feldzuge angespielt wird während dort der Redner von diesem Feldzüge noch nichts weiss’ and ‘fand schon im Alterthum Widerspruch, und ist in neuerer Zeit zur Genüge geprüft und als unzulässig erwiesen worden.’ Milns and Ellis 1970: 13 are suspicious of Dionysius’ dates because of his suggestion that this speech was split in two. 102 Those who reject Dionysius: Lane-Fox 1996: 198 suggests 350 and objects to using Dionysius as a reliable source for any Demosthenic dates. MacDowell 2009: 211 argues that due to errors in Dionysius’ dating of Against Meidias ‘we should hesitate before accepting others’, but comes to the same date as 351. Conversely see Badian 2000: 11 with reference to Sealey 1955. Badian also emphasises that it was the influence of Jaeger that saw an acceptance of Dionysius’ dates in German scholarship. Previously it had been influenced by Schwartz 1893’s ‘untenable’ argument for 349, which had only been successful due to the ‘author’s eminence’. Badian 2000:34 continues that Sealey effectively ‘demolished Schwartz’. 103 Demosthenes 4.17. Trevett 2011: 69 ‘the suggestion that the reference [4.17] is to the campaign of 349/8, and has been interpolated into a speech of 352/1, is now rightly rejected.’ 104 Worthington 2013: 114 notes that Philip returned to Pella after the Athenians blocked him passing at Thermopylae, he then joined a coalition of Byzantium, Perinthus and Amadocus to attack Cersebleptes at Heraion Teichos. 105 Worthington 2014: 43. 106 Trevett 2011: 28 notes that ‘since he mentions Olynthus only in passing, some less serious incident than outright war was evidently involved.’ 101 28 Historical Context In dating the speech to 351, its context is rooted in the Social War and Philip’s successful Thracian campaign, which consolidated Macedonian power in the Thracian gulf - notably at the expense of Athenian interests. 107 Following Philip’s capture of Amphipolis in 357, the Athenians declared war on Macedonia, but the subsequent loss of more Athenian possessions in the north Aegean clearly resonate in Demosthenes’ urgent call for a change of attitude and action in the speech.108 Moreover, as the Second Athenian Confederacy increasingly returned to the habits of the fifth-century Delian League, the pressures to recover these possessions (particularly Amphipolis) resulted in the revolt of dissatisfied Athenian allies culminating in the Social War 357-355.109 Athens’ defeat was emphatic, their naval supremacy severely wounded and their finances depleted. In short, ‘Athens after the Social War was a very different city.’ 110 The specific context in which Demosthenes addresses the Assembly is part of an ongoing debate over how to deal with the loss of Amphipolis, the loss of their possessions and the increased presence of Macedonia in areas of Athenian interest. Rather than promoting Worthington 2014: 40 notes in 357 ‘merely two years after becoming king, Philip had unified Macedonia, centralised Pella, and secured his kingdom’s borders from incursions.’ Worthington 2014: 42-3 continues that following his capture of Amphipolis in 357, Philip ‘almost immediately’ captured Pydna, and then seized Potidaea for the Olynthians. Philip then claimed Crenides and founded it as Philippi, and in winter 355 he besieged Methone, the Athenian hold in the north Aegean. Despite Philip’s injury, the city was captured and levelled. Hammond 1994: 30 notes how ‘Capture by violent and sustained assault was an innovation in warfare on the Greek mainland.’ 108 Cartledge 2016:197 notes how from 368 ‘Athens displayed an almost monomaniacal passion to regain control over its original foundation of Amphipolis.’ I argue that the loss of Amphipolis was significant to Athenian timber supplies. As Bissa 2009:123 states, the importance of Amphipolis is illustrated by the reaction to its loss at Thucydides 4.108, ‘The loss of Amphipolis brought great fear to the Athenians, since the polis was particularly helpful to them for the conveyance of shipbuilding timber and revenue.’ 109 Worthington 2013: 65 remarks the allies had ‘resented Athens’ heavy-handed treatment of them. In 356 Chios, Rhodes and Cos, with the support of Byzantium…revolted, thereby instigating the Social war.’ Cartledge 2016: 197-8 argues that one of the reasons for the Social War was Athens’ obsession to recover Amphipolis ‘thereby placing an intolerable burden on allies for whom the restitution of Amphipolis to Athens was far from a pressingly immediate priority.’ For more on the Social War and the decline of the Second Athenian Confederacy see Cawkwell 1962c: 34-49; Cawkwell 1981: 40-54; Badian 1995: 94-95. 110 Worthington 2013: 66. Hammond 1994: 35 remarks that ‘in summer 355 Athens was reduced to impotence.’ Worthington 2013: 67 notes how in Demosthenes 10.37 the orator stated how the annual revenues were only 137 talents contrasted to the thousands in 431. Hunt 2010: 34 notes ‘Athens’ annual revenues were only 45 talents per year after the Social War’. 107 29 an anti-Macedonian agenda, however, I argue that the speech focuses on the Athenians themselves, and the need to resolve their internal shortcomings. Indeed, the speech suggests that their external issues are the result of apathy and a neglect of duty, which provided Philip with an environment to flourish in and exploit. Analysis Proemium The proemium focuses on asserting Demosthenes’ aim to demonstrate how an attitude of apathy with regard to their military expeditions is the root of their declining fortunes. 111 Demosthenes begins, however, by justifying his right to speak, If some new matter were the topic of discussion, men of Athens, I would have waited until most of the regular speakers had given their opinion, and if anything they said pleased me, I would have kept quiet; only if it did not would I have ventured to state my own opinion.112 In this Demosthenes justifies his presumption of taking the bēma when convention of the Assembly dictated that the elder citizens speak first.113 With his apology Demosthenes appeals to the ēthos of the Assembly to listen with goodwill, and justifies his action by 111 In Athens’ defence, this was probably not apathy, but the result of the Social War 357-355 and as Usher 1999: 189-190 states the ‘virtual disintegration of the Second Athenian Confederacy…it was not the time for grandiose schemes propelled by dominant personalities.’ One could, however, counter this with Demosthenes’ argument later that the attitude towards military provisions, in comparison to the Dionysia, demonstrates neglect and misplaced priorities. 112 Demosthenes 4.1 εἰ μὲν περὶ καινοῦ τινος πράγματος προυτίθετ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, λέγειν, ἐπισχὼν ἂν ἕως οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν εἰωθότων γνώμην ἀπεφήναντο, εἰ μὲν ἤρεσκέ τί μοι τῶν ὑπὸ τούτων ῥηθέντων, ἡσυχίαν ἂν ἦγον, εἰ δὲ μή, τότ’ ἂν καὐτὸς ἐπειρώμην ἃ γιγνώσκω λέγειν· 113 Aeschines 3.2 observes ‘the laws enforced which Solon enacted to secure orderly conduct on the part of public speakers; for then it would be permitted to the oldest citizen, as the law prescribes, to come forward to the platform first, with dignity, and, uninterrupted by shouting and tumult, out of his experience to advise for the good of the state and it would then be permitted to all other citizens who wished, one by one in turn, in order of age, to express their opinion on every question.’ The reference to Solon also authenticates the importance of the convention. De Bakker 2010: 398 argues that Demosthenes ‘refers to the platform to secure goodwill for himself, underlining his modesty with the “I would not have mounted the bēma if I was not forced to” topos.’ Whilst this is a topos, I argue that Demosthenes develops the conventional apology to emphasise the necessity of his advice. 30 indicating that, ‘but since we are dealing with matters that these men have often addressed on previous occasions, I think that I can reasonably be forgiven for standing up to speak first.’ 114 This both signifies how is this an ongoing unresolved issue despite previous debates, and that Demosthenes presents his advice as a new alternative to previous speakers. 115 It is precisely this new advice, from a younger speaker who has yet to prove himself in the Assembly, which renders the proemium necessary: according to Aristotle, the Assembly was usually aware of the facts of a debate and, as such, proemia were not required unless the speaker lacked significance in himself, his opponents or his evidence. 116 The proemium is therefore necessary to give Demosthenes’ advice and position authority and protection (particularly when his proposals may not be popular). 117 Secondly, Demosthenes qualifies his right to speak (isēgoria) by continuing that this long-standing issue has remained unresolved due to a lack of good advice, For if they had given the necessary advice in the past, there would be no need for you to be deliberating now. 118 Thus, this is not a new problem, but one that has been exacerbated by their failure to provide good advice. Demosthenes presents himself as a new option and his solution involves 114 Demosthenes 4.1. ἐπειδὴ δ’ ὑπὲρ ὧν πολλάκις εἰρήκασιν οὗτοι πρότερον συμβαίνει καὶ νυνὶ σκοπεῖν, ἡγοῦμαι καὶ πρῶτος ἀναστὰς εἰκότως ἂν συγγνώμης τυγχάνειν. As he develops his parrhēsia over the speeches, Demosthenes will stress the consequences of the Assembly denying its advisers their goodwill (eunoia). 115 Wooten 2008: 37 notes how Demosthenes ‘calls to attention that his advice will be very different to what the audience has heard before’. See Carlier 1990: 111. 116 Aristotle Rhetoric 3.14.12. (1415b) notes, ‘Deliberative oratory borrows its exordia from forensic, but naturally they are very uncommon in it. For in fact the hearers are acquainted with the subject, so that the case needs no exordium, except for the orator's own sake, or on account of his adversaries, or if the hearers attach too much or too little importance to the question according to his idea. Wherefore he must either excite or remove prejudice, and magnify or minimize the importance of the subject.’ Yunis 1996: 248-9 observes how Demosthenes’ practice corresponds with Aristotle’ comments, and notes how ‘nearly all of them are based on the same model of democratic deliberation’. 117 Karvounis 2002: 236 argues the proemium serves as a kind of protection, noting that one could not out of the blue stand and scathingly criticise the Assembly, ‘Das Prooimion ist eine Art Absicherung, denn man konnte nicht aus heiterem Himmel aufstehen und beginnen, das politische Verhalten einer ganzen Stadt heftig zu kritisieren…Das verschafft ihm die nötige Absicherung, das Volk öffentlich und direkt kritisieren zu können.’ 118 Demosthenes 4.1 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου τὰ δέονθ᾿ οὗτοι συνεβούλευσαν, οὐδὲν ἂν ὑμᾶς νῦν ἔδει βουλεύεσθαι. 31 addressing this bad advice and the internal malfunctions in the deliberative decision-making process. Thus, rather than attacking Philip (as is traditionally expected of a ‘Philippic’ oration) Demosthenes focuses on the Assembly itself, weaving a delicate balance between rebuking their current behaviour and presenting hope in the power of an active Athens that offers and follows good advice. This begins with his derisive yet positive analysis on the situation, First, men of Athens, you must not despair at the present situation, even if it seems dreadful. For its worst aspect in the past holds out our best hope for the future. 119 This worst aspect being their lack of action to prevent these events, What am I referring to? To the fact, men of Athens, that our situation has deteriorated so badly while you have been doing none of the things you needed to do. 120 Demosthenes shames the Assembly for their lack of action and neglect of duty, but balances this with how their best hope is that, if they act, all will be resolved. Behind this too is the accusation that, because Athens has done nothing, the current crisis is self-inflicted. This establishes a theme of inactivity (which develops into a gap between words and deeds) that is ubiquitous in the speeches. This also, however, puts the situation firmly in Athenian control; this has happened not due to any talent or skill on Philip’s part, but what their lack of action has enabled. Demosthenes 4.2. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἀθυμητέον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς παροῦσι πράγμασιν, οὐδ’ εἰ πάνυ φαύλως ἔχειν δοκεῖ. ὃ γάρ ἐστι χείριστον αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου, τοῦτο πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα βέλτιστον ὑπάρχει. Wooten 2008: 45 notes emphasis is placed on οὐκ ἀθυμητέον by the apostrophe, ‘allowing these two words to linger’. Demosthenes will repeat this complaint almost verbatim in the Third Philippic 9.5. 120 Demosthenes 4.2. τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; ὅτι οὐδέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν δεόντων ποιούντων ὑμῶν κακῶς τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἔχει. Karvounis 2002: 240-1 notes references to their poor state of affairs becomes a common aspect of Demosthenes’ style. He argues that rather than reacting merely to past events (the loss of Amphipolis, Potidaea, Methone and Pydna and Philip’s victory at Crocus Field) and more recent events such as Philip’s Thracian Campaign and attacks on Athenian allies and merchant ships, that Demosthenes detects the 'problem' of Philip in its entire extent, that is, not related to any specific incident, but considering for the first time the developing situation, ‘Demosthenes erfaßt das „Problem‟ Philipp in seinem ganzen Umfang, das heißt, er bezieht sich nicht auf eine bestimmte Begebenheit sondern betrachtet zum ersten Mal die Situation in ihrer Entwicklung;’ While I agree (and further discussion on lost possessions is discussed later in this chapter), this focus on Philip risks over- looking Demosthenes’ internal complaints at the corruption of the Assembly, discussed throughout this thesis. 119 32 Demosthenes calls the Athenians to reflect self-critically on their own behaviour. In this regard while Pearson argues that ‘the first task Demosthenes sets himself in the First Philippic is to change the attitude of the Assembly towards Philip’, I rather view the speech as calling firstly for a change of attitude towards themselves: their attitudes towards deliberation, action and their duty. In this I follow Yunis and his idea of “taming democracy”, where the orators want to create ‘in the minds of the audience an enlightened-selfunderstanding that actually dispels conflict and realises the politically harmonious community.’121 I argue that this is reinforced further by a contemptuous reassurance of hope: For if our situation were so poor when you had been doing all that you should, there would be no hope of improving matters. 122 This reproach underlines that if the Athenians had been pro-actively acting against Philip, and Macedonia still was in a powerful position, then there would be nothing more they could do. As Erasmus noted on this passage, ‘carelessness could be corrected’, and I argue that Demosthenes asserts that the problem facing Athens is not Philip, but Athens itself. 123 The speech seeks to nullify the Macedonian threat by emphasising that the current predicament can be resolved by Athens simply acting on the situation. Subsequently the speech is a dynamic call to change their attitude and act. To this end, Demosthenes creates what I call a ‘silver-lining’ effect, a backhanded compliment of sorts, achieved by balancing his criticism of the situation with the hope that this worst aspect – their lack of action – provides them with the simple means to rectify the situation. This balance method has been perceived by scholarship but is usually associated with a focus on Philip or the later Philippic orations: Mader examines the use praise and blame in 121 Pearson 1976: 123; Yunis 1996: 28. Demosthenes 4.2. ἐπεί τοι, εἰ πάνθ᾿ ἃ προσῆκε πραττόντων οὕτως εἶχεν, οὐδ᾿ ἂν ἐλπὶς ἦν αὐτὰ βελτίω γενέσθαι. Wooten 2008: 46: notes that Demosthenes’ choice of ἔχειν over εἶναι, where ‘ἔχειν plus an adverb seems to indicate a situation that is dynamic, that is in the process of changing or at least that is capable of being changed.’ 123 Erasmus, Ecclesiastes 3, LB v 1062/ASD v-5 288. 122 33 the Second Philippic with a specific focus on Demosthenes’ use of the voice of Philip, but I believe the method of praise and blame is evident as early as the First Philippic. Wooten too observes a mixture of optimism and pessimism and Karvounis detects a use of ‘Motivation’ and ‘Danger’, but Karvounis in particular views the First Philippic as being concerned with external issues only considers this assertion of Athenian negligence in terms of foreign affairs and the Macedonian Question. 124 In contrast, I seek to examine how Demosthenes’ use of praise and blame engages with a deeper and more immediate internal crisis within the Assembly itself. Narrative Demosthenes continues this balance between rebuking their lack of action and presenting hope in the situation, by reminding the Assembly of their past actions. To this end, Demosthenes narrates the current situation by juxtaposing their current neglectful/ apathetic behaviour to their past reputation. The first instance of this occurs when Demosthenes makes reference to their role in the Corinthian war 395-386 against Sparta, and in aid of Thebes in the 370s: Next, you must consider, whether you hear it from others or remember it from personal knowledge, how powerful the Spartans once were, not long ago, and how well and appropriately you acted, in keeping with the reputation of the city, and endured war against them for the sake of justice. 125 124 Mader 2004. Wooten 2008: 46-7 observes how the bad/good aspects of the situation are stated three times respectively in 4.2. See too Karvounis 2002: 246. 125 Demosthenes 4.3. ἔπειτ᾿ ἐνθυμητέον καὶ παρ᾿ ἄλλων ἀκούουσι καὶ τοῖς εἰδόσιν αὐτοῖς ἀναμιμνῃσκομένοις, ἡλίκην ποτ᾿ ἐχόντων δύναμιν Λακεδαιμονίων, ἐξ οὗ χρόνος οὐ πολύς, ὡς καλῶς καὶ προσηκόντως οὐδὲν ἀνάξιον ὑμεῖς ἐπράξατε τῆς πόλεως, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπεμείναθ᾿ ὑπὲρ τῶν δικαίων τὸν πρὸς ἐκείνους πόλεμον. Isocrates’ Plataicus 14.17 refers to the Corinthian War, through the voice of the Plateans to remind the Athenians that they acted ‘on behalf of those deprived of their autonomy.’ On the Corinthian War see Trevett 2011: 71. Hammond 1994: 483-84. Wooten 2008 uses Xenophon’s Hellenica 5.4.34041. 34 The purpose of this statement is two-fold. Firstly, by reminding the Athenians of their worthy past actions, Demosthenes invites the comparison of their current neglectful behaviour and their past reputation. Indeed, considering Ober’s remarks that the rhētors ‘freely railed against their fellow Athenians’ failure to live up to the high political ideals and elevated standards of international conduct putatively established by their ancestors’, their lack of action to address Philip demonstrates how they are acting in a manner contrary to their reputation.126 Unlike the Athenians of the past, they are actually avoiding war and hardship.127 Moreover, keeping in mind Althusser’s theory of interpellation, and Steinbock’s work on the power of collective shared memories within the collective historical consciousness of the dēmos, by addressing the Assembly Demosthenes inescapably engages with Athens’ social memory to remind the dēmos of the behaviour expected of Athenian citizens. As such, by reminding the Athenians of their previous achievements, where enduring war for the sake of justice is part of their inherited duty, Demosthenes uses their ancestral actions here as a means to both reproach and instruct the current Assembly. 128 By using their awareness of this collective past, this approach, in my opinion, draws parallels with the didactic function of the epitaphios logos that uses the Athenian past to prescribes the behaviour expected from the living generation of Athenians.129 126 As Ober 2001: 252. Thucydides describes Athenians as being the first to help, particularly to maintain their own empire. Herodotus 8.114 gives an account of the Athenians rejecting an offer which would have secured their safetly at the expense of the other Greeks. 128 Mader 2004: 59 notes how ‘the motif of selfless Athenians, ever ready to place the larger Panhellenic interests over their own, is a standard component in Athenian self-presentation and propaganda.’ Goldhill 1986 likewise observes ‘the strong sense of being an Athenian citizen with its obligations and duties, privileges and honours, is a complex system of ideological strategies, a complex self-projection, that goes far beyond mere patriotism. It is to this sense of being an Athenian citizen that tragedy returns.’ The duty of an Athenian citizen is also a predominant theme in Euripidean tragedy, as seen in Theseus’ praise of democracy in Suppliant Women. 129 Such as Plato Menexenus 246b ‘let us remember them, therefore, and let each man among us urge their descendants, as we would in time of war, not to break ranks with our forefathers, not to give way to cowardice and turn tail.’ As noted in the introduction, Steinbock 2016: 51 observes how ‘the praise of past and recent Athenian achievements was not an end in itself but fulfilled a didactic function: the ἀρετή displayed by the 127 35 Indeed, Demosthenes also tells the Assembly why he reminds them of this episode of their past: Why do I mention this? To make you see, men of Athens, and understand that nothing frightens you when you are on your guard, but that if you are contemptuous, nothing is as you might wish, using as my examples the Spartan’s strength then, and this man’s arrogance now, which alarms use because we fail to attend to any of the things that we should.130 Furthermore by noting that oratory calls on the audience to make a judgement, such references to the past invite comparison. Yet, while Karvounis notes that Demosthenes positions Athens’ confrontation with Philip as part of the traditional struggle for supremacy in the Greek world, I go further to assert that Demosthenes does not define Philip merely to assert he is their enemy, but to remind the Athenians of the expected behaviour towards these traditional foes.131 By reminding the Athenians of how they acted in a manner ‘in keeping with the reputation of their city’, and that they defeated the Spartans ‘by applying your intelligence to the situation,’ he asserts that the Assembly has the ability to deal with Philip if they apply the same ‘intelligence’ to the current situation. 132 Thus by recalling their actions in the Corinthian War, Demosthenes reminds the Assembly of what can be achieved when they choose to act, and reduces Philip to the product of their inaction. 133 In making the Assembly reflect and compare their current and past fallen and their ancestors was normative, and all Athenians were encouraged to emulate their example.’ Loraux 1986: 144 sees the epitaphios logos as ‘the most official of lessons’. 130 Demosthenes 4.3. τίνος οὖν εἵνεκα ταῦτα λέγω; ἵν’ ἴδητ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ θεάσησθε, ὅτι οὐδὲν οὔτε φυλαττομένοις ὑμῖν ἐστιν φοβερόν, οὔτ’, ἂν ὀλιγωρῆτε, τοιοῦτον οἷον ἂν ὑμεῖς βούλοισθε, παραδείγμασι χρώμενοι τῇ τότε ῥώμῃ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, ἧς ἐκρατεῖτ’ ἐκ τοῦ προσέχειν τοῖς πράγμασι τὸν νοῦν, καὶ τῇ νῦν ὕβρει τούτου, δι’ ἣν ταραττόμεθ’ ἐκ τοῦ μηδὲν φροντίζειν ὧν ἐχρῆν. 131 Karvounis 2002: 246 ‘Athens Auseinandersetzung mit Philip wird vielmehr als ein weiterer Teil des traditionellen Kampfes um die Vormachtstellung in der griechischen Welt aufgefaßt.’ 132 Demosthenes 4.3. 133 Demosthenes 4.3. Vince translates this as ‘we ignore every call of duty’. Philip here is referred to by the demonstrative pronoun τούτον. I concur with Wooten 2008: 53 that this is contemptuous. 36 conduct, Demosthenes’ approach generates a sense of shame and embarrassment, arguably to provoke a reaction in the Assembly to change this. 134 Demosthenes implores the Athenians to realise their external issues are a result of their current contemptuous attitude. 135 Moreover, as Wooten notes, ‘καὶ θεάσησθε’ indicates how ‘Demosthenes wants his audience not only to perceive the facts that he is relating but to contemplate them and their significance.’ 136 The significance, however, is much more nuanced than this, and functioning like a mirror, Demosthenes uses their past actions to present an image of their ideal conduct, which is contrasted to the unflattering reflection of their current behaviour. Consequently, the arguments in the narrative assert that the worst aspect of their situation – their failure to act in a manner worthy of the city and their past – is simultaneously their best hope. Having reminded the Athenians of their past actions and established that they are failing to apply their intelligence to the situation, Demosthenes proceeds to make the task of confronting Philip possible. Demosthenes shifts the focus away from Philip’s strength to stress Athenian culpability: the Athenians, in their failure to perform their duties, have enabled Philip’s ascendancy, and so Demosthenes seeks to understand Philip’s success by examining its origins.137 Thus, with regard to Philip’s forces, Demosthenes states that the Northern ethnē are more inclined to be pro-Athenian than pro-Macedonian. 134 Aristotle Rhetoric. 3.7.7 notes that shame causes embarrassment to the listener. Wooten 2008: 49. Wooten 2008: 48 notes how Quintilian 6.5.7-8 praises Demosthenes’ good judgement ‘by pointing out to his audience that it is still possible to improve the situation that has been created by their negligence. Then, rather than openly attacking their lack of energy in defending their own interests, he praises the courageous policy of their ancestors. This, according to Quintilian, makes them favourably disposed to the speaker and the price that they feel in Athens’ heroic past causes them to repent of their own un-heroic behaviour.’ 135 This is also emphasised in the second clause of the antithesis between their actions and their negligence, as Wooten 2008: 50-51 notes, ‘Demosthenes emphasises this clause because it contains what he sees as the real problem in Athens’, that is their lack of action to improve matter.’ 136 Wooten 2008: 50 notes that θεάομαι is ‘much more dynamic than εἴδω᾽. 137 Here I disagree with Wooten 2008:45 assessment that in 4.2-7 Demosthenes encourages the Athenians to action by the example of ‘Philip himself, who overcame formidable foes by taking vigorous action.’ As my argument shall demonstrate, Philip’s power is used to shame the Athenians by presenting Philip’s expansion as the consequence of their lack of action. 37 Accordingly, Demosthenes states, And if any of you, men of Athens, thinks that Philip is hard to wage war against, considering the size of the force at his disposal and our city’s loss of all its possessions, he is quite correct. But let him consider this. Once, men of Athens, Pydna, Potidaea and Methone and the whole surrounding region were on good terms with us, and many of the peoples that are now on his side were autonomous and free (αὐτονομούμενα καὶ ἐλεύθερ᾽) and preferred to be on good terms with us more than with him.138 This presents the idea that Philip’s power is not all it seems, because it is built upon Athenian allies, which likewise drives Demosthenes’ urgency to recover them, Furthermore, men of Athens, you will deprive Philip of his greatest financial resource. What is this? The fact that he wages war against you from your own allies, by plundering those who sail the sea. 139 Philip is therefore only powerful because he plunders their merchant ships from bases that were Athenian or Athenian allies. Thus, Philip has been transformed from someone who is hard to wage war against, to someone who has seized Athenian allies, and as such appears a product of Athenian neglect and his own opportunism. From this perspective, Demosthenes Demosthenes 4.4 εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δυσπολέμητον οἴεται τὸν Φίλιππον εἶναι, σκοπῶν τό τε πλῆθος τῆς ὑπαρχούσης αὐτῷ δυνάμεως καὶ τὸ τὰ χωρία πάντ’ ἀπολωλέναι τῇ πόλει, ὀρθῶς μὲν οἴεται, λογισάσθω μέντοι τοῦθ’, ὅτι εἴχομέν ποθ’ ἡμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Πύδναν καὶ Ποτείδαιαν καὶ Μεθώνην καὶ πάντα τὸν τόπον τοῦτον οἰκεῖον κύκλῳ, καὶ πολλὰ τῶν μετ’ ἐκείνου νῦν ὄντων ἐθνῶν αὐτονομούμενα κἀλεύθερ’ ὑπῆρχε, καὶ μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ἐβούλετ’ ἔχειν οἰκείως ἢ ’κείνῳ. Worthington 2013: 92 notes that the fall of Methone in 354 gave Philip control of the entire Macedonian coast, and fully removed Athenian influence from the Chalcidic area. For siege of Methone: Diodorus 16.31.4, 35.5-6; Justin 7.6.13-14. On these individual places see Hansen 2004: 720, 806, 819, 838. It is my argument that the common link between Amphipolis, Potidaea, Methone and Pydna is the Athenian need – even since the sixthcentury – of safeguarding timber for the Athenian Navy. Borza 1987: 32 notes that the finest ship building timber was Macedonian, and continued that ‘it was clear to the ancient lumbermen as to modern, that water transport was preferable.’ Here we return to the possession so frequently mentioned by Demosthenes in that not only was Amphipolis established on the Mouth of the Strymon River, but that ‘the river Haliacmon was an easy overland route to Pydna and Methone’, (Borza 1987: 38). These places, therefore, were all key to Athenian resources to timber 139 Demosthenes 4.34. καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτῳ πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν μέγιστον τῶν ἐκείνου πόρων ἀφαιρήσεσθε. ἔστι δ᾽ οὗτος τίς; ἀπὸ τῶν ὑμετέρων ὑμῖν πολεμεῖ συμμάχων, ἄγων καὶ φέρων τοὺς πλέοντας τὴν θάλατταν. 138 38 presents the Assembly with the hope that if they shake off their apathy, and act like they did in the Corinthian Wars, they can reclaim their possessions and resolve the current crisis. Demosthenes’ narrative then shifts to a focus on the loss of these possessions, which is key to motivating the Athenians through shame to recover what has been lost. Having made his point (whether accurately or not) that most of Philip’s Northern allies are proAthenian in sentiment, Demosthenes reinforces the idea that Philip’s success was possible though their lack of influence in the North, But if Philip had at that time decided that it would be difficult for him to wage war on the Athenians, since they had such strong outposts in his own territory, whereas he was without allies, he would not have achieved any of the things he has, nor would he have acquired so much power. 140 This is important to note for various reasons. Firstly, this continues the notion that Philip is strong through Athenian strength, not his own. Demosthenes takes the image of Philip as a distinctive military power, and weakens this by giving his strength Athenian origins, again repeating the motif that Philip’s power is only apparent. Demosthenes tells the Athenians not to be fooled into thinking Philip’s ascendancy is permanent, nor that his allies are real: Do not imagine that he has fixed the present situation immutably, as if he were a god. Rather, someone hates and fears him, men of Athens, and envies him, even from among those who seem to be on very good terms with him; one must suppose that his supporters have the same feelings as any other people would. All those feelings are now repressed, since they have no outlet because of your slowness and apathy – of which, I say, you must immediately rid yourselves. 141 Demosthenes 4.5. εἰ τοίνυν ὁ Φίλιππος τότε ταύτην ἔσχε τὴν γνώμην, ὡς χαλεπὸν πολεμεῖν ἐστιν Ἀθηναίοις ἔχουσι τοσαῦτ’ ἐπιτειχίσματα τῆς αὑτοῦ χώρας ἔρημον ὄντα συμμάχων, οὐδὲν ἂν ὧν νυνὶ πεποίηκεν ἔπραξεν οὐδὲ τοσαύτην ἐκτήσατ’ ἂν δύναμιν. 141 Demosthenes 4.8. μὴ γὰρ ὡς θεῷ νομίζετ᾿ ἐκείνῳ τὰ παρόντα πεπηγέναι πράγματ᾿ ἀθάνατα, ἀλλὰ καὶ μισεῖ τις ἐκεῖνον καὶ δέδιεν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ φθονεῖ, καὶ τῶν πάνυ νῦν δοκούντων οἰκείως ἔχειν· καὶ ἅπανθ᾿ 140 39 Everything, therefore, is really in Athens’ favour. Demosthenes argues that support for Philip is failing and this would have been recognised sooner if Athens had not become stagnant. 142 If they do indeed ‘get a grip’ on themselves and re-establish their authority, their natural allies would declare themselves and the crisis could be averted. By focusing on Athenian apathy and neglect, Demosthenes shifts the focus from Philip's apparent power onto the culpability of the Athenians. This shift of focus both acknowledges the severity of the situation but diminishes Philip to a product of Athenians mistakes and neglect, focusing on the agency of the Athenians to rectify the situation. Moreover, Demosthenes makes it clear that Philip took these possessions when the Athenians were occupied elsewhere, for: He knew very well, men of Athens, that all of these places lie in the open as the prizes of war, and that it is natural for those who are present to take the possessions of those who are absent, and for those who are willing to toil and face danger to get the possessions of those who are negligent. 143 This adds a dishonourable aspect to Philip’s character, and a sense of injustice to motivate the speech.144 Philip’s opportunistic seizure of Amphipolis suggests that he would not have been ὅσα περ κἀν ἄλλοις τισὶν ἀνθρώποις ἔνι, ταῦτα κἀν τοῖς μετ᾿ ἐκείνου χρὴ νομίζειν ἐνεῖναι. κατέπτηχε μέντοι πάντα ταῦτα νῦν, οὐκ ἔχοντ᾿ ἀποστροφὴν διὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν βραδυτῆτα καὶ ῥᾳθυμίαν· 142 This was inaccurate but it is not of immediate importance here if Demosthenes was lying or not; it serves Demosthenes’ interests to make the Athenians believe they stand a chance against Philip, and subsequently he has no reason to tell the ‘truth’. Indeed, how far Demosthenes was aware of Philip’s power we cannot ascertain, and such questions always risk a retrospective hindsight that cannot be applied. I am inclined to argue that the Athenians would not have envisaged Philip achieving the power he would by 341 in the Third Philippic, nor that Demosthenes would have believed he would still be dealing with this issues a decade later. 143 Demosthenes 4.5. ἀλλ᾿ εἶδεν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτο καλῶς ἐκεῖνος, ὅτι ταῦτα μέν ἐστιν ἅπαντα τὰ χωρί᾿ ἆθλα τοῦ πολέμου κείμεν᾿ ἐν μέσῳ, φύσει δ᾿ ὑπάρχει τοῖς παροῦσι τὰ τῶν ἀπόντων, καὶ τοῖς ἐθέλουσι πονεῖν καὶ κινδυνεύειν τὰ τῶν ἀμελούντων. Demosthenes is referring to the Social War. Usher 1999:218 argues that Demosthenes uses ‘an old Thucydidean dictum’ citing 4.61.6, 1.76.2, 5.105.2 to equate this to the law of the strong dominating the weak. In contrast, I read this passage as Demosthenes’ censure of Athenian neglect, not a comment on Athenian weakness. As argued above, Demosthenes suggests Philip’s power is only apparent and is actually based on Athenian strength. 144 This deceptive nature is developed further in the Second Olynthiac 2.8-10 where Demosthenes reminds the Athenians that they lost Potidaea through Philip’s deceptive diplomacy, and that Philip – being powerful through deception – like all other thieves ‘in time are found out and fall apart’. Also attested to in Diodorus 16.8.5. 40 successful if the Athenians had not been distracted with the Social War. This also offers an alternative scenario: that Philip would not have been able to achieve these successes if the Athenians had actively attempted to prevent him. Thus neither blame nor credit is attributed to Philip, but rather Demosthenes emphasises the Athenians’ neglect of their responsibility to protected their allies/ interests. Through their apathy and neglect they have failed to do this and caused the situation they now deliberate over themselves. 145 It is also important to consider how Demosthenes has shifted from referring to these places as both autonomous and free allied poleis at 4.4, to ‘possessions’ of Athens.146 In this sense Athens’ own metaphorical international oikos – both real and imagined – is threatened by Philip’s very real expansion, which has unbalanced Athens’ sphere of influence. 147 By asserting that the allies/possessions ‘are willing to ally themselves to and obey anyone whom they see to be well prepared and willing to do what is needed’ – essentially the State that offers protection – the role of Athens as protector in the fourth century is still evident in this league of autonomous allies as it was in the fifth century by virtue of its naval supremacy. 148 The loss of these allies/possessions, however, signifies that their reputation alone is no longer sufficient to maintain this position in Greece if they choose apathy over pro-active interest. In 145 Karvounis 2002: 234 remarks on the ring composition of the speech and how Demosthenes denounces the negligence of the Athenians, and at the same time draws an image of Philip’s aggressiveness, power, tactics and its strengths and weaknesses, and returns to this at the end of the speech: ‘Die §2-12 sind eine Art Einleitung; Demosthenes prangert die Nachlässigkeit der Athener an, und zugleich zeichnet er ein Philipp-Bild: er stellt Philipps Aggressivität, Macht, Taktik sowie seine Stärken und Schwächen dar… in den §§35-46 nimmt er wieder auf die Nachlässigkeit/ Unentschlossenheit der Athener und auf Philipps agressives Vorgehen Bezug.’ However, Karvounis’ argument suggests these are independent albeit simultaneous arguments. Conversely, I argue that the comments on Athenian negligence and Philip’s aggression are not separate issues but one: that Demosthenes’ purpose in describing Philip is to denounce the neglect of the Athenians, and shame them into acknowledging their responsibility for the current crisis and the loss of Athenian possessions. 146 In the Third Olynthiac Demosthenes notes that their ancestors ruled the Greeks as ‘willing subjects’; with this in mind Demosthenes could be referring to the places in the context of the goodwill associated with the new non-coercive hegemony of the Second Athenian Confederacy. 147 This sense of the goodwill of the allies can be considered indicative of the attitude towards the Second Athenian Confederacy: Athens swore to a non-coercive hegemony of free and willing allies in contrast to its coercive attitude to the Delian League which was no longer tolerated. 148 Demosthenes 4.6. καὶ γὰρ συμμαχεῖν καὶ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν τούτοις ἐθέλουσιν ἅπαντες, οὓς ἂν ὁρῶσι παρεσκευασμένους καὶ πράττειν ἐθέλοντας ἃ χρή. Hunt 2010: 175 notes that in the fifth century, ‘Athens’ allies were islands and coastal cities...its sphere of influence was based on its naval dominance of the Aegean…no other Greek state could contest Athenian naval dominance.’ 41 practice, this has resulted in a sense of Realpolitik amongst their allies towards Macedonia, and in this new power dynamic the Athenians – as they currently behave – cannot compete with Philip. 149 The Athenians have lost their allies, not through any power of Philip but because the Athenians are no longer viewed by their allies as the preeminent power in the North Aegean. And by observing Philip’s audacity in capitalising on their apathy, Demosthenes asserts that this was only possible in the first place because Athenian lack of action presented Philip with this opportunity.150 He calls them to see how Philip’s insolence has been fed by Athenian apathy: You see the situation, men of Athens: how insolent that man is, who does not even allow you to choose between taking action and living quietly, but threatens and makes arrogant speeches (so it is reported) and is unable to be content with possession of places that he has already conquered, but is always bringing something more under his power, and surrounds us on all sides as if with nets, while we sit and wait. 151 Demosthenes presents Philip as insatiable, demonstrating pleonexia (greed), but which also potentially suggest akrasia in Philip’s expansionism, as he is in opposition to Aristotle’s ideal polis which knows its own limitations. 152 As observed by Roochnik, Aristotle’s theory maintains that, 149 In the sense that their allies will side with the party that most benefit their interests/ the stronger party. Steinbock 2015: 33 notes how ‘many historical studies of fourth-century Greece [Mosley 1971; Hamilton 1979; Cartledge 1987; Buckler 2003; Buckler and Beck 2008] apply these principles of Realpolitik to explain the reasons for the various shifts in diplomatic polices and military alliances that took place in this volatile century.’ Steinbock objects to the prevalence of Realism in this approach to history. 150 Philip is presented in the speeches as someone who always seizes his kairos, and is even held up as an exemplum when Demosthenes’ implores the Assembly to seize the kairos of Olynthus. 151 Demosthenes 4.9. ὁρᾶτε γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸ πρᾶγμα, οἷ προελήλυθεν ἀσελγείας ἅνθρωπος, ὃς οὐδ᾿ αἵρεσιν ὑμῖν δίδωσι τοῦ πράττειν ἢ ἄγειν ἡσυχίαν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀπειλεῖ καὶ λόγους ὑπερηφάνους, ὥς φασι, λέγει, καὶ οὐχ οἷός ἐστιν ἔχων ἃ κατέστραπται μένειν ἐπὶ τούτων, ἀλλ᾿ ἀεί τι προσπεριβάλλεται, καὶ κύκλῳ πανταχῇ μέλλοντας ἡμᾶς καὶ καθημένους περιστοιχίζεται. 152 Aristotle Politics 7 1326b on how the ideal polis is complete in respect to itself and its citizens, ‘in extent and magnitude the land ought to be of a size that will enable the inhabitants to live a life of liberal and at the same time temperate leisure.’ This, of course, is ironic for the Athenians and their polite fiction that their confederacy is not imperialistic in nature. 42 Expansionist or globalising regimes reflect ontological confusion: they wrongly elevate the category of quantity over that of substance…as a consequence they are doomed to catastrophe. 153 Likewise, Philip, in his reckless absorption of these city-states, is presented as having demonstrated his lack of understanding and the instability of his power. However, the most concerning point for the Athenians is that they have enabled this through their lack of action, the implication being that none of this would have been possible if the Athenians had acted to prevent it. The notion of being surrounded by nets is a powerful and evocative image of the hunter and the hunted, presenting a clear image of Philip hunting Athens: the helpless sitting target. This aims to provoke action, and it is with a tone of exasperation that Demosthenes questions the lengths to which they will endure shame before they recognise the situation they are sleepwalking into: When, men of Athens, when will you do what is needed? What are you waiting for? For some necessity to arise, by Zeus? What, then, should be call the present developments? For, I believe the strongest necessity for free men is shame at their situation.154 They have lost their possessions and political position through their own apathy, and they have lost them to a Macedonian: 153 Roochnik 2013: 211. Demosthenes 4.10. πότ᾿ οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πόθ᾿ ἃ χρὴ πράξετε; ἐπειδὰν τί γένηται; ἐπειδὰν νὴ Δί᾿ ἀνάγκη τις ᾖ. νῦν δὲ τί χρὴ τὰ γιγνόμεν᾿ ἡγεῖσθαι; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οἴομαι τοῖς ἐλευθέροις μεγίστην ἀνάγκην τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν πραγμάτων αἰσχύνην εἶναι. This shame (αἰσχύνην) is compounded by Demosthenes’ earlier reference to the ancestors’ actions. Loraux 1981: 26 associates this passage with the assertion of Athenian uniqueness and the character of the city in the epitaphioi logoi. 154 43 Or, tell me, do you wish to go around asking each other, “is there any news?” What could be graver news than that a Macedonian is waging war on Athens and is in control of the affairs of Greece?155 Demosthenes’ accusation is that Athens enabled this by lack of action and these possessions have been lost through Athenian neglect and essentially gifted to Philip. MacDowell considered this to be ‘one of Demosthenes’ most brilliant passages, full of life and provocation…the reference to free men hints that at present the Athenians are conducting themselves like slaves’. 156 Demosthenes takes his antagonistic approach, together with the diminishing of Philip, to provoke the Athenians into action. Demosthenes presents, as Worthington remarks, a ‘memorable passage of imaginary dialogue’ 157 to maintain that Philip is a product of their own apathy, “Is Philip dead?” “No, by Zeus, but he is sick.” What difference does it make to you? Even if something were to happen to him, you would soon create another Philip, if this is how you apply yourselves to the situation, since even he has not prospered by reason of his own strength as much as because of our neglect. 158 In depicting the details of Philip’s accident as incidental, I argue that Demosthenes maintains that this situation is not just about understanding Philip as a threat, but recognising that Philip is a threat because of their own mistakes. Demosthenes does not engage with any ‘Philippic’ invective, but prioritises understanding that Philip’s expansion is the consequence of Athens’ Demosthenes 4.10. ἢ βούλεσθ’, εἰπέ μοι, περιιόντες αὑτῶν πυνθάνεσθαι, ‘λέγεταί τι καινόν;’ γένοιτο γὰρ ἄν τι καινότερον ἢ Μακεδὼν ἀνὴρ Ἀθηναίους καταπολεμῶν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων διοικῶν; We see this image most strikingly in Demosthenes’ Third Philippic. Conversely, Karvounis 2002: 243 maintains that whilst Philip commits Hybris, in the speech it is unmistakable that Philip is not a barbarian: ‘Trotz des letzten Satzes, Philipp steuere die Angelegenheiten der Griechen, ist unverkennbar, daß Philipp noch kein barabaros ist. Er begeht zwar Hybris...aber das macht ihn noch lange nicht zu einem barbaros’. 156 MacDowell 2009: 216. 157 Worthington 2013: 120. 158 Demosthenes 4.11. “τέθνηκε Φίλιππος;” “οὐ μὰ Δί᾿, ἀλλ᾿ ἀσθενεῖ.” τί δ᾿ ὑμῖν διαφέρει; καὶ γὰρ ἂν οὗτός τι πάθῃ, ταχέως ὑμεῖς ἕτερον Φίλιππον ποιήσετε, ἄνπερ οὕτω προσέχητε τοῖς πράγμασι τὸν νοῦν· οὐδὲ γὰρ οὗτος παρὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ ῥώμην τοσοῦτον ἐπηύξηται, ὅσον παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀμέλειαν. 155 44 failure to perform its duty of maintaining its possessions abroad. 159 In neglecting their foreign policy, Athens created a political vacuum that any audacious, ambitious, and opportunist power would seek to exploit. The problem, therefore, is not about Philip, but about this culture of neglect within Athens. As such, Demosthenes focuses on Athenian apathy and, while recognising that fear of Philip is rational, he asserts that to a significant extent Philip is the consequence of Athenian negligence, and his acquisition of Athenian possessions is a product of their mistakes. Karvounis argues that the line of argument of 4.11 is understandable as Demosthenes could not emphasise unilaterally the danger and power of Philip, and states that any military or political leaders would have done the same and that the idea of the inferiority of the opponent is one of the most legitimate arguments of warfare. 160 Karvounis goes on to argue that the idea of Philip’s inferiority does not necessarily require that Demosthenes believed it and he stresses that Demosthenes did not underestimate Philip, but simply wanted to assert two facts: Athenian carelessness created Philip, and secondly Philip is not invincible. 161 While in principle I agree with both of these arguments, I am thoughtful that such approaches attempt to rationalise Demosthenes’ argument with the retrospective hindsight of Philip’s eventual victory. Karvounis’ approach presumes that Demosthenes’ argument was a manipulation of the truth, reflecting a trend in the scholarship to either defend or accuse Demosthenes of underestimating the threat of Philip. Rather, I propose that instead of looking for a motive to understand Demosthenes’ assertion here we could take him at his word, that he genuinely sought to assert that Philip was a product of their mistakes and that the situation was rectifiable. Karvounis 2002: 237 ‘Daran kann kein Zweifel bestehen. Der Aufstieg Makedoniens lag sicher nicht an Athens Nachlässigkeit.’ Demosthenes’ rhetoric in the speech, however, seeks to affirm Athenian culpability. 160 Karvounis 2002: 237. 161 Karvounis 2002: 237 An diesem Punkt müssen wir zwei Dinge voneinander unterscheiden: die Vorstellung von der Inferiorität Philipps setzt nicht unbedingt voraus, daß Demosthenes glaubte, daß „Philipp bzw. Makedonien eine Macht geringeren Ranges sei‟ 159 45 Indeed, I argue that Demosthenes’ approach draws a parallel to an Athenian tradition of ascribing enemies’ success to Athenian errors: just as Pericles attributed Spartan success to Athenian mistakes, Demosthenes asserts that the Athenians have enabled Philip’s success by their lack of action. 162 From 4.3-11 Demosthenes presents how the Athenians have not applied their intelligence to this current situation (as their ancestors did in the Corinthian War), and that as a result Philip appears successful and powerful because he has obtained Pydna, Methone, Potidaea and Amphipolis through Athenian negligence, and not his own strength. Moreover, the notion of Macedonians controlling Greece, for the Athenians, is contemptible and by adding the need to ‘punish that man’, Demosthenes introduces the need for retribution.163 In presenting, as MacDowell notes, the ‘paradoxes of a Macedonian defeating Athenians and the Athenians creating a Macedonian victor,’ I argue that Demosthenes necessitates the need to put Philip in his place and reset the balance of power.164 This, simultaneously, calls the Athenians to seize their own position, but is dependent on the Athenians choosing to act. If they continue in this vein, then it will only serve to exacerbate the situation: But as you are now, even if the opportunity were to present itself, you would be unable to take Amphipolis, since you are disunited in your preparations and your resolve.165 Demosthenes asserts that it is therefore imperative that they listen to his advice. By acknowledge they enabled Philip to exploit their lack of action, and how his power is essentially Athenian, then rectifying the situation is not as daunting a task as originally Thucydides 1.144 ‘I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs.’ Thucydides also blames internal dissension 2.65.12. Similar remarks are made by Plato Menexenus 243d. 163 Demosthenes 4.7. 164 MacDowell 2009: 216. 165 Demosthenes 4.12. ὡς δὲ νῦν ἔχετε, οὐδὲ διδόντων τῶν καιρῶν Ἀμφίπολιν δέξασθαι δύναισθ ἄν, ἀπηρτημένοι καὶ ταῖς παρασκευαῖς καὶ ταῖς γνώμαις. 162 46 envisaged: as Demosthenes said in the proemium, their worst aspect is their best hope. This is all a manageable reality if they chose to act: If, men of Athens, you too are prepared to adopt such a resolve now, since indeed you were not previously, and each of you is willing to drop all pretence and take action wherever it is needed and wherever he may be able to benefit the city, those with money by paying taxes, those in the prime of life by going on campaign, in short if you are simply willing to get a grip on yourselves, and stop each hoping that you can get away with doing nothing, while your neighbour does everything on your behalf, you will recover what is yours, god willing and will regain what has been negligently lost, and will punish that man. 166 Demosthenes’ rhetoric is driven with the urgency to act swiftly, and implores the Assembly to recover and regain what has been lost, both in their physical possessions but also with regard to their reputation: given that their declining reputation caused their allies to align themselves with Philip, to recover their previous resolve will both address this and restore Athens’ reputation as an effective power in Northern Greece. Argument Having stated that Athens is unprepared and has shirked its duty to the point that they have lost their reputation, standing, and valuable possessions (potentially causing an economical/ecological crisis) to a Macedonian upstart, Demosthenes changes direction with the speech: Demosthenes 4.7. ἂν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐθελήσητε γενέσθαι γνώμης νῦν, ἐπειδήπερ οὐ πρότερον, καὶ ἕκαστος ὑμῶν, οὗ δεῖ καὶ δύναιτ᾿ ἂν παρασχεῖν αὑτὸν χρήσιμον τῇ πόλει, πᾶσαν ἀφεὶς τὴν εἰρωνείαν ἕτοιμος πράττειν ὑπάρξῃ, ὁ μὲν χρήματ᾿ ἔχων εἰσφέρειν, ὁ δ᾿ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ στρατεύεσθαι, συνελόντι δ᾿ ἁπλῶς, ἂν ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἐθελήσητε γενέσθαι, καὶ παύσησθ᾿ αὐτὸς μὲν οὐδὲν ἕκαστος ποιήσειν ἐλπίζων, τὸν δὲ πλησίον πάνθ᾿ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πράξειν, καὶ τὰ ὑμέτερ᾿ αὐτῶν κομιεῖσθ᾿, ἂν θεὸς θέλῃ, καὶ τὰ κατερρᾳθυμημένα πάλιν ἀναλήψεσθε, κἀκεῖνον τιμωρήσεσθε. 166 47 I shall now stop urging you all to be ready and willing to do your duty, since you acknowledge it and are persuaded to do so. 167 Demosthenes moves from admonishing the Assembly, presupposing their willingness to do their duty, to take a more prescriptive and didactic approach. His insightful account of Athens’ problems justifies his claim in the proemium that he is in an authoritative position to present a solution: The kind of force that, in my view, would rid us of the serious troubles we have, and its size, and the sources of money for it, and the other steps that I think would lead to the creation of the most effective force as quickly as possible – these I shall attempt to tell you, Men of Athens. In doing so, I make the following request of you. 168 Moreover, he urges them to think carefully, not rashly, about the long-term benefits: Make your decision only after you have heard all that I have to say; do not prejudge the matter…It is not those who say “quickly” and “tomorrow” who best address our needs – sending a relief force now will not allow us to prevent what has already happened.169 As stated in the proemium, Demosthenes justified his right to speak based on the failure of previous speakers to offer adequate advice, and insinuates here that the Assembly has been choosing the quickest easy option, avoiding the real matter at hand: their apathy. The crux of the problem is Athens itself and the solution requires a change of attitude, which includes Demosthenes 4.13. ὡς μὲν οὖν δεῖ τὰ προσήκοντα ποιεῖν ἐθέλοντας ὑπάρχειν ἅπαντας ἑτοίμως, ὡς ἐγνωκότων ὑμῶν καὶ πεπεισμένων, παύομαι λέγων· 168 Demosthenes 4.13. τὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς παρασκευῆς ἣν ἀπαλλάξαι ἂν τῶν τοιούτων πραγμάτων ἡμᾶς οἴομαι, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ὅσον, καὶ πόρους οὕστινας χρημάτων, καὶ τἄλλ᾿ ὡς ἄν μοι βέλτιστα καὶ τάχιστα δοκεῖ παρασκευασθῆναι, καὶ δὴ πειράσομαι λέγειν, δεηθεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοσοῦτον. Demosthenes’ refers particularly to the best advice/ advisor in On the Peace, discussed in Chapter Three p. 157. The avoidance of rash decisions also has parallels to the Mytilenean debate at Thucydides 3.36-50. 169 Demosthenes 4.13-4. ἐπειδὰν ἅπαντ᾿ ἀκούσητε, κρίνατε, μὴ πρότερον προλαμβάνετε … οὐ γὰρ οἱ “ταχὺ” καὶ “τήμερον” εἰπόντες μάλιστ᾿ εἰς δέον λέγουσιν (οὐ γὰρ ἂν τά γ᾿ ἤδη γεγενημένα τῇ νυνὶ βοηθείᾳ κωλῦσαι δυνηθείημεν). 167 48 scrutinising their decision-making process. To this end, before he offers his proposals, he presents the Assembly with what they ought to listen to, and defines the good citizen/adviser, Rather, it is whoever can show what kind of force, of what size and funded from what sources will be able to resist until we bring the war to an end or we defeat the enemy. Only in this way will we put an end to the harm we are suffering. 170 Essentially, the speaker who will propose forceful action and who considers defeat to Philip an inconceivable option. Demosthenes modestly asserts himself as this good adviser, as a speaker of truth whose intentions are to the benefit of the polis: I believe that I can tell you what needs to be done, but I will not stand in the way of anyone else who has advice to offer. This is the extent of the promise I make, events will give the proof, and you shall be the judges. 171 Philip’s actions and movement in northern Greece/ Thrace require a swift response and a powerful message of intent from the Athenians, and this required men such as Eubulus to recognise that the Festival Fund Commission no longer served, but indeed hindered, Athenian interests. 172 The purpose of the force Demosthenes proposes (discussed below) is to send a message of intent and give pause to Philip: Demosthenes 4.15. ἀλλ᾿ ὃς ἂν δείξῃ τίς πορισθεῖσα παρασκευὴ καὶ πόση καὶ πόθεν διαμεῖναι δυνήσεται, ἕως ἂν ἢ διαλυσώμεθα πεισθέντες τὸν πόλεμον ἢ περιγενώμεθα τῶν ἐχθρῶν· οὕτω γὰρ οὐκέτι τοῦ λοιποῦ πάσχοιμεν ἂν κακῶς. Vince translates the final sentence here as ‘for that is how we shall avoid trouble in the future’. I follow Trevett’s translation as I believe it focuses on the Athenians recognising the current harm and stresses the immediacy of this crisis, rather than just warning of future troubles, and reflects the urgency to act which drives this speech, and the Olynthiacs. 171 Demosthenes 4.15. οἶμαι τοίνυν ἐγὼ ταῦτα λέγειν ἔχειν, μὴ κωλύων εἴ τις ἄλλος ἐπαγγέλλεταί τι. ἡ μὲν οὖν ὑπόσχεσις οὕτω μεγάλη, τὸ δὲ πρᾶγμ᾿ ἤδη τὸν ἔλεγχον δώσει· κριταὶ δ᾿ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθε. It is not until On the Peace that events will offer the proof to his arguments. 172 Sinclair 1988: 46 notes that Eubulus established the FFC and ‘carried a law that all annual surpluses be automatically paid into the festival or Theoric fund.’ Demosthenes was once an ally of Eubulus and of his policy that sought coordinate and consolidate Athenian economic revenues, but Demosthenes broke away when he differed in opinion on the best way to deal with Macedonia. See Worthington 2013: 89-91; Cawkwell 1963. 170 49 Its purpose is either to keep him quiet out of fear, in the knowledge that you are prepared – for he will know it, since there are those of us – yes, there are, more than there should be – who report everything to him. 173 While Demosthenes established in the proemium that rhētors offering bad advice have led to their current situation, this is the first instance we have of the concept of an enemy within: of traitors within Athens reporting to Philip, actively attempting to undermine the polis and act in Macedonian interests. 174 This stresses why it was necessary for Demosthenes to speak first, and is important in underpinning his own ethos as one whose ends are synonymous with the polis, and whose persuasion is to be trusted and heeded.175 To this end Demosthenes’ proposals are more substantial than just a relief force, but an Athenian statement of intent: First of all, men of Athens, I say that you should prepare fifty triremes. Then you must be resolved, if the need should arise, to embark and sail on them in person. In addition, you should make ready horse-transporting triremes and enough supply ships for half the cavalrymen. 176 This rapid response is necessary to make Philip and their lost allies realise that the Athenians are prepared to remove their lethargy and act: Demosthenes 4.18. ἵν᾿ ἢ διὰ τὸν φόβον εἰδὼς εὐτρεπεῖς ὑμᾶς (εἴσεται γὰρ ἀκριβῶς· εἰσὶ γάρ, εἰσὶν οἱ πάντ᾿ ἐξαγγέλλοντες ἐκείνῳ παρ᾿ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν πλείους τοῦ δέοντος) ἡσυχίαν ἔχῃ, 174 We see this developed further in the First Olynthiac 1.6 where Demosthenes tells the Assembly that the Olynthians are aware of what happened to the Amphipolitans and the Pydnans that betrayed their city (that Philip killed them) thus warning not only of the concept of the enemy within but also ominously that the same might happen in Athens, and to the traitors that Philip will not spare them. I believe this demonstrates early indications of Roisman’s rhetoric of conspiracy, which is discussed later in the thesis. 175 In his speech Against Leptines 20.13 Demosthenes asserts that the actions of the polis has demonstrated its ethos is honest (apseudes) and good (chreston), as noted by Herman 2006: 11. 176 Demosthenes 4.16. πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τριήρεις πεντήκοντα παρασκευάσασθαι φημὶ δεῖν, εἶτ᾿ αὐτοὺς οὕτω τὰς γνώμας ἔχειν ὡς, ἐάν τι δέῃ, πλευστέον εἰς ταύτας αὐτοῖς ἐμβᾶσιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τοῖς ἡμίσεσι τῶν ἱππέων ἱππαγωγοὺς τριήρεις καὶ πλοῖ᾿ ἱκανὰ εὐτρεπίσαι κελεύω. Trevett notes that Demosthenes is proposing a ‘substantial rapid response force’ with each trireme having a crew of about 200 ‘the number of those involved could be in excess of 9,000. The regular number of Athenian cavalry was 1,000.’ Trevett 2011:75n16. 173 50 These, in my view, are needed to counter his sudden campaigns from his own land to Thermopylae and the Chersonese and Olynthus and anywhere else he wishes. For we must plant the expectation in his mind that you will shake off your excessive lethargy and hurry out, as you did to Euboea and on a previous occasion, it is said, to Haliartus and recently to Thermopylae. 177 This call to action would demonstrate the real power of an active Athens, and should Philip ‘despise it’ then they can act to regain their possessions against no resistance ‘since there will be nothing to prevent your sailing against his territory if he should give you the opportunity.’178 Yet, Demosthenes does not just call the Athenians to act, but to reflect critically on their own practices and to purge themselves of those flaws which have led them to their current predicament: None of your ten or twenty thousand mercenaries for me, nor these paper forces, but one that will belong to the city and that whether you elect one man or many or this man or that as its general they will follow and obey him. I also urge you to provide supplies for it.179 Demosthenes here proposes three fundamental things: the need to act, the need for an Athenian core, and the need to financially support it. Firstly, Demosthenes tells the assembly Demosthenes 4.17. ταῦτα μὲν οἶμαι δεῖν ὑπάρχειν ἐπὶ τὰς ἐξαίφνης ταύτας ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας χώρας αὐτοῦ στρατείας εἰς Πύλας καὶ Χερρόνησον καὶ Ὄλυνθον καὶ ὅποι βούλεται· δεῖ γὰρ ἐκείνῳ τοῦτ᾿ ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ παραστῆσαι, ὡς ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῆς ἀμελείας ταύτης τῆς ἄγαν, ὥσπερ εἰς Εὔβοιαν καὶ πρότερόν ποτέ φασιν εἰς Ἁλίαρτον καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα πρώην εἰς Πύλας, ἴσως ἂν ὁρμήσαιτε· This passage provides important indicators for the dating of this speech. Trevett 2011:75 ‘Philip marched on Thermopylae after his victory over the Phocian army in 352…and threatened the Chersonese by his campaign in Thrace in autumn of that year…His military threat to Olynthus, which is distinct from and predates the outbreak of war occurred probably in early 351’. The reference to Euboea is for their involvement in 357. ‘The coalition that fought the Spartans at Haliartus in Boeotia during the Corinthian war in 395, and its occupation of Thermopylae in 352 to prevent Philip marching against Phocis.’ 178 Demosthenes 4.18. 179 Demosthenes 4.19: μή μοι μυρίους μηδὲ δισμυρίους ξένους, μηδὲ τὰς ἐπιστολιμαίους ταύτας δυνάμεις, ἀλλ᾿ ἣ τῆς πόλεως ἔσται, κἂν ὑμεῖς ἕνα κἂν πλείους κἂν τὸν δεῖνα κἂν ὁντινοῦν χειροτονήσητε στρατηγόν, τούτῳ πείσεται καὶ ἀκολουθήσει. καὶ τροφὴν ταύτῃ πορίσαι κελεύω. 177 51 to not speak of numberless (μυρίους) forces of foreign mercenaries that gain nothing from Athenian success, nor of phantom forces that are spoken of but that are never actualised. In this talk of ‘paper forces’, Demosthenes highlights another problem of the Assembly: the rejection of deliberation without action, of making statements of intent but never following through. Building on this, Demosthenes urges the Assembly to avoid their previous mistakes of talking big but failing to deliver, I shall show you, dealing with each of these points separately. I am talking about mercenaries – and please be aware of the attitude that has often harmed you before: you think that everything is on too small a scale and so in your decrees you choose the most grandiose options, but when it comes to action, you fail to take even the small measures. Instead you should take small measures, and provide for them, and then add to them if they seem inadequate. 180 Karvounis argues that the Athenians’ carelessness made their actions (when they occurred) ineffective, however, he follows this remark by noting how, ‘while this is a fact, Demosthenes’ sharp criticism is still surprising.’ 181 I believe this surprise is symptomatic of approaching the speeches as directed primarily against Philip. From the perspective of my thesis, however, it is not a surprise as I assert Demosthenes’ priority in the corpus is to criticise and rehabilitate a broken Assembly. I maintain that Demosthenes urges them to act, to do at least something and to do it well, which potentially reflects the collective awareness of the Homeric ideal of ‘μύθων τε ῥητῆρ᾽ ἔμεναι πρηκτῆρά τε ἔργων.’182 Demosthenes Demosthenes 4.20. ἐγὼ φράσω, καθ᾿ ἕκαστον τούτων διεξιὼν χωρίς. ξένους μὲν λέγω—καὶ ὅπως μὴ ποιήσεθ᾿ ὃ πολλάκις ὑμᾶς ἔβλαψεν· πάντ᾿ ἐλάττω νομίζοντες εἶναι τοῦ δέοντος, καὶ τὰ μέγιστ᾿ ἐν τοῖς ψηφίσμασιν αἱρούμενοι, ἐπὶ τῷ πράττειν οὐδὲ τὰ μικρὰ ποιεῖτε· ἀλλὰ τὰ μικρὰ ποιήσαντες καὶ πορίσαντες τούτοις προστίθετε, ἂν ἐλάττω φαίνηται. Both Trevett and Vince translate this as ‘I shall tell you’, but I read ἐγὼ φράσω with connotations of showing and pointing out (‘I shall show’) which just ‘tell’ does not fully convey in English. Demosthenes is not just telling an account, he is aiming to instruct and guide. 181 As Karvounis 2002: 235 ‘Die Nachlássigkeit der Bürgerschaft bewirkte eine entsprechende Trägheit des „Staatsapparats‟, was wiederum zur Folge hatte, daß alle athenischen Eingriffe ineffektiv blieben.’ ‘Dies war zwar eine Tatsache, Demosthenes' scharfe Kritik erscheint aber trotzdem sehr überraschend.’ 182 Iliad 9.443 Phoenix says he raised Achilles to be a man who was ‘both a speaker of words and doer of deeds’ (translation my own). 180 52 detects the perilous gap between logos and ergon, as currently Athens is all words and no action, and thus not an effective power to be reckoned with. 183 As Demosthenes goes on to argue, ‘You will be voting to wage war on Philip not only by your decrees and letters but also by your actions.’ 184 In refusing to translate their decrees into action, they fail to complete any of their endeavours, and make Philip’s position stronger.185 Demosthenes’ speech is aimed at changing this internal attitude. Secondly, in asking for a force that belongs to the city (ἣ τῆς πόλεως ἔσται) Demosthenes insists that the force must be Athenian at its core: What I propose is that there be two thousand soldiers in all, of whom five hundred should be Athenian, of whatever age you decide, and that they should campaign for a set period, not for a long time as they do now but for as long as you think appropriate, taking turns; the rest should be mercenaries. There should also be two hundred cavalrymen, of whom at least fifty should be Athenian, serving on the same basis as the infantry, and horse-transportation ships for them.186 The emphasis that this should be an Athenian effort and not delegated to the allies demonstrates the necessity for an emphatic change in attitude, to display Athenian strength and intent to regain their position and their possessions. Demosthenes calls for a force that is accountable to Athens and whose interests are perfectly aligned with the polis. This can only be achieved when the Athenians act themselves, and as MacDowell observes, ‘the point It is the Athenians’ empty speeches that make their allies die of fear at 4.45. I maintain that there is not a logos/ergon antithesis, but rather each is a necessary part of a whole. Both elements are vital to the effective and efficient functioning of the polis. Further references on the gap between logos and ergon are made at 4.45, 2.11, 3.14, 6.4, 8.22. 184 Demosthenes 4.30. ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἐν τοῖς ψηφίσμασι καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς πολεμῆτε Φιλίππῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις. 185 Demosthenes asserts in Second Olynthiac 2.12 that because of behaviour like this, the more they make speeches the more people distrust them. 186 Demosthenes 4.21. λέγω δὴ τοὺς πάντας στρατιώτας δισχιλίους, τούτων δ᾿ Ἀθηναίους φημὶ δεῖν εἶναι πεντακοσίους, ἐξ ἧς ἄν τινος ὑμῖν ἡλικίας καλῶς ἔχειν δοκῇ, χρόνον τακτὸν στρατευομένους, μὴ μακρὸν τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾿ὅσον ἂν δοκῇ καλῶς ἔχειν, ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀλλήλοις τοὺς δ᾿ ἄλλους ξένους εἶναι κελεύω. καὶ μετὰ τούτων ἱππέας διακοσίους, καὶ τούτων πεντήκοντ᾿ Ἀθηναίους τοὐλάχιστον, ὥσπερ τοὺς πεζούς, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον στρατευομένους· καὶ ἱππαγωγοὺς τούτοις. 183 53 which throughout is emphasised above all others is that the citizens of Athens should be prepared to serve in person in the army or navy.’ 187 Demosthenes stresses this by a specific reference to the taxiarchs and hipparchs: Shouldn’t the taxiarch be chosen from among you, men of Athens, and the hipparch, and shouldn’t the office holders be from among you, if the force is to be truly Athenian? But your hipparch has to sail to Lemnos, whilst it is Menelaus who commands the cavalry that is fighting for the city’s possessions. I do not mean any criticism of the individual, but the man, whoever it is, should have been elected by you.188 This contributes to Demosthenes’ overarching argument that they must shake off their apathy and be seen to act in their own interests. Further in the speech, Demosthenes makes the argument for why the Athenians need a rapid response force: The reason why I say that citizens should participate and sail with the force is that in the past, I am told, the city supported a mercenary force at Corinth, led by Polystratus and Iphicrates and Chabrias and certain others, and you yourselves joined in the campaign. And I know from what I have heard that these mercenaries, drawn up alongside you against the Spartans, and you alongside them, were victorious. But ever since your mercenaries have campaigned on their own, they have defeated our friends and allies while our enemies have grown stronger than they should. They give a passing glance to the war that the city is waging and then sail off to Artabazus and 187 MacDowell 2009: 213. Demosthenes 4.27. οὐ γὰρ ἐχρῆν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ταξιάρχους παρ᾿ ὑμῶν, ἵππαρχον παρ᾿ ὑμῶν, ἄρχοντας οἰκείους εἶναι, ἵν᾿ ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς τῆς πόλεως ἡ δύναμις; ἀλλ᾿ εἰς μὲν Λῆμνον τὸν παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ἵππαρχον δεῖ πλεῖν, τῶν δ᾿ ὑπὲρ τῶν τῆς πόλεως κτημάτων ἀγωνιζομένων Μενέλαον ἱππαρχεῖν. καὶ οὐ τὸν ἄνδρα μεμφόμενος ταῦτα λέγω, ἀλλ᾿ ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν ἔδει κεχειροτονημένον εἶναι τοῦτον, ὅστις ἂν ᾖ. Bugh 1988:160 observes that Demosthenes’ comments reveal how ‘mercenaries are a dominant element in fourth-century warfare…[and serve as] an acknowledgement that the cavalry was no more eager to perform military service abroad than were the hoplites…not only are the cavalry officers not really engaged in military duties (no doubt exaggerated), but that the cavalry in Attika was being commanded by a mercenary hipparch.’ 188 54 anywhere else instead, and the general follows them. And this is reasonable enough, since it is impossible for someone who does not provide pay to exercise command. 189 This presents the situation as understandable: that a force serves its own agenda when it is not supported financially by the polis but must fund itself through its own activities. With a fundamentally Athenian force in terms of personnel, it would not have a separate agenda but one that served the same interests and ends as the polis. This also reinforces the point that they cannot expect to have authoritative command and loyalty if they do not provide pay. Instead, they must change their current damaging practices: What then do I propose? That you prevent the general and his troops from making excuses by providing them with pay and by stationing your own soldiers alongside them, like supervisors of his actions, because the way we handle things at present is laughable.190 This suggests that way the Athenians conduct themselves at present is a shambles, and Demosthenes reinforces his right to make these assertions by explaining the necessary funds for his proposals, thus demonstrating his own knowledge, which legitimises his character and argument: As for the money, the maintenance – subsistence only – of this force will cost little more than ninety talents: for ten fast ships, forty talents, at twenty minas per ship per month; for two thousand soldiers, at the same amount again, with each soldier Demosthenes 4.24. πολίτας δὲ παρεῖναι καὶ συμπλεῖν διὰ ταῦτα κελεύω, ὅτι καὶ πρότερόν ποτ᾿ ἀκούω ξενικὸν τρέφειν ἐν Κορίνθῳ τὴν πόλιν, οὗ Πολύστρατος ἡγεῖτο καὶ Ἰφικράτης καὶ Χαβρίας καὶ ἄλλοι τινές, καὶ αὐτοὺς ὑμᾶς συστρατεύεσθαι· καὶ οἶδ᾿ ἀκούων ὅτι Λακεδαιμονίους παραταττόμενοι μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν ἐνίκων οὗτοι οἱ ξένοι καὶ ὑμεῖς μετ᾿ ἐκείνων. ἐξ οὗ δ᾿ αὐτὰ καθ᾿ αὑτὰ τὰ ξενικὰ ὑμῖν στρατεύεται, τοὺς φίλους νικᾷ καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους, οἱ δ᾿ ἐχθροὶ μείζους τοῦ δέοντος γεγόνασι. καὶ παρακύψαντ᾿ ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς πόλεως πόλεμον, πρὸς Ἀρτάβαζον καὶ πανταχοῖ μᾶλλον οἴχεται πλέοντα, ὁ δὲ στρατηγὸς ἀκολουθεῖ, εἰκότως· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἄρχειν μὴ διδόντα μισθόν. 190 Demosthenes 4.25. τί οὖν κελεύω; τὰς προφάσεις ἀφελεῖν καὶ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ καὶ τῶν στρατιωτῶν, μισθὸν πορίσαντας καὶ στρατιώτας οἰκείους ὥσπερ ἐπόπτας τῶν στρατηγουμένων παρακαταστήσαντας· ἐπεὶ νῦν γε γέλως ἔσθ᾿ ὡς χρώμεθα τοῖς πράγμασιν. Karvounis 2002: 234 remarks on Demosthenes’ incessant criticism on their foreign policy: ‘Während der gesamten Rede kritisiert Demosthenes unaufhörlich das nachlässige Verhalten der Athener in bezug auf ihre Außenpolitik.’ 189 55 receiving ten drachmas a month for maintenance; and for the two hundred cavalrymen, if each receives thirty drachmas a month, twelve talents. If anyone thinks that this is scant provision…he is wrong. I am sure if this proposal is accepted the army itself will make good the rest from the war, without wronging any of the Greeks or our allies, and as a result will receive full pay. 191 These proposals all contribute to Demosthenes’ assertion that Athens must be in control of its own foreign policy, and he provides no means for excuse or grounds for wasting precious time in debating blame, which has been their current practice: How then will this state of affairs be brought to an end? As soon as you, men of Athens, appoint the same men to be both soldiers and witnesses of the general’s conduct and, once they have returned home, judges at the examinations into the conduct of the magistrates, so that you not only hear about your affairs but also observe them in person. 192 This insinuates that currently the Assembly has been deliberating over matters which they themselves have no direct involvement in, but debate on hearsay, demonstrating similar complaints raised by Thucydides both in the Mytilenean Debate, and in his attack at 1.20.1 upon the reliability of knowledge that is based on what you hear without analysing it vigorously (abasanistos). 193 The preference for making their deductions based on that which Demosthenes 4.28-9 ἔστι μὲν ἡ τροφή, σιτηρέσιον μόνον, τῇ δυνάμει ταύτῃ τάλαντ᾿ ἐνενήκοντα καὶ μικρόν τι πρός, δέκα μὲν ναυσὶ ταχείαις τετταράκοντα τάλαντα, εἴκοσιν εἰς τὴν ναῦν μναῖ τοῦ μηνὸς ἑκάστου, στρατιώταις δὲ δισχιλίοις τοσαῦθ᾿ ἕτερα, ἵνα δέκα τοῦ μηνὸς ὁ στρατιώτης δραχμὰς σιτηρέσιον λαμβάνῃ, τοῖς δ᾿ ἱππεῦσι διακοσίοις οὖσιν, ἐὰν τριάκοντα δραχμὰς ἕκαστος λαμβάνῃ τοῦ μηνός, δώδεκα τάλαντα. εἰ δέ τις οἴεται μικρὰν ἀφορμὴν εἶναι ... οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἔγνωκεν· ἐγὼ γὰρ οἶδα σαφῶς ὅτι, τοῦτ᾿ ἂν γένηται, προσποριεῖ τὰ λοίπ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ στράτευμ᾿ ἀπὸ τοῦ πολέμου, οὐδένα τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀδικοῦν οὐδὲ τῶν συμμάχων, ὥστ᾿ ἔχειν μισθὸν ἐντελῆ. Unfortunately the document regarding the financial resources does not survive. 192 Demosthenes 4.47. πῶς οὖν ταῦτα παύσεται; ὅταν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀποδείξητε στρατιώτας καὶ μάρτυρας τῶν στρατηγουμένων καὶ δικαστὰς οἴκαδ᾿ ἐλθόντας τῶν εὐθυνῶν, ὥστε μὴ ἀκούειν μόνον ὑμᾶς τὰ ὑμέτερ᾿ αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρόντας ὁρᾶν. 193 Thucydides’ Cleon at 3.38 complains ‘as for the past, you rely not so much on the facts which you have seen with your own eyes as on what you have heard about them in some clever piece of verbal criticism.’ Ober 1993: 105 remarks on Thucydides 1.20 that ‘“the many” are equally credulous when it comes to affairs unobscured by the passage of time’, citing 1.20.3 on how ‘such is the degree of carelessness among hoi polloi in the search for truth (aletheia) and their preference for ready-made accounts.’ 191 56 has been seen rather than heard is attested to by Hartog and Benveniste, in the definition of a histor as a witness of what has been seen: tracing the notion back to Indo-European origins the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa rules that ‘if now, two men are in dispute [in litigation], one saying “I saw myself” and the other saying “I heard for myself,”, the one who says “I saw myself” is the one whom we must believe.’ 194 Heraclitus likewise states that trustworthy knowledge is necessitated on what is seen, and Aristotle states that sight is the best sense in achieving understanding.195 Likewise here, by only acting on the reports of others (who may not even be Athenian) the Assembly has only a futile hope of solving their current crisis because they undermine their decision-making process by acting on inferior forms of knowledge. 196 In highlighting this lack of efficiency and effectiveness, Demosthenes again calls the Athenians to self-reflect and recognise the laughable (γέλως) state of their military organisation: If anyone were to ask you, “Are you at peace, Athenians?” you would say, “By Zeus, we are not; we are at war with Philip.” 197 Demosthenes is at pains to make the Athenians see the reality of their current selves, which is so far removed from their ideals. A striking instance of this is in the actual size of the Athenian fleet, which is indicative of the realities of Athens’ decline: 194 Benveniste 1969: 173, Hartog 1988: 261. Polybius Histories 11. 27 remarks that Heraclitus claimed that, ‘the eyes are a more accurate witness than the ears’ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῶν ὤτων ἀκριβέστεροι μάρτυρες. (Fragment 22 B 101a). Aristotle Metaphysics 980a25 states how ‘All men naturally desire knowledge. An indication of this is our esteem for the senses; for apart from their use we esteem them for their own sake, and most of all the sense of sight. Not only with a view to action, but even when no action is contemplated, we prefer sight, generally speaking to all other senses.’ πάντες ἄνθρωποι τοῦ εἰδέναι ὀρέγονται φύσει. σημεῖον δ᾿ ἡ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἀγάπησις· καὶ γὰρ χωρὶς τῆς χρείας ἀγαπῶνται δι᾿ αὑτάς, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων ἡ διὰ τῶν ὀμμάτων. οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἵνα πράττωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ μηθὲν μέλλοντες πράττειν τὸ ὁρᾶν αἱρούμεθα ἀντὶ πάντων ὡς εἰπεῖν τῶν ἄλλων. 196 As Ober 1996: 149 notes one central holding of Athenian ideology was ‘a belief in the superior wisdom of decisions made collectively by large bodies of citizens.’ 197 Demosthenes 4.25. εἰ γὰρ ἔροιτό τις ὑμᾶς· “εἰρήνην ἄγετ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι;” “μὰ Δί᾿ οὐχ ἡμεῖς γ᾿,” εἴποιτ᾿ ἄν, “ἀλλὰ Φιλίππῳ πολεμοῦμεν.” 195 57 The reasons for a force of this size, men of Athens, is that we cannot now provide one that is capable of meeting him [Philip] in battle but must act as raiders and must wage this kind of war at first. 198 This acknowledgment that the Athenians cannot match Philip is a complete inversion of Athenian naval supremacy, which characterised fifth-century Athens, and turns their defining thalassocracy on its head. 199 It presents a distorted inversion of the Athens portrayed by the Spartan King Archidamus, whose speech in Thucydides acknowledged that they could not match the Athenian Naval fleet. 200 However, Demosthenes asserts that if the Athenians act and do what they are historically known to do, then they can turn their current situation around and prevail. This is the same hope that Demosthenes presented in the proemium, that their worst aspect is their best hope, but only if they change. Subsequently, Demosthenes’ call for action develops beyond a call for specific military action, into reclaiming the character and spirit of Athens. 201 Demosthenes’ argument then focuses on the need to bring back some substance to the Athenians. The following sections of the speech all ruminate on Demosthenes’ assertion that Demosthenes 4.23 τοσαύτην μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, διὰ ταῦτα, ὅτι οὐκ ἔνι νῦν ἡμῖν πορίσασθαι δύναμιν τὴν ἐκείνῳ παραταξομένην, ἀλλὰ λῃστεύειν ἀνάγκη καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ τοῦ πολέμου χρῆσθαι τὴν πρώτην·. As Karvounis 2002: 250 notes, Demosthenes’ plan requires flexibility and willingness among the citizens, the lack of which Demosthenes denounced throughout the speech. On the small size of the proposed force Pritchett 1974: 69 notes that ‘All Demosthenic commentators have been at a loss to understand how the young orator offered his plan as an improvement over the existing state of affairs’, referring to the large army sent to Kerkyea, and in 358/7 to Euboia. I argue that Demosthenes’ point is evident in at 4.19-20 on how lately grandiose plans do not come to fruition. See too Ober 1978: 119-130 199 Hunt 2010: 175 notes ‘by the age of Demosthenes, no city enjoyed uncontested land superiority. Although Athens’ navy was usually stronger than that of any other state, the resurgence of piracy and the outcome of the Social War made its decline obvious.’ For more on Athenian thalassocracy and naval supremacy see Cawkwell 1984. 200 Archidamus on facing Athens: they ‘have the widest experience of the sea and who are extremely well equipped in all other directions, very wealthy both as individuals and as a state, with ships and cavalry and hoplites, with a population larger than that of any other place in Hellas, and then too, with numbers of allies who pay tribute to them. How, then can we irresponsibly start a war with such people? … Our navy? It is inferior to theirs, and if we are to give proper attention to it and build it up to their strength, that will take time.’ Thucydides 1.80. 201 My argument on the spirit of the Athenians could be considered old fashioned, however, I do not argue this from a position of admiration for Athens or to make comments on my own milieu as scholarship in the early twentieth century did. Rather, I argue that Demosthenes holds them to and inspires them with the model of their ancestral virtues and ideology. 198 58 Athens’ current predicament, and any apparent power Philip has, is a result of neglected duties and the reality that they are currently inferior to the standards they (should) hold themselves to. Demosthenes directly tackles the areas of Athenian incompetence at performing their duties beyond face-value: Have you not elected from among yourselves ten taxiarchs and generals and phylarchs and two hipparchs? What do these men do? Except for whichever individual commander you dispatch to war, the rest marshal your ceremonial processions alongside the priests. Just like the makers of figurines, you elect taxiarchs and phylarchs for the marketplace not for war.202 They are seen to have elected these officials, but beyond the ceremonial performance of their role, they are basically redundant. Demosthenes’ accusation is that the Athenians like to be seen as in control, but he explicitly informs them that they are merely putting on appearances and do not function as they should. The same complaint is raised at 4.34 where their priorities are again called into question: Why is it, men of Athens, that the festivals of the Panathenaea and the Dionysia always take place at the appointed time, whether experts or amateurs are selected to administer them, when as much money is spent on them as on any single naval expedition, and they involve as much bustle and preparation as any other occasion I know of, whereas your naval expeditions all miss their opportunities – the ones to Methone, to Pagasae, and to Potidaea? 203 202 Demosthenes. 4.26. οὐκ ἐχειροτονεῖτε δ᾿ ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν δέκα ταξιάρχους καὶ στρατηγοὺς καὶ φυλάρχους καὶ ἱππάρχους δύο; τί οὖν οὗτοι ποιοῦσι; πλὴν ἑνὸς ἀνδρός, ὃν ἂν ἐκπέμψητ᾿ ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεμον, οἱ λοιποὶ τὰς πομπὰς πέμπουσιν ὑμῖν μετὰ τῶν ἱεροποιῶν· ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ πλάττοντες τοὺς πηλίνους, εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν χειροτονεῖτε τοὺς ταξιάρχους καὶ τοὺς φυλάρχους, οὐκ ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεμον. 203 Demosthenes 4.35. καίτοι τί δήποτ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίζετε τὴν μὲν τῶν Παναθηναίων ἑορτὴν καὶ τὴν τῶν Διονυσίων ἀεὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος χρόνου γίγνεσθαι, ἄν τε δεινοὶ λάχωσιν ἄν τ᾿ ἰδιῶται οἱ τούτων ἑκατέρων ἐπιμελούμενοι, εἰς ἃ τοσαῦτ᾿ ἀναλίσκεται χρήματα, ὅσ᾿ οὐδ᾿ εἰς ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τοσοῦτον ὄχλον καὶ παρασκευὴν ὅσην οὐκ οἶδ᾿ εἴ τι τῶν ἁπάντων ἔχει, τοὺς δ᾿ ἀποστόλους πάντας ὑμῖν ὑστερίζειν τῶν καιρῶν, τὸν εἰς Μεθώνην, τὸν εἰς Παγασάς, τὸν εἰς Ποτείδαιαν; 59 This reinforces his point that their priorities are wrong; it would not be tolerated if a chorus went unfunded without specialists, but their military preparations are permitted to be neglected. This is exacerbated by how festivals are regulated by law: The reason is that the festivals are all regulated by law, and each of you knows far in advance who will be the chorus-master or the gymnasiarch of the tribe, and what he must do and when, and what he should receive from whom, and nothing is overlooked or left unclear out of neglect. But none of our military preparations are organized, or kept up to date, or properly defined. 204 This lack of anticipation and legislation towards expeditions, at least in comparison to the festivals, also draws an ironic foil to their attitudes towards generals in the courts: As it is, things are so shameful that each general is tried by you two or three times on a capital charge, but none of them dares to engage even once in a life-and-death struggle with the enemy. Instead they prefer the death of kidnappers and clothesstealers to a fitting end, since a criminal dies after he is tried, but a general dies fighting the enemy.205 If the generals are under the constant threat of impeachment (where failure equates to the charge of treason) when they are so ill-supported, then the aim to promote Athenian success Demosthenes 4.36. ὅτι ἐκεῖνα μὲν ἅπαντα νόμῳ τέτακται, καὶ πρόοιδεν ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐκ πολλοῦ τίς χορηγὸς ἢ γυμνασίαρχος τῆς φυλῆς, πότε καὶ παρὰ τοῦ καὶ τί λαβόντα τί δεῖ ποιεῖν, οὐδὲν ἀνεξέταστον οὐδ᾿ ἀόριστον ἐν τούτοις ἠμέληται· ἐν δὲ τοῖς περὶ τοῦ πολέμου καὶ τῇ τούτου παρασκευῇ ἄτακτα, ἀδιόρθωτα, ἀόρισθ᾿ ἅπαντα. Hornblower 1991: 245 remarks this is ‘too fantastic to be true as it stands. But it is clearly true that the Athenian system was poorly suited to a war in which the initiative lay in hands other than Athens’ own.’ 205 Demosthenes 4.47. νῦν δ᾿ εἰς τοῦθ᾿ ἥκει τὰ πράγματ᾿ αἰσχύνης ὥστε τῶν στρατηγῶν ἕκαστος δὶς καὶ τρὶς κρίνεται παρ᾿ ὑμῖν περὶ θανάτου, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς οὐδεὶς οὐδ᾿ ἅπαξ αὐτῶν ἀγωνίσασθαι περὶ θανάτου τολμᾷ, ἀλλὰ τὸν τῶν ἀνδραποδιστῶν καὶ λωποδυτῶν θάνατον μᾶλλον αἱροῦνται τοῦ προσήκοντος· κακούργου μὲν γάρ ἐστι κριθέντ᾿ ἀποθανεῖν, στρατηγοῦ δὲ μαχόμενον τοῖς πολεμίοις. Trevett 2011: 58 notes that ‘general and politicians were particularly liable to impeachment (eisangelia) on charge of treason; often such prosecutions were prompted by frustration at their lack of success rather than any real evidence or corruption. See Pritchett 1997: 2. Hansen 1975; Hamel 1998:122-157.’ See further discussion on the treatment of Diopeithes in On the Chersonese in Chapter 4.2 p. 223. See MacDowell 1978: 148-149 for more on punishment for kidnapping and clothes-stealing. 204 60 is futile. Moreover, this lack of preparation and proper regulation creates an inconsistent, haphazard approach: As a result, as soon as we receive some news, we appoint trierarchs, and make exchanges of property for them, and looking into the provision of money, and after this we decide to embark the metics and the slaves who live apart from their masters, then ourselves, then we change the crew again. 206 This not only creates a panicked, unanticipated, indecisive nature to Athenian policy-making (and a vulnerability that is being exploited), but also shows the necessity of Demosthenes’ earlier call for an Athenian core to the forces, and his call for competency. This comparison of their attitude towards festivals and expeditions also presents a call for expediency to avoid neglecting opportunities: During all this delay [on money and who should go] we lose the object of our expedition before we have begun. We spend time for action on preparation, but opportunities offered by circumstance do not wait on our slowness and dissimulation.207 By comparing the efficiency towards the festivals to their apathetic attitude to military preparations, Demosthenes brings back the reality of their lost possessions and their all-toolate efforts to save Potidaea and Methone. 208 Consequently, Demosthenes asserts that it is their attitude towards military expeditions, not Philip, that has unequivocally damaged Athens, and that deliberation alone is not sufficient if it is not qualified by action. Neither is it sufficient for the Athenians to only Demosthenes 4.36. τοιγαροῦν ἅμ᾿ ἀκηκόαμέν τι καὶ τριηράρχους καθίσταμεν καὶ τούτοις ἀντιδόσεις ποιούμεθα καὶ περὶ χρημάτων πόρου σκοποῦμεν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτ᾿ ἐμβαίνειν τοὺς μετοίκους ἔδοξε καὶ τοὺς χωρὶς οἰκοῦντας, εἶτ᾿ αὐτοὺς πάλιν, εἶτ᾿ ἀντεμβιβάζειν. 207 Demosthenes 4.37. εἶτ᾿ ἐν ὅσῳ ταῦτα μέλλεται, προαπόλωλε τὸ ἐφ᾿ ὃ ἂν ἐκπλέωμεν· τὸν γὰρ τοῦ πράττειν χρόνον εἰς τὸ παρασκευάζεσθαι ἀναλίσκομεν, οἱ δὲ τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ μένουσι καιροὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν βραδυτῆτα καὶ εἰρωνείαν. 208 Demosthenes 4.35. 206 61 pay attention to their forces when something happens, and Demosthenes highlights the need to ‘learn this lesson – that those who wage war properly must anticipate events rather than follow them.’209 Again, unlike the well-anticipated preparations for the Dionysia or Panathenaea, the military expeditions appear reactive rather the proactive, and woefully illinformed: It seems to me, men of Athens, that your deliberation about the war and our general armaments would be improved if you were to bear in mind the nature of the place against which you are waging war, and observe that Philip often achieves his aims by getting a head start on us, by means of the winds and the seasons of the year; and that he launches his attacks after waiting for the Etesian winds or for winter, whenever we are unable to get there. 210 Consequently: We need to bear these things in mind [that Philip anticipates and utilises the Etesian winds] and to wage war not by means of relief forces – since if we do we will be too late for everything – but by means of a permanent standing force. 211 The fact that Philip can anticipate and use the seasons to his own strategic advantage presents an uncomfortable comparison to the Assembly. The Athenians, whose reputation is built on naval supremacy and tactical excellence, are now not only ineffective in this regard but are being out-manoeuvred by a Macedonian: Philip seizes his kairos, he utilises the natural Demosthenes 4.38-39. Demosthenes then refers to his own role as he continues, ‘just as one would expect a general to lead his army, so those who deliberate should lead events, so that all their decisions lead to action and they are not forced to chase after events.’ This challenge to their state of affairs reflects his comments at the opening of the speech that he seeks to propose a new approach to the situation. 210 Demosthenes 4.31. δοκεῖτε δέ μοι πολὺ βέλτιον ἂν περὶ τοῦ πολέμου καὶ ὅλης τῆς παρασκευῆς βουλεύσασθαι, εἰ τὸν τόπον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῆς χώρας, πρὸς ἣν πολεμεῖτε, ἐνθυμηθείητε, καὶ λογίσαισθ᾿ ὅτι τοῖς πνεύμασι καὶ ταῖς ὥραις τοῦ ἔτους τὰ πολλὰ προλαμβάνων διαπράττεται Φίλιππος, καὶ φυλάξας τοὺς ἐτησίας ἢ τὸν χειμῶν᾿ ἐπιχειρεῖ, ἡνίκ᾿ ἂν ἡμεῖς μὴ δυναίμεθ᾿ ἐκεῖσ᾿ ἀφικέσθαι. On the Etesian winds Wooten 2008: 93 notes, ‘in the summer the Etesian winds often blow from the northwest, thus making it difficult to sail from south to north. Philip takes advantage of these situations.’ 211 Demosthenes 4.32. δεῖ τοίνυν ταῦτ᾿ ἐνθυμουμένους μὴ βοηθείαις πολεμεῖν (ὑστεριοῦμεν γὰρ ἁπάντων), ἀλλὰ παρασκευῇ συνεχεῖ καὶ δυνάμει. 209 62 environment to best suit his ends, he anticipates and pre-empts occasions and is successful in his endeavours. Just as Demosthenes used the Corinthian War to emphasises their current apathy and its effects, here Philip’s initiative demonstrates the behaviour traditionally associated with Athens, and indeed Philip’s actions could be viewed as Athenian behaviour turned on Athens itself. But of greater concern for Demosthenes is that this situation is not one born of necessity, but by a lack of action; the Athenians have the capabilities and the resources to act but squander them, displaying hopeless incompetence: But you, men of Athens, who possess greater force than anyone else – triremes, hoplites, cavalry, revenues – never have yet, to the present day, used any of them as you should, but instead you wage war on Philip in the same way that a foreigner boxes. For when one of them is struck on the other side, his hands go to that place: he has neither the knowledge nor the will to put up his guard or watch for the next blow.212 Athenian actions are reactions, and therefore there is ‘no plan to turn the war to your advantage.’213 Moreover, the degrading assimilation of the Athenians with a barbarian boxer is a damning assessment of their internal corruption, as Trevett notes, ‘Demosthenes both assumes that foreigners would be unfamiliar with the Greek sport of boxing and reflects the Greek prejudice that foreigners were by nature inferior to Greeks.’214 Consequently, their lack of attention to military matters results in Athens repeatedly being one step behind: It is the same with you. If you hear that Philip is in the Chersonese, you vote to send a relief force there, and likewise if you hear that he is at Thermopylae. And if you hear Demosthenes 4.40. ὑμεῖς δ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πλείστην δύναμιν ἁπάντων ἔχοντες, τριήρεις, ὁπλίτας, ἱππέας, χρημάτων πρόσοδον, τούτων μὲν μέχρι τῆς τήμερον ἡμέρας οὐδενὶ πώποτ᾿ εἰς δέον τι κέχρησθε, οὐδὲν δ᾿ ἀπολείπετε, ὥσπερ οἱ βάρβαροι πυκτεύουσιν, οὕτω πολεμεῖν Φιλίππῳ. καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων ὁ πληγεὶς αἰεὶ τῆς πληγῆς ἔχεται, κἂν ἑτέρωσε πατάξῃς, ἐκεῖσ᾿ εἰσὶν αἱ χεῖρες· προβάλλεσθαι δ᾿ ἢ βλέπειν ἐναντίον οὔτ᾿ οἶδεν οὔτ᾿ ἐθέλει. 213 Demosthenes 4.41. 214 Trevett 2011: 84 n 57. Worthington 2013: 120 calls this ‘too little, too late’. 212 63 that he is somewhere else, you run up and down at his heels and are at his command; you have no plan to turn the war to your advantage, and fail to anticipate any eventuality until you learn that it has happened or is happening. 215 The Athenians are currently in Philip’s pocket so to speak. These two instances make the Athenians look ridiculous and emphasise how far removed the Athenians are from their reputation, which creates an ‘unexpected reversal of roles.’ 216 The Athenians know how to conduct war and how to be the effective force that gained and maintained their empire. Currently, they act like they do not know what they are doing; they lack effectiveness and will, and by being constantly on the catch-up the situation risks becoming a ‘damagelimitation’ process. This attitude cannot sustain an effective war effort, nor hope to hold on to their remaining possessions. Having also established that their elected military officials are like clay men of the agora, supported by paper forces, their lack of anticipation is but another defect in their ineptitude. Once more it returns to the Assembly and the need for a drastic change of attitude: Just as one would expect a general to lead his army, so those who deliberate should lead events, so that all their decisions lead to action and they are not forced to chase after events.217 The responsibility lies unequivocally with the Assembly. It is from this sense of self-inflicted shame that Demosthenes presents the idea that Philip is a form of divine punishment: Demosthenes 4.41. καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἂν ἐν Χερρονήσῳ πύθησθε Φίλιππον, ἐκεῖσε βοηθεῖν ψηφίζεσθε, ἂν ἐν Πύλαις, ἐκεῖσε, ἂν ἄλλοθί που, συμπαραθεῖτ᾽ ἄνω κάτω, καὶ στρατηγεῖσθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου, βεβούλευσθε δ᾽ οὐδὲν αὐτοὶ συμφέρον περὶ τοῦ πολέμου, οὐδὲ πρὸ τῶν πραγμάτων προορᾶτ᾽ οὐδέν, πρὶν ἂν ἢ γεγενημένον ἢ γιγνόμενόν τι πύθησθε. 216 Worthington 2013: 120. 217 Demosthenes 4.39. καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ τῶν στρατευμάτων ἀξιώσειέ τις ἂν τὸν στρατηγὸν ἡγεῖσθαι, οὕτω καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων τοὺς βουλευομένους, ἵν᾿ ἃ ἂν ἐκείνοις δοκῇ, ταῦτα πράττηται καὶ μὴ τὰ συμβάντ᾿ ἀναγκάζωνται διώκειν. 215 64 Ιt seems to me, men of Athens, that some god is ashamed at what is being done in the name of our city and is putting this restlessness in Philip. 218 This works on two levels: firstly the Athenians are behaving in a manner which is deserving of punishment, and secondly any belief that Philip’s power is from his own initiative is rejected: this time he is a vehicle of divine justice, powerful only by the grace of the gods with the end to punish Athens. Once more, it is only through Athenian negligence and lack of action that Philip has ‘reached such a pitch of arrogance that he has already sent letters like this to the Euboeans.’ 219 Epilogue: the abuse of rhetoric Having established the practicalities of his call for action and the realities of their military regression, Demosthenes closes to focus on the root of the problem – Athens itself: Most of what has been read out, men of Athens, is true – would that it were not – though it is perhaps unpleasant to hear. If everything a speaker passes over, in order not to cause distress, is also passed over by events, it would be right to speak with a view to pleasing the audience. But since pleasant speeches – if they are inappropriate – lead to disastrous consequences, it is shameful to deceive ourselves and, by putting off everything that is disagreeable, be too late in all that we do. 220 Such anxieties on the danger of flattering rhetoric reflects how Demosthenes engages with the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric, which asserts how ‘deceit is peculiarly unacceptable in a Demosthenes 4.42. δοκεῖ δέ μοι θεῶν τις, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς γιγνομένοις ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως αἰσχυνόμενος τὴν φιλοπραγμοσύνην ταύτην ἐμβαλεῖν Φιλίππῳ. 219 Demosthenes 4.37. ὁ δ᾿ εἰς τοῦθ᾿ ὕβρεως ἐλήλυθεν ὥστ᾿ ἐπιστέλλειν Εὐβοεῦσιν ἤδη τοιαύτας ἐπιστολάς. The letter has not survived. 220 Demosthenes 4.38. τούτων, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν ἀνεγνωσμένων ἀληθῆ μέν ἐστι τὰ πολλά, ὡς οὐκ ἔδει, οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾿ ἴσως οὐχ ἡδέ᾿ ἀκούειν. ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν, ὅσ᾿ ἄν τις ὑπερβῇ τῷ λόγῳ, ἵνα μὴ λυπήσῃ, καὶ τὰ πράγμαθ᾿ ὑπερβήσεται, δεῖ πρὸς ἡδονὴν δημηγορεῖν· εἰ δ᾿ ἡ τῶν λόγων χάρις, ἂν ᾖ μὴ προσήκουσα, ἔργῳ ζημία γίγνεται, αἰσχρόν ἐστι φενακίζειν ἑαυτούς, καὶ ἅπαντ᾿ ἀναβαλλομένους ἃ ἂν ᾖ δυσχερῆ πάντων ὑστερεῖν τῶν ἔργων. 218 65 democratic system because that system is ‘logocentric’. 221 Defining his own rhetoric here as true, Demosthenes contrasts himself to other rhētors who speak with a view to pleasing the audience, but which has caused the problems they now experience. Moreover, Demosthenes’ anxieties on the danger of pleasing speech is reflective of the wider concerns in fifth and fourth century Athens on the harmful effects of oratory: in his Mytilenean Debate (3.36-49) Thucydides ‘presents with devastating clarity the harm that can ensue when public discourse becomes distorted by self-seeking leaders under the pressure of war or national crises.’ 222 Indeed, this constant potential for the abuse of rhetoric poses a fundamental problem within Democratic Athens where oratory is the medium through which its decision-making process functions.223 Demosthenes’ comments here assert that while oratorical debate is essential, the Assembly must always be aware of the dangers of manipulation. Yunis’ remarks on the proemium particularly resonate here that: Demosthenes portrays the Assembly as the scene of competition between himself, the good rhētor who could save the polis, and his rivals, the bad rhētors, who would inevitably harm it. 224 As discussed above, Demosthenes has sought to define himself as the antithesis of those speakers, as a speaker of truth for the sake of duty over popularity. He returns to this again in his epilogue: 221 Hesk 2000: 166. While Hesk is referring to On the Crown 18.282 I believe Demosthenes shows the same sentiment here. Hesk 2000: 209 notes the ‘rhetoric of anti-rhetoric’ was used by Valesio 1980 to analyse Shakespearian speeches. See Ober 1989: 316-317 on the role of the orator as protector of the dēmos. 222 Cohen 2004: 31. 223 Cohen 2004: 32 adds that, through Diodotus’ speech, Thucydides shows that he is ‘well aware that a selfgoverning political community (unlike a tyranny) has no other choice but to employ persuasive discourse because the logos (word, speech, argument, discourse, reason) is the only medium by which human beings can wisely govern a well-ordered political community.’ 224 Yunis 1996: 279. I argue this develops over the speeches, particularly after On the Peace. 66 I have never tried to win your favour by saying anything that I did not believe to be to your advantage, and now I have shared everything I know with you candidly, holding nothing back.225 Thus rather than resorting to popular rhetoric to gain their favour, Demosthenes asserts that that an orator’s duty is to use logos for the benefit of the polis, and that if he cannot simultaneously offer the best advice and please them, he must prioritise the welfare of the city over his own popularity: One man on his own can never, never I say do everything that you wish: but he can make promises and speeches and blame this man or that and as a result, your affairs lie in ruins. For when our general is leading wretched unpaid mercenaries, and these men here are smoothly lying to you about what Philip is doing, and you are voting at random on the basis of whatever you hear, what can you expect? 226 This also insinuates again the notion of traitors within Athens deliberately manipulating the Assembly, especially following Roisman’s argument that conspiracy doers ‘like to operate in contexts that emphasise formal rules of conduct…because rules and regulations give their victims a false sense of security.’ 227 Demosthenes’ assertion that the Assembly is being lied to insinuates the presence of internal conspirators manipulating the deliberative process Demosthenes 4.51. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν οὔτ᾿ ἄλλοτε πώποτε πρὸς χάριν εἱλόμην λέγειν ὅ τι ἂν μὴ καὶ συνοίσειν πεπεισμένος ὦ, νῦν θ᾿ ἃ γιγνώσκω πάνθ᾿ ἁπλῶς, οὐδὲν ὑποστειλάμενος, πεπαρρησίασμαι. See too 4.29, ‘I am willing to join the expedition myself as a volunteer and suffer any punishment if this [his financial assessment] is not the case’. 226 Demosthenes 4.46. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕν᾿ ἄνδρα δυνηθῆναί ποτε ταῦθ᾿ ὑμῖν πρᾶξαι πάνθ᾿ ὅσα βούλεσθε· ὑποσχέσθαι μέντοι καὶ φῆσαι καὶ τὸν δεῖν᾿ αἰτιάσασθαι καὶ τὸν δεῖν᾿ ἔστι, τὰ δὲ πράγματ᾿ ἐκ τούτων ἀπόλωλεν· ὅταν γὰρ ἡγῆται μὲν ὁ στρατηγὸς ἀθλίων ἀπομίσθων ξένων, οἱ δ᾿ ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν ἐκεῖνος πράξῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ψευδόμενοι ῥᾳδίως ἐνθάδ᾿ ὦσιν, ὑμεῖς δ᾿ ἐξ ὧν ἂν ἀκούσηθ᾿ ὅ τι ἂν τύχητε ψηφίζησθε, τί καὶ χρὴ προσδοκᾶν; I believe this first sentence also refers to how an orator can only do so much without the goodwill of the audience, as he will comment on years later in his funeral oration 60.14. This complaint is most emphatically presented at 8.75 with the example of Timotheus discussed in Chapter 4.2 pp. 267-9. 227 Roisman 2006: 5. 225 67 undetected.228 The consequence of such malignant persuasion is that the Assembly does not give the necessary support to those waging a very real war. Moreover, in revealing this deception within the Assembly, Demosthenes implies that these other rhētors were violating the symbolic nomoi which prohibited deception of the dēmos.229 Whilst traditionally accusations of deception assert the wisdom of the dēmos, ‘the people do not make mistakes, they are deceived by conniving politicians’, Demosthenes’ criticism does not absolve the Assembly from its duty to be above rhetorical flattery, and to recognise such blatant deception. 230 This deception has enabled the Athenians to ignore the reality of their external situation, and perpetuates the crisis as they fail to recognise how their internal corruption has created the conditions in which Philip has flourished. Recognising this deception is thus imperative to resolving the situation in northern Greece, as Demosthenes states: But if we put aside such behaviour and recognise that he is our enemy and is depriving us of our possessions and has for a long time been insulting us, everything we ever hoped someone would do for us is found to have been done against us, and that the future is in our own hands.231 Demosthenes continues more emphatically: … if we are not now willing to wage war on him there we shall perhaps be compelled to do so here – if we recognise these things, we will have recognised what is needed 228 In later speeches, Demosthenes develops this into traitors working for Philip, but at this stage Demosthenes just criticises the detrimental effect of people seeking popularity. Particularly from On the Peace. 229 Hesk 2000: 51 notes how Herodotus 6.136 account of Xanthippus’ charge against Miltiades for ‘deceit of the Athenians’ provides potential evidence of ‘legislation which specifically prohibited “deception” of the Athenian dēmos by an individual in the early fifth century’. Hesk continues that, despite Hansen 1975: 69 classifying this as eisangelia (impeachment), Rhodes 1979: 104-5 advocates caution in systematising legislation at such an early point in Athenian legal history. See Chapter 3 for further discussion on accusations of deception of the dēmos in On the Peace. 230 Hesk 2000: 55. Hesk also refers to Ober 1989: 163-5 to note the assumption that the collective dēmos is wiser than the individual. 231 Demosthenes 4.50. ἀλλ᾿ ἂν ἀφέντες ταῦτ᾿ ἐκεῖν᾿ εἰδῶμεν, ὅτι ἐχθρὸς ἅνθρωπος καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀποστερεῖ καὶ χρόνον πολὺν ὕβρικε, καὶ ἅπανθ᾿ ὅσα πώποτ᾿ ἠλπίσαμέν τινα πράξειν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν καθ᾿ ἡμῶν εὕρηται, καὶ τὰ λοίπ᾿ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡμῖν ἐστί, 68 and will have rid ourselves of empty rhetoric. What we need to do is not to contemplate what may possibly happen but to realise that the future will be miserable unless you attend to your obligations and are willing to do your duty. 232 Demosthenes comes full-circle to the proemium where he implored the Assembly to shake off their apathy, see the situation and act. 233 Demosthenes has consistently held up a mirror to the Assembly, calling them to reflect and see the reality not only of the crisis in the North and their lost possessions, but this internal crisis which has mutated into their external issues. Demosthenes presents that the only comprehensible answer to their situation is that they have rejected their true nature and Athenian virtues. Their self-awareness has been shrouded by rhetorical flattery and deception, and the reference to ‘empty rhetoric’ raises the abuse of logos within the Assembly. Already Demosthenes has criticised their paper forces and speeches that are not followed up with effective action. Demosthenes develops this beyond just condemning the deliberate manipulation of logos and the abuse of words, into a rejection of empty rhetoric that has no other end than to flatter and demonstrate skill, and has no use to the polis except self-aggrandisement of the speaker and his audience. Empty rhetoric is but one aspect of the abuse of rhetoric, as the smooth lies of the rhētor unequivocally damages Athens from within. In this metadiscourse Demosthenes clearly engages with the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric in asking the Assembly to recognise the lies and deception of other rhētors, whilst asserting his own sincere and dutiful logos.234 Demosthenes implores the Assembly to break beyond this empty rhetoric to see the crisis at hand: Demosthenes 4.50. κἂν μὴ νῦν ἐθέλωμεν ἐκεῖ πολεμεῖν αὐτῷ, ἐνθάδ᾿ ἴσως ἀναγκασθησόμεθα τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ἂν ταῦτ᾿ εἰδῶμεν, καὶ τὰ δέοντ᾿ ἐσόμεθ᾿ ἐγνωκότες καὶ λόγων ματαίων ἀπηλλαγμένοι· οὐ γὰρ ἅττα ποτ᾿ ἔσται δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι φαῦλα, ἐὰν μὴ προσέχητε τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὰ προσήκοντα ποιεῖν ἐθέλητε, εὖ εἰδέναι. 233 See previous comment above on Karvounis 2002: 234 and ring composition. 234 Hesk 1999: 203 states that the ‘rhetoric of anti-rhetoric is meta-discursive and self-conscious’. Hesk 2000: 240 notes how Demosthenes affirms his anxiety on deception in On the False Embassy 19.184 ‘for in a political system based on speeches, how can it be safely administered if the speeches are not true?’ 232 69 I am amazed if none of you, men of Athens, is concerned or angry when he considers that when the war began our object was to punish Philip, but now that it is coming to an end, it is to avoid suffering harm at his hands. Yet it is clear that he will not stand still, unless he is stopped. Should we just wait for this to happen? Or, if you dispatch empty ships and hopes inspired by so-and-so, do you suppose that everything would be all right?235 Demosthenes states that this naïve attitude and Athenian apathy has only one telos at present: further losses and inevitable defeat. But while Demosthenes has presented an insatiable nature to Philip as an unstoppable menace, he has also made it clear that Philip is not a threat because of his own merits but rather is a product of their negligence. As such, he can be checked if they act: Shall we not embark? Shall we not go out now, even if we did not do so previously, with at least a part of our own forces? Shall we not sail against his territory? “Where shall we find anchorage?” some may ask. The war itself, men of Athens, will find out the rotten parts of his affairs, if we set to work. But if we sit at home, listening to speakers abuse and blame each other, I fear that we will never achieve any of the things that we need to do. 236 Demosthenes 4.43. θαυμάζω δ᾿ ἔγωγε, εἰ μηδεὶς ὑμῶν μήτ᾿ ἐνθυμεῖται μήτ᾿ ὀργίζεται, ὁρῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὴν μὲν ἀρχὴν τοῦ πολέμου γεγενημένην περὶ τοῦ τιμωρήσασθαι Φίλιππον, τὴν δὲ τελευτὴν οὖσαν ἤδη ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ παθεῖν κακῶς ὑπὸ Φιλίππου. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γ᾿ οὐ στήσεται, δῆλον, εἰ μή τις κωλύσει. εἶτα τοῦτ᾿ ἀναμενοῦμεν; καὶ τριήρεις κενὰς καὶ τὰς παρὰ τοῦ δεῖνος ἐλπίδας ἂν ἀποστείλητε, πάντ᾿ ἔχειν οἴεσθε καλῶς; Could we also say that the hopes, like the ships, are empty? This is also a continuation of the same argument that they are now looking at damage limitation if they do not act, rather than victory. Demosthenes also condenses multiple complaints together: role reversal, acting on hearsay, and a lack of action in the face of Philip’s pleonexia. 236 Demosthenes 4.44. οὐκ ἐμβησόμεθα; οὐκ ἔξιμεν αὐτοὶ μέρει γέ τινι στρατιωτῶν οἰκείων νῦν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρότερον; οὐκ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκείνου πλευσόμεθα; “ποῖ οὖν προσορμιούμεθα;” ἤρετό τις. εὑρήσει τὰ σαθρά, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν ἐκείνου πραγμάτων αὐτὸς ὁ πόλεμος, ἂν ἐπιχειρῶμεν· ἂν μέντοι καθώμεθ᾿ οἴκοι, λοιδορουμένων ἀκούοντες καὶ αἰτιωμένων ἀλλήλους τῶν λεγόντων, οὐδέποτ᾿ οὐδὲν ἡμῖν μὴ γένηται τῶν δεόντων. Usher 1999: 220 argues that at 4.40-44 ‘Demosthenes’ ability to excite quickly changing emotions…could scarcely find better illustration than in this passage.’ 235 70 This potentially unwelcome advice is tempered by Demosthenes’ use of hemeis which implicitly includes himself among the Athenians who are flattered or fail to act. Demosthenes’ solution, and he closes the speech is to break out of this destructive cycle of debates and give voice to the hard truths they, as a collective, need to address: Just as I know that it is in your interest to hear the best advice, so I wish I knew that the giving of advice would benefit the man who composed the best speech – I would be much happier if that were the case. As it is although the consequences for me are unclear, nevertheless I choose to speak in the firm conviction that you will benefit from agreeing to this policy – so long as you put it into practice. May what will benefit all win out. 237 Thus, the purpose of this speech is not just to urge the Athenians to war, but to examine themselves, to recognise and stop their self-damaging practices both in regards to their attitudes towards their military preparations and the abuse of rhetoric. Rectifying these shortcomings and seizing the moment is the solution: For, I believe, wherever a part or even all of the city’s forces are dispatched, the gods are kindly and fortune fights on our side; but wherever you send out a general and an empty decree and hopes from the speaker’s platform you achieve nothing that you should, while your enemies laugh at such expeditions, and your allies die of fear. 238 Consistently, Demosthenes is not talking about Philip as the problem, but rather focuses on the Athenians: on Athenian identity, Athenian reputation and the need for the Assembly to Demosthenes 4.51. ἐβουλόμην δ᾿ ἄν, ὥσπερ ὅτι ὑμῖν συμφέρει τὰ βέλτιστ᾿ ἀκούειν οἶδα, οὕτως εἰδέναι συνοῖσον καὶ τῷ τὰ βέλτιστ᾿ εἰπόντι· πολλῷ γὰρ ἂν ἥδιον εἶχον. νῦν δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀδήλοις οὖσι τοῖς ἀπὸ τούτων ἐμαυτῷ γενησομένοις, ὅμως ἐπὶ τῷ συνοίσειν ὑμῖν, ἂν πράξητε, ταῦτα πεπεῖσθαι λέγειν αἱροῦμαι. νικῴη δ᾿ ὅ τι πᾶσιν μέλλει συνοίσειν. Demosthenes utilises the rhetoric of sincerity, and dutiful citizen. Usher 1999: 220 remarks, ‘Demosthenes’ advice has been uncompromising to the end, and the admirable for his nervous realisation that it could ruin him.’ For more on civic courage and parrhēsia see discussion in Chapter 2.3 on the Third Olynthiac pp. 142-4. 238 Demosthenes 4.45. ὅποι μὲν γὰρ ἄν, οἶμαι, μέρος τι τῆς πόλεως συναποσταλῇ, κἂν μὴ πᾶσα, καὶ τὸ τῶν θεῶν εὐμενὲς καὶ τὸ τῆς τύχης συναγωνίζεται· ὅποι δ᾿ ἂν στρατηγὸν καὶ ψήφισμα κενὸν καὶ τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος ἐλπίδας ἐκπέμψητε, οὐδὲν ὑμῖν τῶν δεόντων γίγνεται, ἀλλ᾿ οἱ μὲν ἐχθροὶ καταγελῶσιν, οἱ δὲ σύμμαχοι τεθνᾶσι τῷ δέει τοὺς τοιούτους ἀποστόλους. 237 71 start living up to their own expectations. 239 The speech has an intense tone, evident through both the frequent use of the apostrophe ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, and the use of antilogia, which demonstrates the urgent need for action but also, in my opinion, the need for realisation. 240 It was not mere scaremongering when Demosthenes asserted that ‘if we are not willing to wage war on him there we shall perhaps be compelled to do so here.’ 241 But the speech looks to the reasons behind this, and Demosthenes clearly states that Athenian lack of action is the cause of their problems, not Philip himself. Thus, I believe that using the labels ‘antiMacedonian’ or ‘Philippic’ to define the deliberative corpus from 351, is misleading and unhelpful. The reality, as Demosthenes presents it, is that Athens in its current state is far from its projected ideology: it is not preeminent on the seas, and is trapped in its own rhetoric. Compared to the proactive attitude he recalls from the Corinthian Wars, the current Athenians’ lack of awareness makes them disturbingly vulnerable – ‘we go around, some of us saying that Philip is working with the Spartans to ruin Thebes and is overturning constitutions, others claiming that he has sent ambassadors to the King, or that he is fortifying cities in Illyria, or just fabricating speeches on their own.’ 242 I believe Demosthenes’ focus on a corrupt Assembly is often overshadowed by a predominant focus on the wider conflict with Philip, for example Karvounis 2002: 234 in his summary of the key points of the speech asserts, In der gesamten Rede, der längsten seiner bisherigen Demegorien, stellet Demosthenes drei Punkte in den Vordergrund: 1. die insuffizienten „Bemühungen‟ der Athener in der Frage „Philipp‟. 2. die große Gefahr, die Philipp für Athen darstellt, und 3. einen militärischen Plan, durch den die von Philipp ausgehende Bedrohung abgewehrt werden soll.’ Trans: ‘Throughout the speech … Demosthenes asserted three key points: 1. The insufficient "efforts" of the Athenians in the "Philip" question. 2. The great danger posed by Philip to Athens, and 3. a military plan by which the danger emanating from the threat of Philip could be blocked.’ In my opinion this neglects to note the focus on the internal crisis within Athens itself, which has enabled Philip to be an issue. 240 Wooten 2008: 43 notes ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι ‘like many other figures in this highly patterned speech, gives it a very intense tone.’ For linguistic analysis of rhetorical device that drive urgency, see Wooten 2008:43. In particular he remarks upon the use of apostrophe and rhetorical question and epanadiplosis ‘to indicate change of tone (§10)’, and apostrophe to ‘introduce a summary conclusion (§ 9,27,30,33,38). He also notes Lausberg’s comments on the use of αἰτολογία, and Dickey 1996: 196 on how apostrophes “tend to mark key points, divisions, or emotional moment in the speech.’ 241 Demosthenes 4.49. 242 Demosthenes 4.48. ἡμῶν δ᾿ οἱ μὲν περιιόντες μετὰ Λακεδαιμονίων φασὶ Φίλιππον πράττειν τὴν Θηβαίων κατάλυσιν καὶ τὰς πολιτείας διασπᾶν, οἱ δ᾿ ὡς πρέσβεις πέπομφεν ὡς βασιλέα, οἱ δ᾿ ἐν Ἰλλυριοῖς πόλεις τειχίζειν, οἱ δὲ λόγους πλάττοντες ἕκαστος περιερχόμεθα. 239 72 Unfortunately for Demosthenes, the Assembly rejected his proposals. 243 One could deduce that perhaps the threat of Philip was not a great concern, and whilst Demosthenes does not exaggerate the crisis that faced Athens at this time, in For the Liberty of the Rhodians in 351, Demosthenes’ concern over Persia demonstrates they were considered as much of a threat as Philip. Thus the loss of possessions listed in the First Philippic can be considered indicative of a general decline in Athenian foreign policy: that their internal complacency has resulted in an external decline and the loss of their influence in Greece. 244 The problem, for Demosthenes, is Athens’ internal incompetence that has resulted in the decline of its external affairs and the loss of Athenian influence in the North Aegean, and thus his complaint is against the dēmos and the Assembly. Demosthenes does not attack Philip personally because it does not serve the purpose of making the Athenians act, and arguably the speech is more concerned with removing the apathy and bad practices within Athens itself, which has caused their external problems. As MacDowell observes ‘Demosthenes’ task, therefore, was not to persuade the citizens that Athens was worth fighting for, but that there was a need to fight for it.’ 245 I would extend this further and argue that, for Demosthenes, the fight for Athens begins within Athens itself. What Demosthenes presents as particularly frightening here is not Philip’s actions, but rather how the Athenians do not have a grip on the situation, all resulting from their lack of initiative and lack of action, which is rooted in the corruption of the deliberative decision-making process. As such, Demosthenes’ rhetoric is not driven by the crisis of Philip, but by this internal crisis that has caused their external issues. This crisis within Athens is arguably exemplified by Hammond 1994: 59 argues that ‘one reason was certainly that the expense was out of proportion to what could be achieved.’ 244 As noted above, despite Demosthenes’ assertions of neglect and apathy, we cannot ignore the effect the Social War had on Athens, and Philip’s own excellence. 245 MacDowell 2009: 211. 243 73 their rejection of his proposals, as they perpetuate a circle of rejecting well-intentioned advice. 74 CHAPTER TWO THE OLYNTHIACS The Olynthiacs are a set of three orations delivered around 339/8 as part of the debates discussing a call for aid from Olynthus, following Philip’s invasion of Chalcidice. In this regard, the context and crisis of the Olynthiacs is still very much that of the First Philippic and the loss of Athenian influence in the north Aegean, and between 351 and 349 relations between Athens and Philip had gradually deteriorated. The continued loss of their possessions and influence in the north Aegean and Thermaic Gulf is particularly important in view of the strategic position of Olynthus upon the Chalcidic peninsular, and the opportunity it presented to Athens to act in their own interests against Philip, and perform their duty in providing aid to their allies, Olynthus. 246 The kairos of Olynthus served as an opportune moment not only to seize the initiative and demonstrate Athenian power, but also to reconsider their rejection of Demosthenes’ proposals, and indeed for Demosthenes to return to his failed arguments from the First Philippic. Throughout the speeches, Demosthenes continues to assert Athenian culpability for enabling Philip’s increasing formidability, whilst simultaneously diminishing Philip’s power as built on deception and Athenian neglect. For Demosthenes, the biggest issue facing Athens is their own self-sabotaging behaviour and thus, as he asserted in the First Philippic, the ‘problem’ of Philip is easily resolved by the Athenians acting on the situation. Indeed, the real problem is not Philip but the Assembly, and the kairos of Olynthus provides the Athenians with the opportunity to redeem themselves, to change their attitude and act with 246 It is important to note that fourth-century Athens could not afford to intervene as their fifth-century counterparts did in the Delian League. In the Second Athenian Confederacy, Athens swore to a non-coercive hegemony of free and willing allies in contrast to its coercive attitude to the Delian League of the fifth century, which was no longer tolerated. The contrast is epitomised by the Grain-Tax Law 374/3 of Agyrrihos which Sorg 2015: 69 argues ‘sought to rebrand Athenian imperialism…[that] the turn to imperial consensus as an alternative to coercion was a necessary, rather than simply ornamental aspect of imperial policy during the Second Athenian League.’ 75 conviction. There is also the insinuation that their failure to act on the issues in the north earlier has enabled Philip to be in a position to attack Olynthus, and thus it is their duty to contain Macedonian expansion – which they permitted to overrun Chalcidice. The purpose of these speeches is to force the Assembly to reflect on Demosthenes’ parrhēsia, see their past errors, and act accordingly. Historical Context Olynthus, as the head of the Chalcidic League, was a powerful and influential polis and a strategically important barrier between Philip and the rest of Greece. 247 Relations between Philip and Olynthus had not always been hostile, however, by 349 Olynthus was the final polis left on the Chalcidice peninsula that had not fallen under Macedonian control. 248 During this time Philip had extended Macedonian influence eastwards, creating the first Macedonian colony of Philippi. 249 From here Philip then extended his control across the Thermaic Gulf, not only extending his sphere of influence at Athenian expense but also significantly improving the Macedonian economy with access to the gold and silver mines of the area, which produced 1000 talents annually. 250 This was in stark contrast to the state of the Athenian finances. 251 Yet, following Philip’s unexpected defeat by Onomarchus of Phocis 247 Tiverios 2008: 49 notes how Olynthus was originally settled on two hills (the southern one being Bottianian which was destroyed by the Persians in 479) and was resettled on the northern hill becoming ‘a city of the Greeks of Chalcidice.’ He states at 17n75 that in the first half of the fourth century, a presence of koinon predominated the region, under the leadership of Olynthus. For more on the fall of Olynthus see Cawkwell 1962 which assesses the soundness of Demosthenes’ policy from a purely military stand point. See too Worthington 2014: 132-144; Psoma 2011: 113-136. 248 In 357 Philip had sought an alliance with the Olynthians and presented them the city of Potidaea, an Athenian cleruchy, in 356. Diodorus 16.8.5. 249 This was originally an answer to a call for aid from Crenides of Thrace, which turned into the strategically brilliant coup of Philippi. Diodorus 16.8.6-7. Worthington 2013: 67; Hammond and Griffith 1979 (2): 358-361; Borza 1990. 250 On economic growth see Worthington 2013:67. The fall of Methone fully removed Athenian influence from the area. For the siege of Methone see Diodorus 16.31.4, 35.5-6; Justin 7.6.13-14; Worthington 2008; 2013. Diodorus 16.8.6; Worthington 2013:68; Montgomery 1983:9. Sinclair 1988: 46 remarks ‘in the fourth century, the absence of imperial revenues which in the 430s had brought in some 600 talents each year meant that Athens was plagued by weakness in financial measures.’ 251 76 in 353, Olynthus sought an alliance with the Athenians instead. 252 The other powers at play in the area also took advantage of Philip’s defeat, with the Athenians persuading Cersebleptes of Thrace to recognise their control of the Chersonese and their claim to Amphipolis. 253 Moreover, in addition to breaking their treaty with Philip the Olynthians also gave residence to Philip’s two brothers (incidentally rival claimants to the Macedonian throne). 254 This decision proved costly: following his emphatic victory over Onomarchus at the Battle of Crocus Field, Philip sought to reassert his power and demanded the surrender of his halfbrothers. The Olynthians refused and Philip invaded Chalcidice in summer 349, despite their retraction of an alliance with Athens. 255 Thus from an Athenian standpoint, whilst there was certainly no love lost between the two states through the loss of Potidaea, it served no interest to see Olynthus fall as it would give Philip unprecedented power in the North and direct access to Greece. 256 Kairos By the fourth century, kairos was generally regarded as the ‘opportune’ moment as opposed to chronos (linear time), Aristotle using kairos in his Rhetoric to discuss how friends are formed by those who have done them benefit, doing so at ‘opportune times’, ἐν τοιούτοις καιροῖς, but also to describe how people are ‘always looking for an opportunity’.257 Moreover, with regard to Demosthenes’ rhetorical use of the past discussed 252 See Diodorus 16.35.2 for Philip’s defeat. 253 Worthington 2013:93. 254 Ellis 1973. 255 Worthington 2014: 59. Gabriel 2010: 149 uses Justin 8.3.10 to support the suggestion that the presence of his two half-brothers in Olynthus caused Philip concern. See too Cawkwell 1962. 256 At 1.25 Demosthenes states Olynthus is key to whether Philip can challenge Athens in Attica. Aristotle Rhetoric 2.4.5; 2.5.8 being the opportunity to seek revenge: ἀεὶ γὰρ τηροῦσι καιρόν. In the Metaphysics 1.985b, Aristotle notes that the Pythagoreans applied mathematics to understanding the nature of things, including opportunity (ἕτερον δὲ καιρὸς), which he later questions at 1.990a ‘because when they make out that Opinion and Opportunity ( δόξα καὶ καιρὸς) are in such and such a region, and a little above or below them Injustice and Separation or Mixture...is the number which we must understand each of these abstractions to be the same number which is present in the sensible universe, or another kind of number?’ and returns to again at 257 77 in this thesis, Isocrates’ Panegyricus notes how kairos is crucial in understanding both the right time to speak and how to use speech: ‘For the deeds of the past are, indeed, an inheritance common to us all; but the ability to make proper use of them at the appropriate time, to conceive the right sentiments about them in each instance...is the peculiar gift of the wise.’258 But beyond understanding the opportune moment to speak, my reading of kairos in Demosthenes’ speeches also refers to idea of a distinct moment, the moment to act. 259 Indeed, kairos is not merely a moment of chance or accident, but a moment of advantageous balance; it is not just any opportunity, but the opportunity.260 Kairos resonates throughout the Olynthiacs, occurring 21 times across the three speeches, arguably because Demosthenes’ argument rests on asserting how the situation is a result of Athens’ failure to act, and the urgent need to seize the opportunity to change their situation. 261 In failing to seize their earlier kairos moments, the Athenians failed to prevent Philip’s expansion, neglected their duties and possessions, and impiously rejected the good 13.1078b. More generally, Sipiora 2002: 5 notes that in fifth-century literature kairos had evolved into the “best opportunity”. Observing its various meanings, Sipiora 2002: 1 notes how kairos was a ‘fundamental notion in ancient Greece’ which carried a number of meanings in classical rhetorical theory and history including but not limited to: symmetry, propriety, occasion, due measure, fitness, tact, decorum, convenience, proportion, fruit, profit and wise moderation.’ Sipiora adds that Race 1981 discusses ‘nearly a dozen different meanings of kairos in Greek drama alone.’ Smith 2002: 48-9 observes the difference between chronos and kairos in terms of time and qualitative time, noting that for Aristotle at Physics 4.2.219b chronos is defined as ‘the number of motion with respect to the before and after.’ Thus ‘time, so conceived, furnishes an essential grid upon which the processes of nature and of the historical order can be plotted and to that extend understood.’ Isocrates Panegyricus 9. αἱ μὲν γὰρ πράξεις αἱ προγεγενημέναι κοιναὶ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν κατελείφθησαν, τὸ δ’ ἐν καιρῷ ταύταις καταχρήσασθαι καὶ τὰ προσήκοντα περὶ ἑκάστης ἐνθυμηθῆναι καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν εὖ διαθέσθαι τῶν εὖ φρονούντων ἴδιόν ἐστιν. 258 Frost Benedikt 2002: 227 notes that kairos ‘begins with an effort to recognise opportunity making one sensitive to the critical character of moments that require decision. The decision concern the right moment signifies understanding concerning this moment as distinct from others, concerning this moment as the culmination of a series of events.’ On the importance of kairos in rhetorical theory Sipiora 2002: 3 notes how ‘kairos became a truly dominant concept, particularly in its pre-Isocratean and Pre-Aristotelian influences…kairos was the cornerstone of rhetoric in the Golden Age of Greece.’ For more on rhetorical theory and kairos see Rostagni 2002; Kinneavy 2002. 259 Such as the steersman in Plato’s Laws 709b knows how to recognise and use the best opportunity to his advantage. Frost Benedikt 2002: 229 notes that Plato ‘distinguishes kairos from chance and argued that, by developing karic skill for recognising one opportunity as more significant than another, people become less subject to chance alone.’ 260 261 References to kairos: 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 1.9, 1.11, 1.20, 1.24.2, 1.24.6, 1.24.9, 2.2, 2.4, 2.8, 2.23, 2.30, 3.3, 3.5.6, 3.5.8, 3.6, 3.7, 3.16, 3.35. This builds on references in the First Philippic: 4.12, 4.19, 4.33, 4.35, 4.37.4, 4.37.7. 78 favour of Fortune. Moreover, taking kairos as an opportune moment that may not recur, Demosthenes underlines his argument that action is required immediately before the opportunity is lost and events take away their autonomy to act. 262 For Demosthenes, to ignore the kairos of Olynthus would end their chances of ever regaining their presence in the north Aegean and would inflict irrevocable damage to Athens’ reputation. 263 On the Speeches Following the Philippics, the Olynthiacs are arguably the most frequently discussed of Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches, however, I believe it is imperative that they are read with the Philippics (and after Demosthenes 4) as they are fundamental to the development of Demosthenes’ arguments in the later speeches.264 In particular, I argue that for Demosthenes these three speeches come to represent the danger of the Assembly’s attitude towards parrhēsia, its rejection of good advice, and the neglect of their civic duty. 265 It is important to note that Demosthenes did not envisage three Olynthiacs or indeed a series of Philippics, in the manner that Cicero systematically attacks Mark Antony, but rather each speech is an on-the-spot reaction to events and develops as events unfold. For Demosthenes, the problems facing Athens are still those he highlighted in the First Philippic, and thus the Olynthiacs reinforce his arguments of 351.266 Therefore, while MacDowell notes that the Olynthiacs only concentrate on ‘general arguments’, instead of the specific proposals in the First Philippic, I propose that the need for specifics are unnecessary as the 262 Frost Benedikt 2002: 226 notes hhow kairos ‘makes opportunities that might not recur, moments of decision.’ 263 This too is reflected in the lack of references to kairos following the Peace of Philocrates, compared to the 27 references to kairos in its forms in the First Philippic and Olynthiacs, it only occurs 7 times in the post-peace speeches: 5.13; 6.18; 8.34; 8.42; 8.60; 9.13; 9.38. Thus to focus only on Demosthenes’ Philippic speeches (4,6, 9, 10, 11) misses crucial developments in the argument. Hernández-Muñoz 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015 has been working new critical editions of the Philippics 1-4 and as of 2015 published a critical edition the First Olynthiac (2015b). Even though it takes them out of the chronological context, the decision to now include the Olynthiacs into the project is most encouraging. 264 A more detailed discussion of parrhēsia will be discussed Chapter 2.3 when Demosthenes returns to address the Theoric fund, as this is arguably the most dangerous of his suggestions and epitomises the risks involved with parrhēsia. 265 266 This is why I believe it is imperative to approach them in chronological order. 79 Olynthiacs are built upon his earlier proposals and must be analysed with that speech in mind.267 The three speeches are generally discussed as a unit and treated thematically. Both MacDowell (M) and Worthington (W) summarise the Olynthiacs in terms of four main themes: 1) M: the situation at Olynthus/W: the situation at Olynthus. 2) M: the character of Philip and the easiness of defeating him/W: Philip’s character and the Athenians’ ability to defeat him. 3) M: the provision of money to pay for the expedition/ W: funding for military assistance. 4) M: the need for the Athenians to overcome their dilatoriness and disorganisation/ W: the need for the Athenians to pull themselves together and fight. 268 While I agree that the speeches do correspond to this thematic breakdown, my analysis examines the sequential development of Demosthenes’ arguments, demonstrating the progression of his arguments from the First Philippic against the Assembly. In particular I aim to emphasise the continuity of Demosthenes’ call for the Assembly to shake off its apathy – to act in person; to fund their military activities; to demonstrate the conviction of their words with action – and his use of Philip/ the Athenian past as a means to shame and praise the Assembly and provoke a reaction. 267 MacDowell 2009: 230. 268 MacDowell 2009: 230; Worthington 2014: 133. On treating the speeches as a unit Blass 1983 309. Worthington 2013: 134 n 20 lists Schaefer 1886: 126-152; Blass 1877: 268-81; Pickard-Cambridge 1914: 193, 227; Jaeger 1938: 127-144; Pearson 1976: 120-121, 127-135; Carlier 1990: 121-126; Sealey 1993: 137-143; Usher 1999: 220226; Lehmann 2004 111-119; MacDowell 2009: 229-239; Tuplin 1998: 276-320; Yunis 1996: 257-268; Wooten 1983. Latest treatment is evident in Brun 2015. 80 Dates and Order The dates and ordering of the Olynthiacs are still a matter under debate. It is generally agreed that we can date them to 349/8, whether that is relying on Dionysius To Ammaeus or deducing this via historical events such as the Euboean expedition of that winter. 269 In contrast, the ordering of the speeches is still a point of contention. In antiquity Dionysius orders the speeches 3-2-1, which is largely rejected on the grounds that the third shows an increased sense of urgency and boldness with regard to the Theoric fund. 270 Consensus places the Third Olynthiac as third, but the ordering of the first two is still unsettled. The traditional order follows Libanius’ Hypotheses to the speeches which orders them 1-2-3. My analysis follows this order, as does Worthington who approaches speeches 1 and 2 together and then moves to the third after an explanation of the wider historical context. MacDowell likewise maintains an order of 1-2-3 stating that ‘there is no compelling reason to regard the traditional sequence as incorrect’, and Usher argues that the vociferation of kairos at 1.2 links the First Olynthiac to the First Philippic.271 Alternatively, others advocate an order of 2-1-3, based on references to the Theoric fund in 1 and 3, and to Philip’s relations with Thessaly. 272 Ellis and Milns reason that, ‘the III-III order allows for the increasing urgency of the situation…through the orator’s increasing willingness to risk unpopularity by suggesting reform of the laws’ and that ‘there can be little Dionysius of Halicarnassus, To Ammaeus 1.4. Cawkwell 1962 notes that ‘since we lack the means to test the accuracy of Dionysius’ dates for Demosthenes there will always be the temptation to reject them as worthless.’ Conversely Lane-Fox 1997: 197 rejects the use of Dionysius’ arguments, but comes to the same date by Euboea, ‘Olynthiac 3, the last of the trio, is agreed to belong in 349/8, perhaps early 348 but certainly not before the Euboean crisis of spring 348’. MacDowell 2009: 238; Worthington 2014:133 uses both reasons. 269 Worthington 2013: 133 n13 detects a ‘rising boldness’ in the Third Olynthiac. Trevett 2011: 30 comes to the same conclusion because ‘its tone is markedly more pessimistic’. 270 MacDowell 2009: 238. Usher 1999: 221. Usher argues this adds ‘a further reason to those summarised by Vince (Loeb 1.203) for believing the traditional order of the Olynthiacs to be correct.’ Usher 1999: 221 n 177. 271 272 2-1-3: Ellis and Milns 1970: 36-37; Ellis 1966: 297-301; Lane-Fox 1997:197. 81 doubt, unless the text is to be distorted, that this order II.11 followed by I.22 – is the natural one.’273 Tuplin, however, rejects Ellis and Milns’ argument as ‘worthless and…is only more seductive on the assumption that information about foreign events is always accurate and that things always get worse’. 274 As Worthington notes, ‘absolute certainty is impossible’, and MacDowell offers a compromise between the two standpoints by suggesting that they may not have all been delivered due to constraints, but were prepared by Demosthenes ‘in the hope of getting opportunities to deliver them’. 275 From my own 1-2-3 preference, I argue that the lack of reference to the Theoric fund in the Second Olynthiac does not determine that it must have been first in the order. 276 Demosthenes may have chosen to take a different direction with the second speech, given the lack of success in the first, and the unpopularity and risks involved with threatening the Theoric fund. His return to the Theoric fund in the Third Olynthiac could possibly be read as a return to his original convictions, which had only been strengthened by unfolding events. Indeed, Tuplin makes an interesting suggestion that: 273 Developing from Ellis 1967: 110-11: Ellis and Milns 1970: 37-38. This is with specific reference to the Theoric fund mentioned at 1.19, and then at 3.10-13. They also argue that the change in the Thessalian situation determines II-I-III: …[2.11] makes it apparent that the Thessalians have just voted to demand back Pagasae, and to discuss the question of Philip’s continuing occupation of Magnesia, whereas in 1.22, it is stated that (a) ‘they have voted to demand Pagasae back from him’ and (b) ‘have stopped him fortifying Magnesia’ and further, be it at this stage only a rumour, (c) will ‘no longer grant him the enjoyment of the revenues of their harbours and markets.’ Tuplin 1998: 278. On the basis that Ellis’s argument depends on the νῦν in 2.11, and a ‘more extreme picture in I than II’ with regard to Thessaly’s rejection of Philip. 274 275 Worthington 2014:133; MacDowell 2009: 238. With regard to the delivery of these speeches, as discussed in the introduction, I regard the texts as reflecting what was delivered by Demosthenes on the day. 276 Indeed, Karvounis 2002: 230-1 argues at the other end of the spectrum, that repetition denoted success: that the repeated arguments (not necessarily just on theōrika) in the Second Olynthiac, pointed out that it had impressed particularly in the Assembly (Die Tatsache, daß Demosthenes weder in der II noch in der II Olynthischen Rede dieses Argument wiederholt, weist darauf hin, daß es die in der Ekklesia Versammelten besonderes beeindruckt hatte.) However, I do not agree with this as Demosthenes’ great complaint is at the hostility of the Assembly and their lack of eunoia. 82 the whole point is that the three speeches can – so far as definable external circumstances are concerned – be exactly contemporary and afford an example of the same situation being rhetorically addressed three times and in three different ways.’ 277 I take this even further in my analysis and maintain that each of these speeches emphasises specific arguments from the First Philippic, and that the speeches become reflections, reaffirmations and developments of his original argument that the problem facing Athens is, first and foremost, an internal one. In this regard I go beyond Karvounis who links the First Philippic and the First Olynthiac only in so far as they both refer to the danger and weaknesses of Philip. 278 By removing the ‘Philippic’ lens, my analysis observes the internal crisis within Athens as the ἀρχή of the Macedonian Question; consequently, I propose a link between the two speech from the standpoint of Demosthenes’ arguments against the Assembly’s current attitudes. As such, I argue that, for Demosthenes, the situation at Olynthus is exactly what he forewarned in the First Philippic if the Assembly failed to shake off its apathy. In the Olynthiacs, as the Assembly continues to ignore his advice, Demosthenes repeatedly attempts to make the Athenians snap out of their apathy and act in manner that is worthy of the city and their ancestors. In practice this involves performing their duties, recognising parrhēsia and acting upon it, thus bridging the gap between logos and ergon which has rendered them ineffective to date. 277 Tuplin 1998: 280. 278 Karvounis 2002: 31. 83 CHAPTER 2.1 THE FIRST OLYNTHIAC Proemium and Narrative 1.1-13 The proemium and narrative focuses on the kairos that Olynthus presents, and the need for the Assembly to listen to the correct advice: to recognise what is in their best interests and act upon it.279 Demosthenes begins by establishing not just the purpose of this speech, but defines the purpose of speech as that which is most beneficial to the polis: You would, I expect, men of Athens, accept it as the equivalent of a large amount of money, if it could be made clear to you what will prove our best policy in the matters now under discussion. 280 This is achieved through listening to good advice, which first requires recognising good advice, and the intentions of the speaker. However, as Demosthenes insinuates at the end of the First Philippic, the Assembly is hostile to receiving unwelcome advice. This unwillingness to give a fair hearing to good advice has contributed significantly to their current problems: Since this is the case, you should listen attentively to those who wish to offer you advice. If a speaker comes forward with a useful proposal already prepared, you should listen to his advice and accept it. In addition I regard it as a sign of your good fortune that it may occur to some speakers to say much that is needed on the spur of the moment, so that from all that is said you will easily be able to choose what is to your advantage.281 279 As noted above, I define kairos as more than just a moment or time (chronos) but as the opportune moment to act, a golden moment. Sipiora 2002: 5 notes that ‘in fifth-century literature, kairos evolves to represent “the best opportunity”.’ Demosthenes’ kairos generates the urgency to act in a particular way at a particular time to make the best use of a situation. Demosthenes 1.1. ἀντὶ πολλῶν ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, χρημάτων ὑμᾶς ἑλέσθαι νομίζω, εἰ φανερὸν γένοιτο τὸ μέλλον συνοίσειν τῇ πόλει περὶ ὧν νυνὶ σκοπεῖτε. 280 Demosthenes 1.1. ὅτε τοίνυν τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει, προσήκει προθύμως ἐθέλειν ἀκούειν τῶν βουλομένων συμβουλεύειν: οὐ γὰρ μόνον εἴ τι χρήσιμον ἐσκεμμένος ἥκει τις, τοῦτ᾽ ἂν ἀκούσαντες λάβοιτε, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς 281 84 Whilst this can be considered standard proem material about heeding good advice, the key point here is that Demosthenes’ argument centres on confronting an Assembly that rejects advice. It also suggests that the issues Demosthenes described in the First Philippic have not been addressed and his call for them to listen to useful advice, and accept it, implies that they still do not progress beyond deliberation. Accordingly, Demosthenes defines his own speech as being precisely that which ‘will benefit the city’, and stresses the urgency of the situation at Olynthus by making the kairos take voice and shout out to the Athenians to seize it and act in their own interests: The present situation (parōn kairos), men of Athens, all but takes voice and says that you must take control of the Olynthians’ affairs, if indeed you are concerned about their preservation – though I find it difficult to describe our attitude towards them. 282 Or, indeed, about their own preservation. Demosthenes presents a powerful image in his use of prosopopoeia on the kairos, which directly calls on the Assembly to listen, and that only the situation itself can articulate their current situation. 283 Demosthenes proclaims his argument at their selective hearing by making the Pnyx resound with the immediacy of the kairos, which is all the more persuasive as it is ‘placed immediately after remarks upon the ὑμετέρας τύχης ὑπολαμβάνω πολλὰ τῶν δεόντων ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμ᾽ ἐνίοις ἂν ἐπελθεῖν εἰπεῖν, ὥστ᾽ ἐξ ἁπάντων ῥᾳδίαν τὴν τοῦ συμφέροντος ὑμῖν αἵρεσιν γενέσθαι. Vince’s translation goes so far as to say that ‘you are bound to give an eager hearing to all how offer advice’ On the logic behind the wisdom of mass-deliberation Ober 1989: 163 notes that ‘faith was grounded in the assumption that the collective wisdom of a large group was inherently greater than the wisdom of any of its parts. This conviction is one of the central egalitarian tenets of Athenian political ideology.’ Demosthenes 1.2. ὁ μὲν οὖν παρὼν καιρός, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μόνον οὐχὶ λέγει φωνὴν ἀφιεὶς ὅτι τῶν πραγμάτων ὑμῖν ἐκείνων αὐτοῖς ἀντιληπτέον ἐστίν, εἴπερ ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας αὐτῶν φροντίζετε· ἡμεῖς δ’ οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅντινά μοι δοκοῦμεν ἔχειν τρόπον πρὸς αὐτά. His use of kairos correlates with how ‘kairos has an ontological “physical and metaphysical” dimension of its own,’ Frost Benedikt 2002: 227; Smith 1986: 5. Tuplin 1998: 283 notes that this image is ‘ambiguous between metaphor and simile’. Usher 2004: 58 states this is reminiscent of Lysippus’ statue of the divine kairos. Sandys 1924: 127 observes similar personification in Sophocles Elektra 75; Plato Protagoras 361a; Thucydides 2.43.2. 282 As Smith 2011: 12 notes, ‘προσοποποιΐα, “the putting of speeches into the mouths [faces] of characters”…is the ancient term nearest in meaning to personification.’ Quintilian remarks upon Demosthenes’ use of prosopopoeia here in his Orators’ Education 12.10.24. Stafford 1998: 24 observes that Demosthenes’ kairos was cited in discussions by Alexander Rhetor in De Figuris (Spengel III, 19.14-20), and in Apsines of Gadara’s Ars Rhetorica. Stafford 1998: 24 notes that the ‘most extensive analysis of the term comes in Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata, ed. Spendel, Rhet. Graec. II, 115.11-28.’ Dilts and Kennedy 1997: 197 notes that Apsines definition ‘regards prosopopoeia as primarily the personification of an abstraction.’ 283 85 necessity of listening to all possible speakers.’284 To this end, Demosthenes proposes immediate responsive action: In my opinion, you should vote for an immediate relief force, and make preparations as quickly as possible to send help from here, to avoid suffering a recurrence of what happened previously, and should send an embassy to announce these decisions and observe what is happening. 285 Narrative As in the First Philippic, the narrative turns to address the situation of Philip and Olynthus, but in a manner that calls the Athenians to see the situation (via Demosthenes’ lens) for what it ‘really’ is: that Philip’s perceived power is a product of Athens’ failure to act, and thus swift Athenian action will correct this. Demosthenes then moves to focus on the growing reputation of Athens as a city that, unlike Macedonia, consistently fails to seize its kairos. Demosthenes makes it clear that they cannot afford to maintain these attitudes now that the situation has developed essentially into a fight between freedom and tyranny. Demosthenes maintains that, as in the First Philippic, the situation has occurred because Philip has exploited their shortcomings: My particular fear is that, since he is a rogue and a clever manipulator of events, sometimes making concessions, whenever it is in his interests, sometimes making threats, which might reasonably been regarded as credible, sometimes slandering us Tuplin 1998: 283. He continues, ‘for it is clearly to the assembly speakers (perhaps especially those who speak ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα) that καιρός is being assimilated.’ 284 285 Demosthenes 1.2. ἔστι δὴ τά γ’ ἐμοὶ δοκοῦντα, ψηφίσασθαι μὲν ἤδη τὴν βοήθειαν, καὶ παρασκευάσασθαι τὴν ταχίστην ὅπως ἐνθένδε βοηθήσετε (καὶ μὴ πάθητε ταὐτὸν ὅπερ καὶ πρότερον), πρεσβείαν δὲ πέμπειν, ἥτις ταῦτ’ ἐρεῖ καὶ παρέσται τοῖς πράγμασιν· I disagree the assertions of Karvounis 2002: 316-7 that despite this statement on a lack of consensus, it can be assumed with reasonable certainty (‘obwohl man mit ziemlicher Sicherheit davon ausgehen kann’) that he and the majority of those assembled were mostly there to agree to send an auxiliary corps to Olynthians. He continues that one should not imagine that Demosthenes was talking to an audience that did not intend to help the Chalcidians, ‘an sollte sich also nicht vorstellen, daß Demosthenes etwa vor einem Publikum redete, das gar nicht daran dachte, den Chalkidiern zu helfen’, as this again is just conjecture. I am dubious, as they did not listen to the proposals in the First Philippic. 86 and our failure to intervene, he may turn around and snatch some advantage from this whole situation.286 But from this negative observation that Philip has exploited their ‘failure to intervene’, Demosthenes presents a paradox (like in the First Philippic), and turns the worst aspect of the situation to their advantage: However, men of Athens, one might say that the hardest thing about Philip to fight against is the best for you: that he, as an individual, controls everything, both what is public and what is secret, and is simultaneously general and ruler and paymaster, and is present everywhere with his army. 287 Effectively, the benefits of Philip’s autocratic decision-making have clearly had an impact when compared to the Athenians who paralyse their own decision-making process by empty rhetoric that never amounts to action. But, Demosthenes turns the apparent benefit of Philip’s control into a weakness: it has revealed Philip’s tyrannical nature and, by their past actions, the Athenians should know how to act against such tyrants. Demosthenes states that events have now enlightened the Chalcidians: For the Olynthians now see clearly that they are fighting not for glory over the division of land but to prevent the destruction and enslavement of their country. 288 Demosthenes 1.3. ὡς ἔστι μάλιστα τοῦτο δέος, μὴ πανοῦργος ὢν καὶ δεινὸς ἅνθρωπος πράγμασι χρῆσθαι, τὰ μὲν εἴκων, ἡνίκ’ ἂν τύχῃ, τὰ δ’ ἀπειλῶν (ἀξιόπιστος δ’ ἂν εἰκότως φαίνοιτο), τὰ δ’ ἡμᾶς διαβάλλων καὶ τὴν ἀπουσίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν, τὰ δ’ ἡμᾶς διαβάλλων καὶ τὴν ἀπουσίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν, τρέψηται καὶ παρασπάσηταί τι τῶν ὅλων πραγμάτων. 286 Demosthenes 1.4. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιεικῶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦθ᾽ ὃ δυσμαχώτατόν ἐστι τῶν Φιλίππου πραγμάτων, καὶ βέλτιστον ὑμῖν· τὸ γὰρ εἶναι πάντων ἐκεῖνον ἕν’ ὄντα κύριον καὶ ῥητῶν καὶ ἀπορρήτων καὶ ἅμα στρατηγὸν καὶ δεσπότην καὶ ταμίαν, καὶ πανταχοῦ αὐτὸν παρεῖναι τῷ στρατεύματι. Sandys 1924: 129 notes ἐπιεικῶς modifies the force of βέλτιστον in the paradox. Sandys remarks that ‘after alarming the people by showing the strength of their adversaries, the orator turns off skilfully to a topic of encouragement.’ This, I view as Demosthenes’ method of praise and blame. 287 Demosthenes 1.5. δῆλον γάρ ἐστι τοῖς Ὀλυνθίοις ὅτι νῦν οὐ περὶ δόξης οὐδ᾿ ὑπὲρ μέρους χώρας πολεμοῦσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ τῆς πατρίδος. Sandys 1924: 130 notes that δῆλον- ὅτι is an iambic trimeter. He argues they are hardly exceptions to Aristotle’s rule in Rhetoric 3.8.3. I think it could be adding tragic connotations to his account of the Olynthians. 288 87 Despite their earlier beliefs, the Olynthians have learnt through first-hand observation what the outcome of the situation will be, and this too echoes Demosthenes’ complaint in the First Philippic of the damage caused by basing decisions on second-hand information, which results in a misunderstanding of the situation and erroneous decision-making. Seeing the reality of Philip’s expansion from the Olynthians’ perspective, Demosthenes asserts that the issue of their lack of action has developed beyond Philip merely becoming powerful enough to threaten Athenian interests, but into a fundamental dichotomy of freedom versus tyranny: They know how he treated those Amphipolitans who handed their city to him, and those Pydnans who let him into their city. Free states, I believe, have no trust in tyranny, especially if they share a common border with it. 289 Demosthenes’ dichotomy works on several levels: democracy versus tyranny; willing allies versus coerced subjects; freedom versus slavery. This works to Athens’ advantage, as a show of Athenian strength could sway their former allies to return to them; as Demosthenes argues at the end of the speech: 'it must be supposed that the Paeonians and the Illyrians and, in general, all these people would rather be free and autonomous than slaves.’ 290 Again, this demonstrates that Philip’s power is not as secure as some perceive (‘On which account, it often seems more difficult to preserve one’s wealth than it was to acquire it’) but also adds a sense of shame if the Athenians fail to fulfil their traditional duty to protect the Greeks against tyrants.291 In making these observations, Demosthenes appears to emulate Thucydides’ Pericles in reminding the Assembly of the careful and rational process they ought to adopt in their Demosthenes 1.6 ἴσασιν ἅ τ’ Ἀμφιπολιτῶν ἐποίησε τοὺς παραδόντας αὐτῷ τὴν πόλιν καὶ Πυδναίων τοὺς ὑποδεξαμένους· καὶ ὅλως ἄπιστον, οἶμαι, ταῖς πολιτείαις ἡ τυραννίς, ἄλλως τε κἂν ὅμορον χώραν ἔχωσι. 289 Demosthenes 1.23. ἀλλὰ μὴν τόν γε Παίονα καὶ τὸν Ἰλλυριὸν καὶ ἁπλῶς τούτους ἅπαντας ἡγεῖσθαι χρὴ αὐτονόμους ἥδιον ἂν καὶ ἐλευθέρους ἢ δούλους εἶναι· 291 Demosthenes 1.23. διόπερ πολλάκις δοκεῖ τὸ φυλάξαι τἀγαθὰ τοῦ κτήσασθαι χαλεπώτερον εἶναι. Similar attitudes towards shame and duty can be seen in Hyperides 4.33-4, 6.5. 290 88 decision-making.292 Indeed, for Demosthenes, their failure act efficiently and prevent the loss of their possessions has created an environment for threats such as Philip to develop. In recognising the damage done to the Amphipolitans and Pydnans, which can arguably be viewed as extensions of Athens, Demosthenes calls the Athenians to change their attitudes and respond to Olynthus’ call for aid: And so, men of Athens, if you acknowledge these facts and keep in mind everything else that you should, I urge you to be resolute and aroused to action and to apply yourselves to the war as never before, willingly contributing money and going on campaign in person and neglecting nothing. For there is no excuse left for you to refuse to do what is needed. 293 Demosthenes not only implies that they still avoid action, but stresses that the kairos of Olynthus presents the Athenians with a second chance, and legitimate excuse to act in their own interests in the North and right the balance of power that they enabled Philip to disrupt: Now what everyone was chattering about recently – that we must induce the Olynthians to go to war with Philip – has come about of its own accord and in a way that may prove most advantageous to you. For if they had been persuaded by you to go to war, they would be unreliable allies and might only partially acknowledge that they were at war; but since they hate him on account of their own grievances, their Herman 2006: 143 notes that Demosthenes 1.4-5 ‘reveals an impeccable reasoning process, essentially the one so memorably embodied in Pericles’ Funeral Oration (Thucydides 2.40.2-3.) Whilst Herman argues Demosthenes ‘presupposes that the members of the audience will weigh every circumstance carefully and observe motivations and opportunities without prejudice, rather than acting on impulse…that they will search for the facts, rather than seizing upon whatever strikes them first.’ I maintain that Demosthenes makes this allusion to emphasise that the Assembly does not act in this manner, which is why they suffer misfortunes in their foreign and domestic affairs. 292 Demosthenes 1.6. ταῦτ᾿ οὖν ἐγνωκότας ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ τἄλλ᾿ ἃ προσήκει πάντ᾿ ἐνθυμουμένους φημὶ δεῖν ἐθελῆσαι καὶ παροξυνθῆναι καὶ τῷ πολέμῳ προσέχειν εἴπερ ποτὲ καὶ νῦν, χρήματ᾿ εἰσφέροντας προθύμως καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐξιόντας καὶ μηδὲν ἐλλείποντας. οὐδὲ γὰρ λόγος οὐδὲ σκῆψις ἔθ᾿ ὑμῖν τοῦ μὴ τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν ἐθέλειν ὑπολείπεται. Sandys 1924: 132 remarks on the contrast between λόγος and σκῆψις. 293 89 hatred of him will probably be assured because of what they fear and of what they have suffered.294 The advantageous nature of the kairos may be emphasised by a subtle reference to Thucydides when the Sicilians remarked negatively on how the Athenians, ‘stir up war by the offer of alliance’. 295 This current kairos has brought war about without the Athenians reverting to the behaviour that led to the Sicilian Expedition. Demosthenes’ complaint, however, is that they fail to recognise the kairos because they refuse to acknowledge his advice. This is essentially a repetition of his call for funded Athenian forces in the First Philippic. The necessity to act has only intensified through their lack of action, as in the First Philippic, Demosthenes reproached the Assembly for consistently failing to seize upon any opportunity to rectify the situation in the North and the correlating increased power of Philip through their own allies. 296 The purpose of the First Olynthiac, in my opinion, is to make the Athenians realise that this current kairos gives them the chance to rectify their past errors. Indeed, Demosthenes directly asserts this: ‘You must not pass up such an opportunity, men of Athens, when it has fallen into your lap, nor suffer the same fate as you have suffered many times already.’297 As such, there is no excuse to not seize this kairos, and thus the rejection of Demosthenes 1.7. νυνὶ γάρ, ὃ πάντες ἐθρύλουν τέως, Ὀλυνθίους ἐκπολεμῶσαι δεῖν Φιλίππῳ, γέγονεν αὐτόματον, καὶ ταῦθ’ ὡς ἂν ὑμῖν μάλιστα συμφέροι. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὑφ’ ὑμῶν πεισθέντες ἀνείλοντο τὸν πόλεμον, σφαλεροὶ σύμμαχοι καὶ μέχρι του ταῦτ’ ἂν ἐγνωκότες ἦσαν ἴσως· ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἐκ τῶν μέχρι του ταῦτ’ ἂν ἐγνωκότες ἦσαν ἴσως· ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἐκ τῶν πρὸς αὑτοὺς ἐγκλημάτων μισοῦσι, βεβαίαν εἰκὸς τὴν ἔχθραν αὐτοὺς ὑπὲρ ὧν φοβοῦνται καὶ πεπόνθασιν ἔχειν. Sandys 1924: 132 notes use of ἐκπολεμῶσαι at Thucydides 6.77.2. I propose Demosthenes may have used this reference to make a deliberate parallel. 294 295 Thucydides 6.77.2. 296 Demosthenes 4.37. Demosthenes 1.8 οὐ δεῖ δὴ τοιοῦτον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, παραπεπτωκότα καιρὸν ἀφεῖναι, οὐδὲ παθεῖν ταὐτὸν ὅπερ ἤδη πολλάκις πρότερον πεπόνθατε. Sandys 1924: 133 compares this to Thucydides 4.23.3: σκοποῦντες καιρὸν εἴ τις παραπέσοι ὥστε τοὺς ἄνδρας σῶσαι, when the Peloponnesians were watching for any opportunity that might present itself of rescuing their men. 297 90 Demosthenes proposals equates to deliberately choosing to ignore the lessons of recent events.298 From this point Demosthenes returns to his method of balancing rebukes and hopes from the First Philippic, and weaves his criticism of squandered opportunities, and the consequences, with the new opportunity to change this. Having established they have been handed a golden opportunity, and implored them not ‘to suffer the same fate’ by either not acting, or acting upon the wrong advice, Demosthenes presents further examples of how their attitudes have exacerbated the situation. Recalling Amphipolis’ call for aid when, ‘the Amphipolitans Hierax and Stratocles were here on this very platform urging us to sail and take possession of their city’ 299, Demosthenes suggests that if the Athenians had ‘shown the same concern for our interests as we had for the security of the Euboeans, we would have held on to Amphipolis then and would have avoided all our subsequent troubles.’300 For Demosthenes, the Athenians should have been interested in their own interests in the North instead of prioritising the expedition to Euboea that (retrospectively) proved costly. Moreover, in indicating that the ambassadors spoke on the bēma, ‘Demosthenes underlines his point that the response to the Amphipolitan ambassadors was inadequate. A better response is to be made this time…to prevent Philip from conquering the place [Olynthus].’ 301 While Demosthenes will claim in On the Peace that he had advised against intervening in Ober 1989: 316 notes, ‘one important function the orator fulfilled was to protect the masses – the term prostates tou dēmou, “he who stands before the people,” meant not only one who stood first in the eyes of people but who physically stood before the people in order to address them, but one who interposes himself between the people and dangers that threatened them.’ 298 Demosthenes 1.8. …παρῆσαν Ἀμφιπολιτῶν Ἱέραξ καὶ Στρατοκλῆς ἐπὶ τουτὶ τὸ βῆμα, κελεύοντες ἡμᾶς πλεῖν καὶ παραλαμβάνειν τὴν πόλιν. 299 Demosthenes 1.8 (εἰ γάρ…) τὴν αὐτὴν παρειχόμεθ’ ἡμεῖς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν προθυμίαν ἥνπερ ὑπὲρ τῆς Εὐβοέων σωτηρίας, εἴχετ’ ἂν Ἀμφίπολιν τότε καὶ πάντων τῶν μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἂν ἦτ’ ἀπηλλαγμένοι πραγμάτων. Sandys 1924: 134 notes the decree attesting to Hierax and Stratocles is still extant: CIH n. 2008. 300 De Bakker 2012: 398. The bēma was viewed as an official place of solemnity. See earlier references to the bēma at 4.1, 4.45 and 6.30 on the bēma and their misuse of it. 301 91 Euboea, here he already stresses the value of his advice, and how ignoring him has exacerbated their current problems: Again, when it was announced that Pydna, Potidaea, Methone, Pagasae, and the other places – I do not wish to waste time talking about them individually302 - were being besieged, if we had energetically dispatched an appropriate relief force to the first of these, we would now be dealing with a more tractable and much weaker Philip. 303 Demosthenes reiterates his previous argument that Athens created its own enemy by not acting, thus enabling Philip’s power and influence to grow. It is therefore the Athenians, not Philip, who are responsible, and specifically their current attitudes: But as things are, men of Athens, we always abandon any opportunity that presents itself through the hope that the future will turn well of its own accord and as a result we have made Philip stronger and more powerful than any previous king of Macedonia.304 It is this throw-away attitude that has made the situation at Olynthus possible, and the Philip of today is the product of Athens’ consistent failure to address their apathetic attitude. 305 However, this damning assessment of their consistent failure and detrimental practices is immediately mitigated by the hope of the current kairos, ‘but now indeed in the case of Olynthus, as great an opportunity has come to us of its own accord as any of those previous 302 This paraliptic phrase presents these places, both as a mass of Athenian failures, but also to stress the urgency of the situation. This also highlights the significance of the loss of Amphipolis, which proved a turning point both for the deterioration of Athenian interests in the North and the rise of Philip’s position. 303 Demosthenes 1.9. καὶ πάλιν ἡνίκα Πύδνα, Ποτείδαια, Μεθώνη, Παγασαί, τἄλλα, ἵνα μὴ καθ’ ἕκαστα λέγων διατρίβω, πολιορκούμεν’ ἀπηγγέλλετο, εἰ τότε τούτων ἑνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ προθύμως καὶ ὡς προσῆκεν ἐβοηθήσαμεν αὐτοί, ῥᾴονι καὶ πολὺ ταπεινοτέρῳ νῦν ἂν ἐχρώμεθα τῷ Φιλίππῳ. Clarke 2008: 252 notes that the failure at Euboea ‘is part of a list of fourth-century examples – Pydna (357), Potidaea (356), Methone (354) and Pagasae (352) – designed to demonstrate that quick action in the past might have averted trouble with Philip now.’ One could compare this to Demosthenes 5.5. Demosthenes 1.9. νῦν δὲ τὸ μὲν παρὸν ἀεὶ προϊέμενοι, τὰ δὲ μέλλοντ’ αὐτόματ’ οἰόμενοι σχήσειν καλῶς, ηὐξήσαμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Φίλιππον ἡμεῖς καὶ κατεστήσαμεν τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος οὐδείς πω βασιλεὺς γέγονεν Μακεδονίας. This can be compared to Demosthenes 3.9 where he repeats this sentiment: ‘For I imagine we are all well aware that this is how things wil turn out, if we discard the present opportunity.’ 304 305 Sandys 1924: 135 notes προϊέμενοι ‘neglecting’, is a favourite word with Demosthenes. 92 ones.’306 As Philip is a problem of their own making, it is within the power of the Athenians to rectify the situation in this kairic window of opportunity. Moreover, this kairos could be taken as a sign of divine support, undeserving as they are: And it seems to me at any rate, men of Athens, that if someone were appointed to give a fair appraisal of your treatment at the hands of the gods, although many things are not as they should be, he would nevertheless be very grateful to them, and with good reason. For the fact that we have suffered many reverses in the war might rightly be attributed to our carelessness, whereas the fact that we did not suffer these reverses long ago, and that to counterbalance them an alliance has been presented to us, if we are willing to take advantage of it, I would regard it as a beneficial result of their goodwill.307 It is imperative for the Assembly to recognise that Athenian complacency and apathy, as asserted in the First Philippic, is at the centre of their problems, and that ‘in public affairs, those who misuse their opportunities forget what benefit they have received from the gods.’308 The importance of seizing this kairos is emphasised further by the alternative scenario: But if we also abandon these men, men of Athens, and he then captures Olynthus, will someone tell me what is to prevent him marching wherever he wishes? Does any of you observe or reflect on the means by which Philip, who was weak, has become Demosthenes 1.9. νυνὶ δὴ καιρὸς ἥκει τις, οὗτος ὁ τῶν Ὀλυνθίων, αὐτόματος τῇ πόλει, ὃς οὐδενός ἐστιν ἐλάττων τῶν προτέρων ἐκείνων. 306 Demosthenes 1.10. καὶ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ τις ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δίκαιος λογιστὴς τῶν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἡμῖν ὑπηργμένων καταστάς, καίπερ οὐκ ἐχόντων ὡς δεῖ πολλῶν, ὅμως μεγάλην ἂν ἔχειν αὐτοῖς χάριν, εἰκότως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ πόλλ’ ἀπολωλεκέναι κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀμελείας ἄν τις θείη δικαίως, τὸ δὲ μήτε πάλαι τοῦτο πεπονθέναι πεφηνέναι τέ τιν’ ἡμῖν συμμαχίαν τούτων ἀντίρροπον, ἂν βουλώμεθα χρῆσθαι, τῆς παρ’ ἐκείνων εὐνοίας εὐεργέτημ’ ἂν ἔγωγε θείην. This returns to the motif in the First Philippic, that they are currently acting in a manner inferior to their ancestors, who did do their duty. 307 308 Demosthenes 1.11. 93 strong? First, he took Amphipolis, then Pydna, and then Potidaea, next Methone, and then he attacked Thessaly, and after that, Pherae, Pagasae, and Magnesia.309 By reminding the Athenians of what they have already lost (squandered even) to Philip, Demosthenes leaves them to deduce the inevitable consequences of doing nothing. Moreover, this returns to his previous argument that Philip is powerful through taking Athenian allies, and this kairos presents the Athenians with the opportunity to ‘wipe away the dishonour of your past conduct’.310 In observing the nature of kairic time as marking an opportunity that ‘might not recur’, kairos emphasises the urgency to act, but to do so they must correct their current behaviour, and ‘give full thought for the future’, informed by their past errors. 311 Argument The purpose of telling the Athenians this, Demosthenes argues, is to become self-aware, reflect and change: But why, it might be asked, are you telling us this now? My purpose is to make you understand, men of Athens, both the harm done by our continual neglect of our affairs, one after the other, and Philip’s habitual meddlesomeness, which prevents him from being content with what he has achieved and remaining at peace. 312 Demosthenes 1.12-13. εἰ δὲ προησόμεθ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ τούτους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, εἶτ’ Ὄλυνθον ἐκεῖνος καταστρέψεται, φρασάτω τις ἐμοὶ τί τὸ κωλῦον ἔτ’ αὐτὸν ἔσται βαδίζειν ὅποι βούλεται. ἆρα λογίζεταί τις ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ θεωρεῖ τὸν τρόπον δι’ ὃν μέγας γέγονεν ἀσθενὴς ὢν τὸ κατ’ ἀρχὰς Φίλιππος; τὸ πρῶτον Ἀμφίπολιν λαβών, μετὰ ταῦτα Πύδναν, πάλιν Ποτείδαιαν, Μεθώνην αὖθις, εἶτα Θετταλίας ἐπέβη· μετὰ ταῦτα Φεράς, Παγασάς, Μαγνησίαν. 309 310 Demosthenes 1.11. ἵνα ταῦτ’ ἐπανορθωσάμενοι τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἀδοξίαν ἀποτριψώμεθα. Demosthenes 1.11. Frost Benedikt 2002: 226 notes how kairos is ‘interpretive, situational’ as opposed to chronos-time, which is ‘absolute, universal and objective.’ Karvounis 2002: 319 likewise argues that Demosthenes' idea of kairos gains a special importance because of the opportunity offered Athens the chance to finally halt Philip’s expansion, and restore Athenian order in the North. 311 Demosthenes 1.14. τί οὖν, ἄν τις εἴποι, ταῦτα λέγεις ἡμῖν νῦν; ἵνα γνῶτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ αἴσθησθ’ ἀμφότερα, καὶ τὸ προΐεσθαι καθ’ ἕκαστον ἀεί τι τῶν πραγμάτων ὡς ἀλυσιτελές, καὶ τὴν φιλοπραγμοσύνην ᾗ χρῆται καὶ συζῇ Φίλιππος, ὑφ’ ἧς οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἀγαπήσας τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἡσυχίαν σχήσει. 312 94 By acknowledging this, the Assembly may then listen to other advisers but ‘choose whichever you think is advantageous and take control of the situation while the opportunity is here.’313 The speech focuses on recognising the consequences of the Assembly’s habit of listening to what it wants and its attitude towards popular rhetoric and its rejections of parrhēsia. The results of their neglect and apathy is exacerbated by Philip’s nature and his, ‘habitual meddlesomeness.’ In repeating Philip’s insatiable akrasia, Demosthenes presents the inevitable outcome if the Assembly refuses to change its attitude towards, not Philip, but its own behaviour: ‘by the gods, who of you is so foolish as to be unaware that the war will move from there to here, if we neglect it?’ 314 It is thus imperative that the Assembly reprioritises its attitude towards foreign expeditions, and in particular to listening to good advice. As I have suggested for the First Philippic, Demosthenes’ focus is first and foremost aimed at the crisis within the Assembly itself, and not exactly ‘Philippic’. This is stressed further when Demosthenes develops his remarks on the role of the adviser in the proemium: Perhaps it will be said that criticism is easy and open to all but that the duty of the adviser is to reveal what should be done in the present situation. I am well aware, men of Athens, that you are often angry not at those who are at fault but at the most recent speakers about the political situation, if anything turns out contrary to your expectation.315 313 Demosthenes 1.20. ὧν ἕλεσθ’ ὅστις ὑμῖν συμφέρειν δοκεῖ· καὶ ἕως ἐστὶ καιρός, ἀντιλάβεσθε τῶν πραγμάτων. Demosthenes 1.15. πρὸς θεῶν, τίς οὕτως εὐήθης ἐστὶν ὑμῶν ὅστις ἀγνοεῖ τὸν ἐκεῖθεν πόλεμον δεῦρ’ ἥξοντα, ἂν ἀμελήσωμεν; 314 Demosthenes 1.16. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπιτιμᾶν ἴσως φήσαι τις ἂν ῥᾴδιον καὶ παντὸς εἶναι, τὸ δ’ ὑπὲρ τῶν παρόντων ὅ τι δεῖ πράττειν ἀποφαί νεσθαι, τοῦτ’ εἶναι συμβούλου. ἐγὼ δ’ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦθ’ ὅτι πολλάκις ὑμεῖς οὐ τοὺς αἰτίους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ὑστάτους περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων εἰπόντας ἐν ὀργῇ ποιεῖσθε, ἄν τι μὴ κατὰ γνώμην ἐκβῇ· For more on the Assembly’s anger towards advisors see discussion at 1.19 and 3.11. Ober 1989: 318 presents this passage as an example of how ‘the political orator must give the best possible advice, and he must not allow anything, even fear of a possible negative reaction to his comments by the Assembly, to stand in the way of his oratorical service to the state.’ Demosthenes may also be asserting his own role as sumboulos, following Ober 1989: 317 that ‘the advisory role of the political orators is reflected in the term sumboulos, which politicians use of themselves and of “good orators” in general.’ 315 95 Demosthenes affirms that the Assembly cannot recognise who is to blame, and chooses the easiest target over the more uncomfortable task of recognising their own errors. Moreover, Demosthenes asserts his own position as a speaker of unpopular truths by asserting: But I certainly do not think that out of concern for one’s personal safety one should refrain from saying what is to your advantage. 316 In this manner Demosthenes rhetorically adds an aspect of sincerity to his advice (characteristic of parrhēsia), as he advises the Assembly to his own detriment, which continues his earlier argument that to reject his advice is to act against their interests.317 The danger of pleasant speeches presents a very real crisis for Athens, both internally and externally, as they fail to take effective action. Their problem is their preference for the easy option over what is right but difficult: I fear, men of Athens, that, like those who thoughtlessly borrow at high rates of interests and prosper for a short whole but later lose even their principle, so we may be seen to have paid a high price for our neglect and, in our constant search to do what brings pleasure, may later be forced to do many hard things against our will, and our very homeland may be at risk. 318 Demosthenes 1.16. οὐ μὴν οἶμαι δεῖν τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσφάλειαν σκοποῦνθ’ ὑποστείλασθαι περὶ ὧν ὑμῖν συμφέρειν ἡγοῦμαι. 316 317 Later in On the Peace (pp. 169-171) Demosthenes will use events, such as the outcome of the Euboean Expedition, to validate his earlier arguments. Whilst this can be considered a topos, in the wider context of Athenian losses in the North Aegean arguably drives the urgency of Demosthenes’ argument. Demosthenes 1.15. δέδοικ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ οἱ δανειζόμενοι ῥᾳδίως ἐπὶ τοῖς μεγάλοις [τόκοις] μικρὸν εὐπορήσαντες χρόνον ὕστερον καὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀπέστησαν, οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς [ἂν] ἐπὶ πολλῷ φανῶμεν ἐρρᾳθυμηκότες, καὶ ἅπαντα πρὸς ἡδονὴν ζητοῦντες πολλὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ ὧν οὐκ ἐβουλόμεθ’ ὕστερον εἰς ἀνάγκην ἔλθωμεν ποιεῖν, καὶ κινδυνεύσωμεν περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ. I propose that Demosthenes presents a similar moral judgment as Prodicus’ contest of Virtue and Vice in Xenophon Memoirs of Socrates 2.1.21-34, which arguably would have been known by the audience, as Thomas 2003: 169 notes was it was ‘both performed numerous times and written down’. 318 96 It is imperative that the Assembly recognises the dangers of their blissfully ignorant condition, and instead realise the severity of the situation. 319 Thus, Demosthenes proposes immediate action: I say that you should relieve the situation in two ways: both by rescuing the cities of the Olynthians and sending the soldiers to do so, and by ravaging his territory with triremes and other soldiers. If you neglect either of these, I fear that the campaign may be in vain.320 Demosthenes’ proposals, like those of the First Philippic, focus on the need for Athenian action supported by Athenian funding. His call for them to act with conviction, recalls his previous entreaty not to produce paper forces or only do the minimum necessary. 321 The action Demosthenes calls for reveals and confronts their misplaced priorities, which are exemplified in the Theoric fund itself: As for provision of money, you have money, men of Athens, you have more than anyone else: this money you receive in the form you wish. If we hand it over to those who are on campaign, you will need no further source of money. But if you do not, you will need a further source, or rather, you will be in need of the whole amount. 322 Demosthenes’ points on the theōrika are essentially the same as his points in the First Philippic: the efficient funding and regulation of festivals, when compared to military provisions, is indicative of their misplaced priorities. In this regard Demosthenes sets himself apart from men such as Leptines, whom he criticised for threatening the eisphora, because 319 Demosthenes 3.18 will go on to argue that they must choose that which is right over what is pleasant when they cannot have both. Demosthenes 1.17. φημὶ δὴ διχῇ βοηθητέον εἶναι τοῖς πράγμασιν ὑμῖν, τῷ τε τὰς πόλεις τοῖς Ὀλυνθίοις σῴζειν καὶ τοὺς τοῦτο ποιήσοντας στρατιώτας ἐκπέμπειν, καὶ τῷ τὴν ἐκείνου χώραν κακῶς ποιεῖν καὶ τριήρεσι καὶ στρατιώταις ἑτέροις· εἰ δὲ θατέρου τούτων ὀλιγωρήσετε, ὀκνῶ μὴ μάταιος ἡμῖν ἡ στρατεία γένηται. 320 321 Demosthenes 4.45. Demosthenes 1.19. περὶ δὲ χρημάτων πόρου, ἔστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, χρήμαθ’ ὑμῖν, ἔστιν ὅσ’ οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων [στρατιωτικά]· ταῦτα δ’ ὑμεῖς οὕτως ὡς βούλεσθε λαμβάνετε. εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῦτα τοῖς στρατευομένοις ἀποδώσετε, οὐδενὸς ὑμῖν προσδεῖ πόρου. εἰ δὲ μή, προσδεῖ, μᾶλλον δ’ ἅπαντος ἐνδεῖ τοῦ πόρου. 322 97 Leptines failed to understand the systems that were fundamental to Athens. 323 Demosthenes, in contrast, understands the institutions and offers advice that is in the best interest of the polis. Currently, however, the best advice is hindered by an attitude that prioritises protection of the Theoric fund over, and at the expense of, their military. This is emphasised by Demosthenes’ additional remarks: “What is this?” someone may say, “Do you propose that this money be transferred to the military fund?” No, by God, I do not propose that.’324 The need to deny this demonstrates Demosthenes’ awareness of the risks in addressing the Theoric fund, as it was protected by law; even suggesting a redistribution of its funds risked prosecution.325 Moreover, rhetorically, the danger in suggesting a redistribution of funds is emblematic of Demosthenes’ argument that the Assembly is hostile to good advice, demonstrating the counter-productive attitude in the Assembly, where protecting theōrika is prioritised over the civic duty to respect parrhēsia: the best advice thus requires the selfsacrifice of the speaker. Despite this, Demosthenes states that Athens has the money required to address their external issues (in the Theoric fund), but refuses to use it to the most advantageous ends: But I do believe that soldiers must be provided, and that there should be a military fund, and a single system for receiving pay and for performing one’s duty, whereas Hesk 2000: 49-50 observes how in Against Leptines ‘Demosthenes attacks the character of Leptines and the nature of his proposals in terms of an incompatibility between dishonest behaviour and normative civic identity.’ Kremmydas 2013: 77 notes in Against Leptines 20.98 Demosthenes uses an anti-deception topos to cancel out any such topoi used against him by Leptines, he ‘takes the opportunity to dispel any doubts about his ethos and preempts his opponent’s attack by implying that he is the real deceiver’. 323 324 Demosthenes 1.19. ‘τί οὖν;’ ἄν τις εἴποι, ‘σὺ γράφεις ταῦτ’ εἶναι στρατιωτικά;’ μὰ Δί’ οὐκ ἔγωγε. 325 Hansen 235-6 notes a law forbade (on pain of death) any proposal to move funds from the Theoric fund, and is attested to in Libanius’ Hypothesis to Demosthenes’ First Olynthiac. In Demosthenes Against Neaera 59.3-8 Theomnestrus recounts how Stephanus of Eroeadae indicted Apollodorus of Acharnae in 348 for ‘unconstitutional’ proposals on the Theoric fund. 98 you think that somehow you should receive this money for attending festivals in the same way as you do now, without any trouble. 326 In this Demosthenes clearly evokes his complaint in the First Philippic on the attitudes towards financing the festivals and their military expeditions and the absurd prioritisation of their pleasures over their security. This is emphasised by his closing remark on the damage farmers will suffer if the war comes to Attica: a worse fate is in store if Philip invades Attica, than a missed trip to the theatre. 327 Epilogue: Hope and Kairos. Having established the opportunity Olynthus presents, the necessity to avoid past mistakes and the means to do this, Demosthenes concludes the speech with a renewed sense of hope: this kairos is a second chance and he urges them to seize it, warning ominously of the dire consequences if they do not. Firstly, Demosthenes offers hope to the Athenians by demonstrating that Philip’s power is shaking: His present situation is not one of readiness, even though it appears to be and a careless observer might so describe it,328 nor is it as satisfactory as it could be, nor would he ever have started this war if he thought that he would actually have to fight, but he expected that as soon as he attacked he would carry off everything. But Demosthenes 1.20. ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι στρατιώτας δεῖν κατασκευασθῆναι [καὶ ταῦτ’ εἶναι στρατιωτικὰ] καὶ μίαν σύνταξιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ τε λαμβάνειν καὶ τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰ δέοντα, ὑμεῖς δ’ οὕτω πως ἄνευ πραγμάτων λαμβάνειν εἰς τὰς ἑορτάς. 326 Demosthenes 1.27 ‘I think the damage the farmers among you would suffer would exceed all you have spent on the previous war in its entirety. But if war comes, how much damage must you suppose they will suffer?’ This echoes the First Philippic and how their attitude means they fail to anticipate (or indeed recognise) the very real dangers facing them. 327 328 This again refers back to my point pp. 56-7 that Demosthenes is critical of how the Assembly relies on the fallible reports of others at 4.47. 99 he was mistaken. This indeed is the first thing that has turned out contrary to his plan, and it rattles him and causes him distress.329 Demosthenes continues his argument from the First Philippic that Philip’s power is built upon Athenian allies and the product of their failure to protect their interests. Moreover, the Assembly fails to acknowledge this because they still rely on second-hand hearsay. Philip’s power cannot hold, if the Athenians recognise this and capitalise on it with swift action. Moreover the prospect of challenging Philip is further emphasised as a realistic and necessary endeavour through the resistance at Thessaly: And then there is the situation at Thessaly. The Thessalians are always naturally untrustworthy to everybody as you know, and are behaving towards him exactly as they have in the past. For indeed, they have voted to demand that he return Pagasae to them, and they have prevented him from fortifying Magnesia. And I have heard some people say that they will no longer even allow him to derive profit from their harbours or marketplaces…if he is deprived of these funds he will be hard pressed to provide supplies for his mercenaries. 330 Not only does the attitude of the Thessalians provide an example for the Athenians to emulate, but together with the new hostile attitude of the Olynthians, highlights that the kairos to check Philip is at hand, as the cities of the North are turning against him, indeed they ‘are not accustomed to take orders from anybody, and the fellow is said to be overbearing.’331 Demosthenes 1.21. οὔτε γάρ, ὡς δοκεῖ καὶ φήσειέ τις ἂν μὴ σκοπῶν ἀκριβῶς, εὐτρεπῶς οὐδ’ ὡς ἂν κάλλιστ’ αὐτῷ τὰ παρόντ’ ἔχει, οὔτ’ ἂν ἐξήνεγκε τὸν πόλεμόν ποτε τοῦτον ἐκεῖνος, εἰ πολεμεῖν ᾠήθη δεήσειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐπιὼν ἅπαντα τότ’ ἤλπιζε τὰ πράγματ’ ἀναιρήσεσθαι, κᾆτα διέψευσται. τοῦτο δὴ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ταράττει παρὰ γνώμην γεγονὸς καὶ πολλὴν ἀθυμίαν αὐτῷ παρέχει. 329 Demosthenes 1.21-2. εἶτα τὰ τῶν Θετταλῶν. ταῦτα γὰρ ἄπιστα μὲν ἦν δήπου φύσει καὶ ἀεὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, κομιδῇ δ’, ὥσπερ ἦν, καὶ ἔστι νῦν τούτῳ. καὶ γὰρ Παγασὰς ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτόν εἰσιν ἐψηφισμένοι, καὶ Μαγνησίαν κεκωλύκασι τειχίζειν. ἤκουον δ’ ἔγωγέ τινων, ὡς οὐδὲ τοὺς λιμένας καὶ τὰς ἀγορὰς ἔτι δώσοιεν αὐτῷ καρποῦσθαι·… εἰ δὲ τούτων ἀποστερήσεται τῶν χρημάτων, εἰς στενὸν κομιδῇ τὰ τῆς τροφῆς τοῖς ξένοις αὐτῷ καταστήσεται. 330 331 Demosthenes 1.23. γὰρ ἀήθεις τοῦ κατακούειν τινός εἰσι, καὶ ἅνθρωπος ὑβριστής, ὥς φασιν. 100 Furthermore, in highlighting how ‘undeserved success leads the foolish to make poor judgements,’ Demosthenes reduces the threat of Philip as his power is not only based on Athenian allies, but also on deception and intimidation. 332 As such, Demosthenes presents the kairos of Olynthus as the means to halt Philip’s rise and regain their lost possessions and reputation: Therefore, men of Athens, you ought to consider his akairia as your opportunity, and readily share the burdens, and send ambassadors for whatever else is needed, and campaign in person and spur on everyone else. 333 While Trevett translates τὴν ἀκαιρίαν as ‘his difficulty’, akairia can be considered both a time of trouble, but also the opposite of kairos: a lack of opportunity. It is this latter sense of akaria that I believe Demosthenes invokes here, as he deliberately considers Philip’s akairia – his want of opportunity – as Athens’ kairos. Therefore, more than just considering Philip’s difficult circumstances, Demosthenes calls on the Assembly to note this loss of kairos as their own opportunity to seize the moment and act on Philip’s loss of momentum. It is this kairos at Olynthus which is crucial in stopping – and reversing –Macedonian influence in Northern Greece, and it is this transferal of kairos in Athens’ favour that drives the urgency of Demosthenes’ speech: in stressing the immediacy of the current situation, and the need to campaign in person (as he called for in the First Philippic), Demosthenes emphasises how the allies need to see that Athens is prepared to act in its own interests. Consequently, the shame of not seizing this moment would be intolerable: Consider: if Philip were to seize such an opportunity against us, and war were to come against our land, how readily do you think that he would attack us? Are you not Demosthenes 1.23. τὸ γὰρ εὖ πράττειν παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἀφορμὴ τοῦ κακῶς φρονεῖν τοῖς ἀνοήτοις γίγνεται. This deception is emphasised further in the Second Olynthiac with reference to Hesk 2000 and Kremmydas 2013. 332 Demosthenes 1.24. δεῖ τοίνυν ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὴν ἀκαιρίαν τὴν ἐκείνου καιρὸν ὑμέτερον νομίσαντας ἑτοίμως συνάρασθαι τὰ πράγματα, καὶ πρεσβευομένους ἐφ᾽ ἃ δεῖ καὶ στρατευομένους αὐτοὺς καὶ παροξύνοντας τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας, 333 101 then ashamed if you will not dare, when you have the chance, to do to him the very things that he would do to you, if he could?334 Knowing from earlier references to Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea and Methone that this is exactly what Philip has done, Demosthenes presents the uncomfortable role-reversal of Athens and Philip. Moreover, the shame of failing to prevent war coming to Attica, when they have the opportunity to prevent it, should inspire them to act. Aside from the damage that will be done to Attic farm holds, Demosthenes notes how ‘there is also the insult and the shame that you would feel at the situation – for decent men, there is no greater punishment.’335 In this manner, Demosthenes turns his proposals into simply performing their civic duty, and the only honourable course of action, ‘since you all know this, you all must help push war away from here to there.’ 336 Acting in any other way is dishonourable and their attitude of complacency has not only exacerbated the problem of Macedonian expansion in the north Aegean, but has also undermined their reputation as Athenians, as Christ notes, the ‘Athenians preferred to regard good citizenship as voluntary and the rational choice for free citizens rather than as an imposition upon them.’ 337 If they do not choose to act now, they could be forced into a situation where their autonomy is taken from them. Furthermore, Demosthenes reaffirms the need to be worthy of their ancestors, stating that all must help, the wealthy by financial contribution, and others by serving, particularly ‘those in their prime, so that, by acquiring experience of war in Philip’s territory, they may Demosthenes 1.24. λογιζομένους, εἰ Φίλιππος λάβοι καθ᾽ ἡμῶν τοιοῦτον καιρὸν καὶ πόλεμος γένοιτο πρὸς τῇ χώρᾳ, rπῶς ἂν αὐτὸν οἴεσθ᾽ ἑτοίμως ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν; εἶτ᾽ οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθε, εἰ μηδ᾽ ἃ πάθοιτ᾽ ἄν, εἰ δύναιτ᾽ ἐκεῖνος, ταῦτα ποιῆσαι καιρὸν ἔχοντες οὐ τολμήσετε; This arguably develops Demosthenes’ statement at 4.10 that shame should be good enough cause to act on their situation. 334 Demosthenes 1.27. καὶ πρόσεσθ᾽ ἡ ὕβρις καὶ ἔθ᾽ ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων αἰσχύνη, οὐδεμιᾶς ἐλάττων ζημίας τοῖς γε σώφροσιν. 335 Demosthenes 1.28. πάντα δὴ ταῦτα δεῖ συνιδόντας ἅπαντας βοηθεῖν καὶ ἀπωθεῖν ἐκεῖσε τὸν πόλεμον. I believe we can view this in the same manner that Yunis notes the success of On the Crown and how it was due to Demosthenes presenting his advice as the only honourable path in that given situation. 336 337 Christ 2006: 207. 102 become fearsome guardians of their own land and keep it inviolate’. 338 This is also a reminder that their failure to defend their own interests in person has been a major contributing factor to Philip’s success and their deteriorating situation. The First Olynthiac, like the First Philippic, is primarily concerned with shaking the Athenians out of their apathy, and persuading them to reflect self-critically on how their external problems of Macedonian expansion are a result of their own internal failure to deliberate and act in their best interests. Thus the only solution to their deteriorating fortunes is to change their internal attitudes and accept his parrhēsia and prioritise defending their interests. Demosthenes leaves the Assembly with no doubt on the importance of their decision on whether to support Olynthus, stating clearly that, ‘you should not forget that now is the moment that will decide whether you are to wage war there or he is to do so here’. 339 However, Demosthenes’ argument that the Assembly habitually heeds bad advice demonstrates that others in the Assembly advocate a different view, which he characterises as illogical and irresponsible: It would be the height of absurdity if, when he can, he should fail to do the very thing he now rants about doing, at the risk of seeming foolish. 340 This again insinuates that the Assembly is not applying its logic/wisdom to the matters under discussion. Conceding to their self-interest, Demosthenes finally appeals to their instinct for Demosthenes 1.28. τοὺς δ’ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ, ἵνα τὴν τοῦ πολεμεῖν ἐμπειρίαν ἐν τῇ Φιλίππου χώρᾳ κτησάμενοι φοβεροὶ φύλακες τῆς οἰκείας ἀκεραίου γένωνται. 338 Demosthenes 1.25. μηδὲ τοῦθ’ ὑμᾶς λανθανέτω, ὅτι νῦν αἵρεσίς ἐστιν ὑμῖν πότερ’ ὑμᾶς ἐκεῖ χρὴ πολεμεῖν ἢ παρ’ ὑμῖν ἐκεῖνον. Usher 1999: 221 notes how ‘the vivid description of Philip’s hyperactivity (philopragmosyne) in Philippic I is now appended its logical conclusion.’ 339 340 Demosthenes 1.26. Demosthenes also remarks that the Thebans would probably help Philip against Athens, and the Phocians are ‘unable to defend their own territory’ without Athenian help. Karvounis 2002: 321 considers it vitally important that Demosthenes for the first time in words understood that Philip will stop at nothing and soon Attica would fall: ‘Trotzdem sollte man dem Argument besondere Aufmerksamkeit schenken, weil Demosthenes hier zum ersten Mal den Gedanken in Worte faßt, daß Philipp vor nichts Halt machen und bald auch Attika überfallen würde.’ I fear this overdetermines the role of Philip (which Demosthenes diminished in the First Philippic) and overlooks his argument that the greatest threat to Athens is their apathetic attitude. Philip’s rise has not caused their misfortunes, but rather they have enabled Philip’s rise by their neglect and apathy, and it is their attitude which will determine Attica’s safety. 103 self-preservation, calling on the wealthy to help push war away, ‘so that in spending a little of their wealth for the sake of the many things that they possess in their prosperity, they may enjoy the rest without fear’. 341 Demosthenes finishes, as he started, on the responsibility of the speaker. Having already presented himself as the unappreciated honest adviser, he concludes that if the rhētors will not speak in Athens’ interests, they ought to act in the best interest of the polis just to cover their own backs; just as the wealthy and those in their prime must push the war away so too must the ‘public speakers, so that that their political conduct may stand up to scrutiny, since you will judge their actions according to how events turn out.’342 But the call to duty under sufferance returns to the fundamental problem that the Athenians, in their apathy, lack of action, and failure to do their duty to the polis, have created their own crisis. In their rejection of honest advice, manipulated by self-serving rhētors, the Assembly has become deluded, complaining of the declining interests but refusing to acknowledge their own culpability in Philip’s expansion. Demosthenes is didactic in prescribing what they must do, reinforcing his previous proposals and asserting that the Assembly must recognise good advice and act on it. Thus transcending above his more critical remarks is his assertion that the worst aspect of the situation offers their best hope: that their lack of action has caused their problems but action can rectify this. The focus of this speech, therefore is on the opportunity to do what they ought to have done in 351- to man and fund their military expeditions. In asserting this continuity from the First Philippic to the First Olynthiac I differ from Karvounis’ argument that the former lacked a concrete reason for mobilising the military, which the First Olynthiac has. I argue that, if this were the case, Demosthenes 1.28. ἵν’ ὑπὲρ τῶν πολλῶν ὧν καλῶς ποιοῦντες ἔχουσι μίκρ’ ἀναλίσκοντες τὰλοιπὰ καρπῶνται ἀδεῶς. 341 Demosthenes 1.28. τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ἵν’ αἱ τῶν πεπολιτευμένων αὐτοῖς εὔθυναι ῥᾴδιαι γένωνται, ὡς ὁποῖ’ ἄττ’ ἂν ὑμᾶς περιστῇ τὰ πράγματα, τοιοῦτοι κριταὶ καὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτοῖς ἔσεσθε. 342 104 the Athenians would surely have approved his proposals. The lack of success of the First Olynthiac, in my opinion, gives weight to Demosthenes’ argument on the apathy of the Assembly itself and their failure to recognise the situation. It also could reflect the wider reality that the Athenians did not recognise Philip as a threat. 343 343 Karvounis 2002: 319. 105 CHAPTER 2.2 THE SECOND OLYNTHIAC Following the failure of the First Olynthiac to persuade the Assembly to endorse his proposals, Demosthenes swiftly delivered the Second Olynthiac to persuade them to reconsider sending aid to Olynthus.344 Demosthenes reaffirms his arguments on the kairos of the crisis at Olynthus, and the need for the Athenians to act on it. However, there is no mention of the Theoric fund, which perhaps demonstrates how Demosthenes adapts his argument to avoid this unpopular suggestion. 345 The defining feature of this speech is its focus on diminishing the power of Philip, and there is indeed a shift in the texture of the speech where Philip takes ‘more of the centre stage. 346 As Trevett notes, ‘the bulk of the speech is devoted to belittling Philip and seeking to persuade the Athenians that he is far from invincible.’ 347 My approach demonstrates that this increased focus on Philip in the Second Olynthiac is a development from – and continuation of – Demosthenes’ approach in the First Philippic that asserted how Philip’s power is a product of their own apathy, and as such is within their own power to address – if they choose to. Demosthenes diminishes the character of Philip and the Macedonians, not with an end to incite hatred for Philip per se, but rather to both shame and motivate the Athenians to act. This situation, according to Demosthenes, is that Macedonian expansion is the result of continual Athenian mistakes, and arguably, their failure to act on his [Demosthenes’] proposals. The speech maintains that the reason they cannot address the 344 Worthington 2013: 136 suggests that this was a matter of days, and suggests that the swift follow up could demonstrate that Demosthenes may have contributed to the confusion on what to do. Ryder 2000: 55 agrees that it followed closely, and suggests that the speech may have been delivered at the same debate as the First Olynthiac. 345 That is, adapts it knowing the unpopularity of touching the Theoric fund. Here I disagree with Milns and Ellis 1970:38 that the lack of reference to the Theoric fund determines an order of 2-1-3, on the assumption that Demosthenes must have not had the idea to use the fund yet. Indeed, I argue that reference in the First Philippic to the prioritisation of funds for festivals over expeditions demonstrates that these thoughts were already present in Demosthenes’ speeches since 351. 346 Worthington 2013: 136. Usher 1999: 223 ‘the king himself is to be the leading topic.’ 347 Trevett 2011: 41. 106 crisis in the north Aegean properly, is that they refuse to acknowledge their own responsibility and change their attitude. As Demosthenes asserted in the First Philippic, the worst aspect of their situation (their supine attitude) holds their best hope for the future (that if they act, Philip can be checked). 348 The speech aims to make the Assembly deliberate effectively to decide what is in their best interests and act on it: You must put aside such conduct and even now recover your self-control, and join together in deliberating, speaking, and taking action for the common good. To sum up, I propose that you should all contribute equitably according to your means; you should all go on campaign in turn until everyone has served; you should give a hearing to all who come forward to speak; and you should choose the best proposals that you hear, rather than whatever this man or that should say. 349 Demosthenes also develops the sense of shame that they have let the situation deteriorate to this point, and have enabled Philip to prosper by their apathy and lack of action. The structure of the speech alternates between urging the Athenians to action, and diminishing Philip/Macedonia. Demosthenes weaves the immediacy of the situation and the culpability of the Athenians for the present situation (2.1-4) with the weakness of Philip based on his deceptive actions (2.5-7). Thus, Demosthenes argues that the Assembly must seize the kairos, act swiftly, and not repeat their past mistakes (2.8-13). 348 Demosthenes 4.2. Demosthenes 2.30-31. δεῖ δὴ ταῦτ’ ἐπανέντας καὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἔτι καὶ νῦν γενομένους κοινὸν καὶ τὸ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὸ πράττειν ποιῆσαι… λέγω δὴ κεφάλαιον πάντας εἰσφέρειν ἀφ’ ὅσων ἕκαστος ἔχει τὸ ἴσον· πάντας ἐξιέναι κατὰ μέρος, ἕως ἂν ἅπαντες στρατεύσησθε· πᾶσι τοῖς παριοῦσι λόγον διδόναι, καὶ τὰ Nβέλτισθ’ ὧν ἂν ἀκούσηθ’ αἱρεῖσθαι, μὴ ἃν ὁ δεῖν’ ἢ ὁ δεῖν’ εἴπῃ. 349 107 Analysis Proemium Demosthenes opens the proemium by continuing the balance of hope and shame from the previous speech, by viewing the resistance of the smaller cities against Philip as a sign of divine benevolence: On many occasions, it seems to me, men of Athens, the gods have clearly revealed their goodwill to the city, and not least in the present situation. For the appearance of people who will wage war on Philip, whose territory borders on his and who have a considerable force and, most important of all, whose attitude towards the war is such that they regard their agreement with him as untrustworthy and leading to the destruction of their country – this situation seems to have come about by some miraculous and altogether divine benefaction. 350 Demosthenes regards this turn of events as evidence that the situation sits definitely in Athens’ favour. Consequently, to not seize this current kairos would not only be shameful, but an impious insult: We, men of Athens, must now avoid giving the impression that we treat ourselves worse than the present situation treats us, since it would be shameful – indeed most shameful – to be seen to have given up not only the cities and places that we once controlled but also the allies and the opportunities that Fortune has provided. 351 Demosthenes 2.1. ἐπὶ πολλῶν μὲν ἄν τις ἰδεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δοκεῖ μοι τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν εὔνοιαν φανερὰν γιγνομένην τῇ πόλει, οὐχ ἥκιστα δ’ ἐν τοῖς παροῦσι πράγμασι· τὸ γὰρ τοὺς πολεμήσοντας Φιλίππῳ γεγενῆσθαι καὶ χώραν ὅμορον καὶ δύναμίν τινα κεκτημένους, καὶ τὸ μέγιστον ἁπάντων, τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ πολέμου γνώμην τοιαύτην ἔχοντας ὥστε τὰς πρὸς ἐκεῖνον διαλλαγὰς πρῶτον μὲν ἀπίστους, εἶτα τῆς ἑαυτῶν πατρίδος νομίζειν ἀνάστασιν, δαιμονίᾳ τινὶ καὶ θείᾳ παντάπασιν ἔοικεν εὐεργεσίᾳ. Previous references to divine favour at Demosthenes 4.45 and 1.8 suggest that Philip is potentially a form of divine punishment, and that the kairos of Olynthus is a god-given opportunity. 350 Demosthenes 2.2. δεῖ τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτ’ ἤδη σκοπεῖν αὐτούς, ὅπως μὴ χείρους περὶ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς εἶναι δόξομεν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ὡς ἔστι τῶν αἰσχρῶν, μᾶλλον δὲ τῶν αἰσχίστων, μὴ μόνον πόλεων καὶ τόπων ὧν ἦμέν ποτε κύριοι φαίνεσθαι προϊεμένους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης παρασκευασθέντων συμμάχων καὶ καιρῶν. 351 108 Narrative In presenting the kairos as god-given, Demosthenes equates the rejection of the opportunity as a form of impiety in their rejection of divine Fortune.352 But rather than persuading the Athenians by a call to duty, Demosthenes castigates the Assembly for their errors, returning to his method in the First Philippic of asserting Athenian culpability: It is in my opinion a mistake, men of Athens, to seek to persuade you to do your duty by recounting Philip’s strength to you. Why? Because all the facts that one might mention seem to me to bring credit to him but to be blunders on our part. 353 Indeed, this draws a parallel to the Athenian tradition of denying credit to Athenian enemies. A narrative of Philip’s success is in fact a catalogue of Athenian errors, and thus not due to any particular skill on Philip’s part: The more he has achieved beyond what he deserves, the more amazing he seems to everybody; but as for you the worse your handling of the situation, the greater the shame you have incurred. 354 Demosthenes’ paralipsis, ‘these matters, then, I’ll leave to one side’, emphasises that the Athenians (should) already be ashamed. 355 Instead, Demosthenes focuses on asserting that Philip’s power is fragile: Compare Lycurgus 1.146 for use of the gods ‘rest assured, men of Athens, that each of you now while voting in secret will make his attitude clear to the gods.’ Carey 2000: 30 observes this reference for the rhetoric of fear in forensic oratory. I argue, Demosthenes also could be referring to the rejection of his proposals in the First Olynthiac and the lack of action in their response to the Olynthians call for aid against Philip. 352 Demosthenes 2.3. τὸ μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὴν Φιλίππου ῥώμην διεξιέναι καὶ διὰ τούτων τῶν λόγων προτρέπειν τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν ὑμᾶς, οὐχὶ καλῶς ἔχειν ἡγοῦμαι. διὰ τί; ὅτι μοι δοκεῖ πάνθ’ ὅσ’ ἂν εἴποι τις ὑπὲρ τούτων, ἐκείνῳ μὲν ἔχειν φιλοτιμίαν, ἡμῖν δ’ οὐχὶ καλῶς πεπρᾶχθαι. Demosthenes repeats this at 3.17. This is reminiscent of Pericles’ complaint against Spartan success Thucydides 1.144 ‘I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs.’ Thucydides also blames internal dissension 2.65.12. This also occurs in Plato’s epitaphios logos, Menexenus 243d ‘we were not destroyed by others, but were rather the agents of our own destruction.’ 353 Demosthenes 2.3. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὅσῳ πλείον᾽ ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀξίαν πεποίηκε τὴν αὑτοῦ, τοσούτῳ θαυμαστότερος παρὰ πᾶσι νομίζεται· ὑμεῖς δ’ ὅσῳ χεῖρον ἢ προσῆκε κέχρησθε τοῖς πράγμασι, τοσούτῳ πλείον’ αἰσχύνην ὠφλήκατε. 354 Demosthenes 2.4 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν παραλείψω. Especially as Demosthenes asserted this in the First Olynthiac only days previously. 355 109 For indeed, men of Athens, if one were to examine the matter carefully, one would see that Philip’s rise to greatness is due to us, not him.356 This is a direct continuation of the First Olynthiac, ‘we have made Philip stronger and more powerful than any previous king of Macedonia.’ 357 As such, recounting Philip’s unjust ‘rise’ is not to invoke fear, but to bolster the Athenians to action out of shame at their culpability. Demosthenes develops this shame into their failure to act against an unworthy opponent, by highlighting Philip’s flaws, stating that it serves the benefit of the polis: To call him a liar and a perjurer without showing what he has done might be called empty abuse, and rightly so. But to recount all his actions so far, and to convict him on all of these counts, fortunately only requires a short speech. It also serves, I think, two useful purposes: both to make him appear worthless – which he is – and to show those who are overly impressed by Philip and think him invincible, that all the sources of his previous duplicitous rise to greatness are now gone and that his affairs have come to a dead end.358 To demonstrate this Demosthenes focuses on highlighting the deceptive nature of Philip, and states that Philip’s rise would indeed be great and worthy of fear, ‘if I saw that he had risen to power as a result of acting with justice.’ 359 But Demosthenes, through his ‘observation and examination’ (which is contrasted by the Assembly’s habit of acting on the words of others) affirms Philip to be a ‘liar and a perjurer’ who only bettered the Athenians because of their Demosthenes 2.4. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μετ’ ἀληθείας τις, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, σκοποῖτο, ἐνθένδ’ ἂν αὐτὸν ἴδοι μέγαν γεγενημένον, οὐχὶ παρ’ αὑτοῦ. Compare to 1.9. As noted in Chapter One, I differ from Karvounis 2002: 237 who argues it is questionable whether Demosthenes actually believed this, ‘Ob Demosthenes wirklich an Athens „Beitrag‟ zu Philipps Erstarkung glaubte, ist fraglich.’ 357 Demosthenes 1.9. 356 Demosthenes 2.5. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπίορκον κἄπιστον καλεῖν ἄνευ τοῦ τὰ πεπραγμένα δεικνύναι λοιδορίαν εἶναί τις ἂν φήσειε κενὴν δικαίως· τὸ δὲ πάνθ’ ὅσα πώποτ’ ἔπραξε διεξιόντα ἐφ’ ἅπασι τούτοις ἐλέγχειν, καὶ βραχέος λόγου συμβαίνει δεῖσθαι, καὶ δυοῖν ἕνεχ’ ἡγοῦμαι συμφέρειν εἰρῆσθαι, τοῦ τ’ ἐκεῖνον, ὅπερ καὶ ἀληθὲς ὑπάρχει, φαῦλον φαίνεσθαι, καὶ τοὺς ὑπερεκπεπληγμένους ὡς ἄμαχόν τινα τὸν Φίλιππον ἰδεῖν ὅτι πάντα διεξελήλυθεν οἷς πρότερον παρακρουόμενος μέγας ηὐξήθη, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἥκει τὴν τελευτὴν τὰ πράγματ’ αὐτῷ. 358 359 Demosthenes 2.6. εἰ τὰ δίκαια πράττονθ’ ἑώρων ηὐξημένον· 110 innocence, ‘by saying that he would hand over Amphipolis to us and by devising that once much talked about secret.’ 360 Likewise, Philip’s success against Olynthus and Thessaly centred on deceiving their citizens: And subsequently he won the friendship of the Olynthians by seizing Potidaea, which belonged to you, and did his former allies an injustice handing it over, and now finally he has won over the Thessalians by promising that he will give them Magnesia and by undertaking to conduct the war against Phocis on their behalf. 361 Demosthenes asserts that Philip manipulated his way to power by deception: In short, there is no associate of his whom he has not cheated, since it is by deceiving and winning over all of those who are ignorant of him, one after another, that he has grown in power.362 In noting these deceptive methods, Demosthenes asserts the fragility of Macedonia expansion because its power is built on immoral foundations, as opposed to the openness prized by Athenian ideology which ‘prohibited deception of the dēmos.’363 Despite its appearances, this power, being fictitious and based on deception, is insecure as it relies on Philip maintaining his deception: Demosthenes 2.6. τῷ τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν φάσκειν παραδώσειν καὶ τὸ θρυλούμενόν ποτ’ ἀπόρρητον ἐκεῖνο κατασκευάσαι. Compare with 4.47, 1.5. The ‘secret’ is in reference to the Athenians offering to give Philip Pydna in exchange for Amphipolis (Theopompus FGH 115 f.30). de Ste Croix 1963, however, argues that this would have been impossible in a democracy where secret negotiations such as this would have been impossible. I, however, agree with Trevett 2011: 45 that ‘it is likely that Theopompus is broadly correct.’ 360 Demosthenes 2.7. τούτῳ προσαγαγόμενον, τὴν δ’ Ὀλυνθίων φιλίαν μετὰ ταῦτα τῷ Ποτείδαιαν οὖσαν ὑμετέραν ἐξελεῖν καὶ τοὺς μὲν πρότερον συμμάχους [ὑμᾶς] ἀδικῆσαι, παραδοῦναι δ’ ἐκείνοις, Θετταλοὺς δὲ νῦν τὰ τελευταῖα τῷ Μαγνησίαν παραδώσειν ὑποσχέσθαι καὶ τὸν Φωκικὸν πόλεμον πολεμήσειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀναδέξασθαι. 361 Demosthenes 2.7. ὅλως δ’ οὐδεὶς ἔστιν ὅντιν’ οὐ πεφενάκικ’ ἐκεῖνος τῶν αὐτῷ χρησαμένων· τὴν γὰρ ἑκάστων ἄνοιαν ἀεὶ τῶν ἀγνοούντων αὐτὸν ἐξαπατῶν καὶ προσλαμβάνων οὕτως ηὐξήθη. 362 363 Kremmydas 2013: 51, Hesk 2000. Kremmydas 2013: 51 uses Demosthenes 20.135 as an example of how the Athenians ‘prescribed the death penalty for anyone convicted of deceiving the people through false promises.’ The implication here (and later in On the Peace and On the Chersonese 8.61) is that those advocating Philip’s lies are guilty of this. 111 And so, just as it was through these people that he has reached this high-point, when each of them thought that he would do something to their advantage, so it is through these same people that he is bound to be destroyed, when it has been demonstrated that all his actions were for his own benefit. 364 As in the First Olynthiac, where Demosthenes argued the Olynthians were fighting for their very freedom, here too the Olynthians no longer willingly comply with Philip now that they see his true intentions: This is the critical pass, men of Athens, to which Philip’s affairs have come. Or else, let someone come forward and show me, or rather show you, that I am not telling the truth, that those whom he deceived at the start will trust him in the future, or that those whom he has wrongly enslaved would not now be glad to be freed. 365 In revealing Philip’s deceptive methods, Demosthenes presents Philip’s rise as one based on deception, and with this duplicity exposed, Athens must seize the kairos of the current political climate in the North Aegean to turn Philip’s expansion back. In losing the trust of the northern cities, Philip faces a struggle to maintain his alliances or stable support, and in noting how, ‘concepts of deceit and dissimulation were important negative elements of Athens’ developing democratic ideology’, I suggest that Demosthenes uses the Assembly’s long-standing awareness of the negative connotations of deception to support his practical and ethical point on Philip’s perceived strength.366 Moreover the purpose of diminishing Philip has developed from the First Philippic, where Demosthenes emphasised that it was Athenian neglect and not any particular skill on Demosthenes 2.8. ὥσπερ οὖν διὰ τούτων ἤρθη μέγας, ἡνίχ’ ἕκαστοι συμφέρον αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῖς ᾤοντό τι πράξειν, οὕτως ὀφείλει διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων καὶ καθαιρεθῆναι πάλιν, ἐπειδὴ πάνθ’ εἵνεχ’ ἑαυτοῦ ποιῶν ἐξελήλεγκται. 364 Demosthenes 2.8. καιροῦ μὲν δή, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πρὸς τοῦτο πάρεστι Φιλίππῳ τὰ πράγματα· ἢ παρελθών τις ἐμοί, μᾶλλον δ’ ὑμῖν δειξάτω, ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ ταῦτ’ ἐγὼ λέγω, ἢ ὡς οἱ τὰ πρῶτ’ ἐξηπατημένοι τὰ λοιπὰ πιστεύσουσιν, ἢ ὡς οἱ παρὰ τὴν αὑτῶν ἀξίαν δεδουλωμένοι [Θετταλοὶ] νῦν οὐκ ἂν ἐλεύθεροι γένοιντ’ ἄσμενοι. 365 366 Hesk 2000: 39. While this refers to an earlier period and the development of democratic ideology, I believe it is relevant here in understanding the rhetorical impact of asserting Philip’s deception. 112 Philip’s part. In the Second Olynthiac, Demosthenes again reminds the Assembly of their neglectful culpability, but he now augments this with the additional reminder of past actions and their moral obligation to prevent the enslavement of fellow Greeks: But I am amazed at this: that in the past you rose up against the Spartans in the cause of justice for the Greeks and refused many opportunities to make large private gains, but instead spent your own money by raising taxes and were the first to risk your lives on campaign, so that the majority of Greeks should get justice, whereas now you shrink from marching out and put off paying taxes, even to protect your own possessions! Indeed I am amazed, that you, who have often rescued the other Greeks, both collectively and individually, now sit about, even when you have been deprived of your own property. 367 Moreover, this new awareness of the Olynthians’ augments Demosthenes’ own complaint that the Athenians still fail to recognise the intentions of Philip and the intentions of the speakers offering advice in the Athenian Assembly. In affirming that Philip no longer has the power to deceive the Olynthians, Demosthenes attempts to break the illusion of Philip’s power that has a hold over the Athenians. Demosthenes argues that Philip has maintained this until now because the Athenians failed to acknowledge the reality of the situation. With Philip’s deception revealed, Demosthenes maintains that Macedonian Realpolitik cannot endure now that these poleis have turned against Philip: For whenever affairs are organised in a spirit of goodwill, and all the participants in a war share a common interest, then men are willing to work together and endure Demosthenes 2.24. ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο θαυμάζω, εἰ Λακεδαιμονίοις μέν ποτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν δικαίων ἀντήρατε, καὶ πόλλ’ ἰδίᾳ πλεονεκτῆσαι πολλάκις ὑμῖν ἐξὸν οὐκ ἠθελήσατε, ἀλλ’ ἵν’ οἱ ἄλλοι τύχωσι τῶν δικαίων, τὰ ὑμέτερ’ αὐτῶν ἀνηλίσκετ’ εἰσφέροντες καὶ προυκινδυνεύετε στρατευόμενοι, νυνὶ δ’ ὀκνεῖτ’ ἐξιέναι καὶ μέλλετ’ εἰσφέρειν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑμετέρων αὐτῶν κτημάτων, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους σεσώκατε πολλάκις πάντας καὶ καθ’ ἕν’ αὐτῶν ἐν μέρει, τὰ δ’ ὑμέτερ’ αὐτῶν ἀπολωλεκότες κάθησθε. 367 113 setbacks and stand fast; but whenever someone like Philip grows strong as a result of greed and villainy, the first excuse and a small stumble overturns and destroys everything.368 In this regard, the Macedonian Realpolitik threatening Athens cannot endure, as the allies will return to Athens. Moreover, in using ‘the first excuse’ ἡ πρώτη πρόφασις, Demosthenes applies connotations of sickness and disease to Philip where prophasis ‘often refers to an external or contributing cause of a disease’ in the Hippocratic corpus.369 Prophasis also has connotations of disaster/impending doom, such as at the start of the Plague in Thucydides, where people with no prophasis died suddenly.370 Demosthenes develops this further in the Third Philippic as Philip’s interventionist ‘help’ is likened to visiting the sick by ἐπισκεψομένοι: Demosthenes insinuates Philip preys upon the internal sickness of cities, having instigated the internal corruption himself.371 Through this medical metaphor, Demosthenes warns the Assembly that Philip is an external exciting cause, ‘the first excuse’ which triggers stasis, and recognising this is imperative for the health of the polis. From this, Demosthenes creates a sense of urgency to act, especially now that Philip’s true nature has been revealed and he is vulnerable: It is impossible, quite impossible, men of Athens, that a criminal and a perjurer and a liar should acquire power that is securely based; rather, such things last for a moment or Demosthenes 2.9. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ ὑπ᾽ εὐνοίας τὰ πράγματα συστῇ καὶ πᾶσι ταὐτὰ συμφέρῃ τοῖς μετέχουσι τοῦ πολέμου, καὶ συμπονεῖν καὶ φέρειν τὰς συμφορὰς καὶ μένειν ἐθέλουσιν ἅνθρωποι: ὅταν δ᾽ ἐκ πλεονεξίας καὶ πονηρίας τις ὥσπερ οὗτος ἰσχύσῃ, ἡ πρώτη πρόφασις καὶ μικρὸν πταῖσμα ἅπαντ᾽ ἀνεχαίτισε καὶ διέλυσεν. Usher 1999: 223 argues Demosthenes adapts the ‘old deliberative theme of justice (dikaion), using its obverse. Linked to it through the idea of goodwill (eunoia) is the companion theme of interest (sympheron).’ On a collective spirit of goodwill, I argue we can also detect a comparison of Athens’ own attitude to the goodwill they claimed to maintain in the Second Athenian Confederacy. 368 Das 2015: 110. The LSJ entry for prophasis note its use ‘as a medical t.t, external existing cause’ with further examples in Hp. Eph 3.2, Epid. 3.3, 3.17, Acut. (Sp) 6. Das observes Deichgräber 1933: 1; Wooten 1979: 157; Tuplin 1998: 285n11 as also asserting this medical resonance of prophasis. Pearson 1952: 205-223 however rejects this. Das 2015: 111 suggests that this may also be an imitation of ‘the lexicon of his literary idol, Thucydides.’ 369 370 Thucydides 2.49.2. Demosthenes could be using the memorable context of the Plague to augment his own rhetoric, and this could also support the argument that Thucydides’ History had a formative influence (even subconsciously) on Demosthenes. For prophasis in Thucydides see Kirkwood 1952: 37-61. For Demosthenes 9.12 and use of ἐπιεκσψομένοι to describe Philip with connotations of visiting the sick/visit of sympathy, see discussion in Chapter 4.3 at p. 292. 371 114 a short time, and flourish on the basis of hopes if they are lucky, but in time are found out and fall apart.372 Hope (elpis), the last item in Pandora's jar, is considered ambivalent by Hesiod: it can include both positive and negative expectations, and to identify hope is implicitly to acknowledge that it is only a hope and may not come to be.373 Demosthenes asserts that Philip’s hopes (and those who advocate them in Athens) are futile as they are deceptions, doomed to failure because they are hollow: Just as the lower parts of a house, I believe, or of a ship or similar structure must be the strongest, so the beginning and basic conception of any action must be true and just. But this is now impossible in the case of Philip’s actions.374 By reducing Philip as a threat, Demosthenes repeats his assertion that challenging Philip is both manageable and their duty. To permit Philip to exploit further the vacuum created by Athens’ lack of intervention would compound their shame.375 As such Demosthenes stresses the kairos of the situation and the need to act urgently, now that Philip’s weakness has been exposed: ‘this is a critical pass, men of Athens.’376 From this, Demosthenes reasserts his call for action from the First Olynthiac, to help the Olynthians quickly: I say that we should help the Olynthians, and I support the best and quickest way of doing so that anyone might propose; we should send an embassy to the Thessalians to Demosthenes 2.10. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀδικοῦντα κἀπιορκοῦντα καὶ ψευδόμενον δύναμιν βεβαίαν κτήσασθαι, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοιαῦτ’ εἰς μὲν ἅπαξ καὶ βραχὺν χρόνον ἀντέχει, καὶ σφόδρα γ’ ἤνθησ’ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐλπίσιν, ἂν τύχῃ, τῷ χρόνῳ δὲ φωρᾶται καὶ περὶ αὑτὰ καταρρεῖ. Also attested to in Diodorus 16.8.5. 372 373 Hesiod Works and Days 96. Demosthenes 2.10. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκίας, οἶμαι, καὶ πλοίου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων τὰ κάτωθεν ἰσχυρότατ’ εἶναι δεῖ, οὕτω καὶ τῶν πράξεων τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ὑποθέσεις ἀληθεῖς καὶ δικαίας εἶναι προσήκει.τοῦτο δ’ οὐκ ἔνι νῦν ἐν τοῖς πεπραγμένοις Φιλίππῳ. 374 375 Again, parallels can be drawn to the topos of the epitaphios logos where the ancestors ordered the surviving Athenians not to dishonour them, such as Plato Menexenus 246b and Thucydides 2.43. 376 Demosthenes 2.8. 115 inform some of them about these matters and to spur on the rest, since they have now voted to demand the return of Pagasae and to open negotiations about Magnesia.377 Demosthenes wants to take advantage of the disillusionment against Philip to swing momentum back to Athens, but to truly capitalise on shattering the perception of a powerful Philip, the Athenians must be seen to have dropped the previous attitude which enabled Philip to become an issue in the first place: You should see to it, men of Athens, that our ambassadors not only make speeches but are also able to demonstrate some achievement on our part – that we have marched out in a manner worthy of our city and are engaged in action, since all speech, if it is not accompanied by action, seems vain and empty. 378 In this Demosthenes reaffirms his argument in the First Philippic: it is essential that the Athenians are seen to act in their own interests, as their failure to do so caused their allies to look to Philip. Furthermore, it is crucial that the Athenians act in a manner ‘worthy of the city’ as their failure to do so has undermined their reputation. In particular, Demosthenes returns to the discrepancy between their words and deeds, noting the damage inflicted on the polis because of their failure to complete logos with its qualifying ergon. Rather than defining Athenian wisdom, Athens’ empty logos demonstrates the Assembly’ habit of undermining itself.379 Their logos is ineffective and generates distrust rather than hope, ‘for the more we are ready to make speeches, the more everyone distrusts them.’380 Demosthenes 2.11. φημὶ δὴ δεῖν ἡμᾶς τοῖς μὲν Ὀλυνθίοις βοηθεῖν, καὶ ὅπως τις λέγει κάλλιστα καὶ τάχιστα, οὕτως ἀρέσκει μοι· πρὸς δὲ Θετταλοὺς πρεσβείαν πέμπειν, ἣ τοὺς μὲν διδάξει ταῦτα, τοὺς δὲ παροξυνεῖ· καὶ γὰρ νῦν εἰσιν ἐψηφισμένοι Παγασὰς ἀπαιτεῖν καὶ περὶ Μαγνησίας λόγους ποιεῖσθαι. 377 Demosthenes 2.12. σκοπεῖσθε μέντοι τοῦτ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅπως μὴ λόγους ἐροῦσιν μόνον οἱ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν πρέσβεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργον τι δεικνύειν ἕξουσιν ἐξεληλυθότων ὑμῶν ἀξίως τῆς πόλεως καὶ ὄντων ἐπὶ τοῖς πράγμασιν, ὡς ἅπας μὲν λόγος, ἂν ἀπῇ τὰ πράγματα, μάταιόν τι φαίνεται καὶ κενόν, μάλιστα δ᾽ ὁ παρὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας πόλεως. 378 379 This develops into a form of speech-act logic, discussed in Chapter 4.2 On the Chersonese pp. 238-240. 380 Demosthenes 2.12. ὅσῳ γὰρ ἑτοιμότατ᾽ αὐτῷ δοκοῦμεν χρῆσθαι, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ἀπιστοῦσι πάντες αὐτῷ. 116 Argument To address this, Demosthenes promotes his own proposals as the means to rehabilitate Athens’ reputation: You must demonstrate that your conduct has undergone a substantial change for the better – by raising taxes, and campaigning, and doing everything energetically – if you want people to pay attention to you.381 As in the First Philippic, Demosthenes asserts that it is in Athens’ power to change the situation, if they shake off their apathy and do their duty, especially now that the situation has escalated beyond protecting their interests to protecting the wider Greek world. 382 Moreover, it again relies upon the willingness of the Athenians to recognise this and change their attitudes: And if you are willing to do these things as you should, men of Athens, not only will Philip’s alliances be shown to be weak and unreliable but his very kingdom and power will be proved to be in a parlous state. 383 To balance the criticism that the Athenians need to make their conduct ‘worthy of the city’ (2.12) – which implies that it currently is not – Demosthenes reverts to making the task easier, by diminishing the power of the Macedonian forces. Demosthenes asserts that: For on the whole, the power and empire of Macedonia has some value as a supplementary force, as was the case at the time of Timotheus’ campaign against Demosthenes 2.13. πολλὴν δὴ τὴν μετάστασιν καὶ μεγάλην δεικτέον τὴν μεταβολήν, εἰσφέροντας, ἐξιόντας, ἅπαντα ποιοῦντας ἑτοίμως, εἴπερ τις ὑμῖν προσέξει τὸν νοῦν. 381 382 Hunt 2010: 80 notes that On the Navy Boards 14.6-7 makes the distinction between war against the Greeks (a milder kind) and against the barbarians, where Demosthenes states that ‘even when wronged by them [fellow Greeks], it would not be honourable to exact such a penalty from the wrong-doers as to leave them under the heel of the barbarians.’ I think this can be applied to Demosthenes’ attitude towards Olynthus and Macedonia, despite the bad feeling over the loss of Potidaea. Demosthenes 2.13. κἂν ταῦτ’ ἐθελήσηθ’ ὡς προσήκει καὶ δὴ περαίνειν, οὐ μόνον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰ συμμαχικὰ ἀσθενῶς καὶ ἀπίστως ἔχοντα φανήσεται Φιλίππῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τῆς οἰκείας ἀρχῆς καὶ δυνάμεως κακῶς ἔχοντ’ ἐξελεγχθήσεται. 383 117 Olynthus; and again it proved to be of some use in combination with the Olynthians against Potidaea. 384 Indeed, Demosthenes’ praise of the Macedonian forces occurs in reference to how Perdiccas II assisted the Athenians against Chalcidice in 354/3, when it was working with Athens, and towards Athenian ends. 385 Likewise, it was successful when it worked with the Olynthians to Olynthian ends. But on considering the Macedonian force itself, however, ‘on its own it is weak and riddled with deficiencies’, and Demosthenes adds that Philip’s Foot Companions, the πεζέταιροι, who ‘have a reputation of being wonderful and disciplined fighters...are no better than anyone else.’386 Moreover, despite how it appears, Philip’s expansionism demonstrates a dangerous hybris, at odds with the nature of the Macedonians: All the things that one might suppose would make him great – his wars and expeditions – have in fact made his kingdom less secure than it naturally is. For you should not suppose, men of Athens, that Philip and his subjects take pleasure in the same things. Rather, he strives for glory, and chooses to be active and take risks, and to suffer whatever may befall, preferring the glory of achieving more than any previous Macedonian king to a life of security. 387 Demosthenes 2.14. ὅλως μὲν γὰρ ἡ Μακεδονικὴ δύναμις καὶ ἀρχὴ ἐν μὲν προσθήκῃ μερίς ἐστί τις οὐ μικρά, οἷον ὑπῆρξέ ποθ’ ὑμῖν ἐπὶ Τιμοθέου πρὸς Ὀλυνθίους· πάλιν αὖ πρὸς Ποτείδαιαν Ὀλυνθίοις ἐφάνη τι τοῦτο συναμφότερον· 384 385 Trevett 2011: 47n10 suggests Demosthenes is refering to the 364/3 campaign against the Chalcidic League, supported by Nepos Timotheus 1.2; Polyaenus Stratagems 3.10.7, 14. Demosthenes 2.14. αὐτὴ δὲ καθ’ αὑτὴν ἀσθενὴς καὶ πολλῶν κακῶν ἐστι μεστή. Demosthenes 2.17. πεζέταιροι δόξαν μὲν ἔχουσιν ὡς εἰσὶ θαυμαστοὶ καὶ συγκεκροτημένοι τὰ τοῦ πολέμου... οὐδένων εἰσὶν βελτίους. In my opinion, this is a misrepresentation of the Macedonian force under Philip. As Gabriel 2010: 54 notes, ‘Philip’s creation of the first competent corps of Macedonian infantry was not only an achievement of military genius, but also an experiment in social engineering,’ and views the pezhetairoi as ‘a truly national and democratic institution…Philip transformed the power of the traditional Macedonian monarchy by changing the nature of social relationships…by reorienting them away from tribal and local concerns and toward new national aspirations.’ For the purpose of this thesis, however, I am concerned with Demosthenes’ effect in diminishing the image of Philip and Macedonia as an effective force. 386 Demosthenes 2.15. καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ἅπασι τούτοις, οἷς ἄν τις μέγαν αὐτὸν ἡγήσαιτο, τοῖς πολέμοις καὶ ταῖς στρατείαις, ἔτ’ ἐπισφαλεστέραν ἢ ὑπῆρχε φύσει κατεσκεύακεν αὑτῷ. μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς αὐτοῖς Φίλιππόν τε χαίρειν καὶ τοὺς ἀρχομένους, ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν δόξης ἐπιθυμεῖ καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐζήλωκε, καὶ προῄρηται πράττων καὶ κινδυνεύων, ἂν συμβῇ τι, παθεῖν, τὴν τοῦ διαπράξασθαι ταῦθ’ ἃ μηδεὶς πώποτ’ ἄλλος Μακεδόνων 387 118 While Philip’s interference in Athens’ sphere of influence threatens their interests, Demosthenes also presents Philip, like the Persians before him, as extending beyond his reach.388 This tyrannical aspect of Philip is also emphasised in Demosthenes’ description of the suffering of Macedonian people: But his subjects do not share in the glory of his achievements; instead, they are always being pounded by this to-and-fro campaigning, and are distressed and endure constant hardships, and are not allowed to spend time at their work or on their private affairs.389 Moreover, Demosthenes recalls the trusted first-hand account of his informer – ‘someone who has been in that country, and who is incapable of lying,’ 390 to further emphasise that Philip is a tyrant: For, he says, any of them who are experienced in war and battle are removed by Philip out of jealousy, since he wishes to give the impression that every achievement is his alone – in addition to everything else, he reports that Philip’s jealousy is unsurpassable.391 Thus, this superlative nature of Philip’s jealously associates the Macedonian king with the excessive hybris characteristic of tyrants, arguably making Philip’s fall from grace inevitable βασιλεὺς δόξαν ἀντὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἀσφαλῶς ᾑρημένος· Again, Demosthenes’ account does not portray the reality of Philip and Macedonia. See in general all of Worthington 2014 and Hammond 1972; 1994. Hunt 2010: 81 notes how ‘Demosthenes often represents Macedonia as a new Persia, an intrinsically hostile, barbarian state threatening Greece.’ Asirvatham 2010: 108 notes that ‘Like Persia, Macedonia – despite its kings’ philhellenism – was not known as a place of indigenous culture (although it had a number of Greek intellects in residence, most famously Euripides). It was known, however, as a place of wealth, which for Greeks (as for us at times) was easily associated with corruption.’ This also has relevance to the discussions in Chapter 4.1 pp. 200-209 and the Second Philippic on the assoication of Philip and the memory of the Persian Wars. 388 Demosthenes 2.16 τοῖς δὲ τῆς μὲν φιλοτιμίας τῆς ἀπὸ τούτων οὐ μέτεστι, κοπτόμενοι δ’ ἀεὶ ταῖς στρατείαις ταύταις ταῖς ἄνω κάτω λυποῦνται καὶ συνεχῶς ταλαιπωροῦσιν, οὔτ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔργοις οὔτ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς αὑτῶν ἰδίοις ἐώμενοι διατρίβειν. 389 390 Demosthenes 2.17. τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ γεγενημένων τινὸς ἤκουον, ἀνδρὸς οὐδαμῶς οἵου τε ψεύδεσθαι. Demosthenes 2.18. εἰ μὲν γάρ τις ἀνήρ ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς οἷος ἔμπειρος πολέμου καὶ ἀγώνων, τούτους μὲν φιλοτιμίᾳ πάντας ἀπωθεῖν αὐτὸν ἔφη, βουλόμενον πάνθ’ αὑτοῦ δοκεῖν εἶναι τἄργα (πρὸς γὰρ αὖ τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ τὴν φιλοτιμίαν ἀνυπέρβλητον εἶναι)· 391 119 given the past precedents of tyrants’ failure to subdue Athenians. 392 Continuing to report his informer’s first-hand account, Demosthenes’ narrative describes how: If anyone is sober or generally upright, and is unable to tolerate the constant loose living and drunkenness and lewd dancing, such a man is pushed aside and treated as a nobody. The rest of his company are brigands and flatterers and men whose drunken dancing is so vile that I shrink from describing it to you…those men whom everyone drove away from here for being far more disgusting than conjurers, that public slave Callias and men of this stamp, pantomime actors of the ridiculous and poets of shameful songs, which they compose for their associates in order to raise a laugh – these are the men he loves to keep to himself. 393 In using stereotypes of the Macedonian court, Demosthenes asserts that, ‘such things, men of Athens, even if they seem relatively unimportant, provide a thoughtful observer with clear proof of his disgusting nature’, a nature which has been obscured by Philip’s success to date Most notably accounted in Herodotus’ Histories, and part of the the topoi of Athenian’s self-definition transmitted in social memory. 392 Demosthenes 2.18-19. εἰ δέ τις σώφρων ἢ δίκαιος ἄλλως, τὴν καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀκρασίαν τοῦ βίου καὶ μέθην καὶ κορδακισμοὺς οὐ δυνάμενος φέρειν, παρεῶσθαι καὶ ἐν οὐδενὸς εἶναι μέρει τὸν τοιοῦτον. λοιποὺς δὴ περὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι λῃστὰς καὶ κόλακας καὶ τοιούτους ἀνθρώπους οἵους μεθυσθέντας ὀρχεῖσθαι τοιαῦθ’ οἷ’ ἐγὼ νῦν ὀκνῶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὀνομάσαι ... οὓς ἐνθένδε πάντες ἀπήλαυνον ὡς πολὺ τῶν θαυματοποιῶν ἀσελγεστέρους ὄντας, Καλλίαν ἐκεῖνον τὸν δημόσιον καὶ τοιούτους ἀνθρώπους, μίμους γελοίων καὶ ποιητὰς αἰσχρῶν ᾀσμάτων, ὧν εἰς τοὺς συνόντας ποιοῦσιν εἵνεκα τοῦ γελασθῆναι, τούτους ἀγαπᾷ καὶ περὶ αὑτὸν ἔχει. Demosthenes’ account on the Macedonian court is similar to the account of his contemporary Theopompus of Chios in his Philippic History. BNJ FGrH 115 F 224 Athenaeus Deipnosophists 4.116G-7C on Theopompus’ account of Philip and his companions: that they were the worst money managers ‘of all mankind…none of them could be trusted to live in an upright fashion or to make their households. He [Philip] himself was to blame because he was greedy and extravagant’ doing ‘everything rashly.’ The companions were chosen ‘not for excellence but rather if one among the Greeks or Barbarians was a lastauros (hairy beast) or a loathsome person or brazen in his character.’ This continues at BNJ FGrH F225b Athenaeus Deipnosophists 6.260 D-1A ‘they loved drunkenness…thieving…murdering…swearing false oaths…cheating…desirous of what they lack.’ This criticism can also be applied to Demosthenes’ reference to Philip’s pleonexia at 9.27. Polybius in his Histories 8.91.4 notes how Theopompus argued Philip ‘was by nature passionately eager for drinking unmixed wine…he frequently appeared drunk to his friends.’ However, he rebuked Theopompus’ criticism as falsehoods against Philip (BNJ 115 T16). Trevett 2011: 41 also makes this link to Theopompus’ criticism of heavy drinking with FGrH 115 fr. 27 and 282. 393 120 as ‘success is good at concealing such disgraces.’ 394 As in the First Philippic Demosthenes concedes that on appearances Philip looks successful: If any of you, men of Athens, sees Philip’s successes and concludes that he is a formidable enemy, he is thinking like a sensible man.395 But behind appearances, Demosthenes has demonstrated that Philip’s power is built upon deception, rotten at its core, and thus vulnerable. In remembering his assertion in the proemium that the Athenians’ current kairos is a sign of divine favour, Demosthenes bets his stake on Athens’ past reputation over Philip’s present luck: Fortune is a vital element – rather it is everything – in all human affairs. Nevertheless, if I were given the choice, I would personally choose the fortune of our city, so long as you are willing to do your duty in person, even in a limited degree, rather than his, since I observe that you have many more avenues than he has for gaining the favour of the gods.396 As in the previous two speeches, this makes the task of challenging Macedonia manageable, but also shameful to avoid, as due to his tyrannical nature, ‘in my opinion, men of Athens, Philip will be exposed quite soon, if the gods are willing and if you desire it.’ 397 But Demosthenes’ additional caveat, ‘so long as you are willing to do your duty in person’, also reminds the Assembly that any outcome is dependent on their change of attitude. Not only does this recall the specific proposals of the First Philippic to serve in person, but again shifts the focus away from Philip as a formidable enemy onto the Athenians’ agency to act on the Demosthenes 2.20. καίτοι ταῦτα, καὶ εἰ μικρά τις ἡγεῖται, μεγάλ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δείγματα τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης καὶ κακοδαιμονίας ἐστὶ τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσιν...αἱ γὰρ εὐπραξίαι δειναὶ συγκρύψαι τὰ τοιαῦτ’ ὀνείδη· 394 Demosthenes 2.22. εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν Φίλιππον εὐτυχοῦνθ’ ὁρῶν ταύτῃ φοβερὸν προσπολεμῆσαι νομίζει, σώφρονος μὲν ἀνθρώπου λογισμῷ χρῆται· 395 Demosthenes 2.22. μεγάλη γὰρ ῥοπή, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ ὅλον ἡ τύχη παρὰ πάντ’ ἐστὶ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πράγματα· οὐ μὴν ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε, εἴ τις αἵρεσίν μοι δοίη, τὴν τῆς ἡμετέρας πόλεως τύχην ἂν ἑλοίμην, ἐθελόντων ἃ προσήκει ποιεῖν ὑμῶν αὐτῶν καὶ κατὰ μικρόν, ἢ τὴν ἐκείνου· πολὺ γὰρ πλείους ἀφορμὰς εἰς τὸ τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν εὔνοιαν ἔχειν ὁρῶ ὑμῖν ἐνούσας ἢ ’κείνῳ. 396 Demosthenes 2.21. δοκεῖ δ’ ἔμοιγ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δείξειν οὐκεἰς μακράν, ἂν οἵ τε θεοὶ θέλωσι καὶ ὑμεῖς βούλησθε. 397 121 situation. This point, which Demosthenes has emphasised since the First Philippic, is key: it relies on the Athenians shaking off their apathy and, now with the crisis at Olynthus, seizing the kairos to act. Thus, the direction of this ‘Fortune’ rests on how the Athenians react, and the remainder of the speech is directed at addressing the Assembly’s attitude directly. Bluntly, Demosthenes criticises their idle lack of action: And yet we seem to sit around and do nothing. But an idler cannot call on his friends to act on his behalf, still less on the gods. 398 This could refer to their failure to act on his last two speeches, but also their own responsibility for the problems they are facing. Demosthenes compares Philip’s pro-active attitude to their own apathy, to logically explain the situation: Indeed, it is no wonder Philip, who goes on campaign and engages in hard work and attends to everything, who leaves aside no opportunity or season, gets the better of us who delay and take votes and hold enquires. Nor do I find this surprising. Indeed, the opposite would have been amazing: if we, who do none of the things that those who are at war must do, were to get the better of one who does everything. 399 As in the First Philippic, the reversal of roles of Macedonia and Athens demonstrates how the crisis is a result of Athens’ failure to act in manner worthy of the city. It is this inversion of their national character which Demosthenes sees as responsible for the present situation as: I am amazed at this: that in the past you rose up against the Spartans in the cause of justice for the Greeks, and refused many opportunities to make large private gains, but Demosthenes 2.23. ἀλλ’, οἶμαι, καθήμεθ’ οὐδὲν ποιοῦντες· οὐκ ἔνι δ’ αὐτὸν ἀργοῦντ’ οὐδὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἐπιτάττειν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ τι ποιεῖν, μή τί γε δὴ τοῖς θεοῖς. 398 Demosthenes 2.23. οὐ δὴ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν, εἰ στρατευόμενος καὶ πονῶν ἐκεῖνος αὐτὸς καὶ παρὼν ἐφ’ ἅπασι καὶ μήτε καιρὸν μήθ’ ὥραν παραλείπων ἡμῶν μελλόντων καὶ ψηφιζομένων καὶ πυνθανομένων περιγίγνεται. οὐδὲ θαυμάζω τοῦτ’ ἐγώ· τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἂν ἦν θαυμαστόν, εἰ μηδὲν ποιοῦντες ἡμεῖς ὧν τοῖς πολεμοῦσι προσήκει τοῦ πάντα ποιοῦντος περιῆμεν. 399 122 instead spent your own money by raising taxes and were the first to risk your lives on campaign, so that the majority of the Greeks should get justice, whereas now you shrink from marching out and put off paying taxes, even to protect your own possessions! Indeed, I am amazed that you, who have often rescued the other Greeks, both collectively and individually, now sit about, even when you have been deprived of your own property.400 By doing precisely the opposite of their ancestors, Demosthenes uses the past to assert that the current Athenians have created this crisis. It is their refusal to recognise this that is the crux of their problems: These things amaze me, but it amazes me even more, men of Athens, that none of you are able to reckon how long you have been at war with Philip and what you have been doing during the period. Surely you realise that you have spent the whole time procrastinating, hoping others will act, blaming each other, holding trials, hoping again, doing pretty much the same as you are doing now.401 Demosthenes condemns their futile hope that their problems will resolve themselves, and asserts that this attitude is the cause of their misfortunes. By not recognising the damage caused by their lack of action, they fail to see that any hope of regaining their possessions is impossible if they refuse to change their attitude towards deliberation, and act against Philip’s expansion. By blaming each other, the Athenians fail to recognise that the time for deliberation is past, and Demosthenes 2.24 (as noted above). ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο θαυμάζω, εἰ Λακεδαιμονίοις μέν ποτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν δικαίων ἀντήρατε, καὶ πόλλ’ἰδίᾳ πλεονεκτῆσαι πολλάκις ὑμῖν ἐξὸν οὐκ ἠθελήσατε, ἀλλ’ ἵν’ οἱ ἄλλοι τύχωσι τῶν δικαίων, τὰ ὑμέτερ’ αὐτῶν ἀνηλίσκετ’ εἰσφέροντες καὶ προυκινδυνεύετε στρατευόμενοι, νυνὶ δ’ ὀκνεῖτ’ ἐξιέναι καὶ μέλλετ’ εἰσφέρειν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὑμετέρων αὐτῶν κτημάτων, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους σεσώκατε πολλάκις πάντας καὶ καθ’ ἕν’ αὐτῶν ἐν μέρει, τὰ δ’ ὑμέτερ’ αὐτῶν ἀπολωλεκότες κάθησθε. This also prepares us for Demosthenes’ elaborate comparison of the present Athenians to their fifth century ancestors, although again we must not presume that Demosthenes had a third Olynthiac in mind at this point. 400 Demosthenes 2.25. ταῦτα θαυμάζω, κἄτι πρὸς τούτοις, εἰ μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δύναται λογίσασθαι πόσον πολεμεῖτε χρόνον Φιλίππῳ, καὶ τί ποιούντων ὑμῶν ὁ χρόνος διελήλυθεν οὗτος. ἴστε γὰρ δήπου τοῦθ’, ὅτι μελλόντων αὐτῶν, ἑτέρους τινὰς ἐλπιζόντων πράξειν, αἰτιωμένων ἀλλήλους, κρινόντων, πάλιν ἐλπιζόντων, σχεδὸν ταὔθ’ ἅπερ νυνὶ ποιούντων, ἅπας ὁ χρόνος διελήλυθεν. 401 123 how constant deliberation enables them to avoid acting on the crisis in the north Aegean. Their habit of blaming each other becomes a substitute for action, and Demosthenes cites as an example their attitude towards their generals: Why, men of Athens, do you suppose that all the generals that you dispatch avoid this war, and find private ones? The reason is that in the war against Philip, the prizes for which the war is being fought belong to you – if Amphipolis is captures, it will immediately revert to you – but the risks belong exclusively to your commanders, and there is no pay available to them. Elsewhere, however, the dangers are fewer, and there are profits to be made by the commanders and their troops.402 This appears to be a continuation of Demosthenes’ argument in the First Philippic, that the lack of funding for military expeditions has had a negative impact upon their current situation.403 Then, as now, Demosthenes observes the damage inflicted by their present attitude: But you, when you notice the disastrous state of your affairs, put the commanders on trial; but then, when you allow them to speak, you hear about these constraints and let them go.404 The fact that the Athenians do not change their policy, and refuse to learn from their mistakes, results in continued deliberation where the ‘collective interest suffers.’405 I propose that it is this Demosthenes 2.28. τίνος γὰρ εἵνεκ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίζετε τοῦτον μὲν φεύγειν τὸν πόλεμον πάντας ὅσους ἂν ἐκπέμψητε στρατηγούς, ἰδίους δ’ εὑρίσκειν πολέμους, εἰ δεῖ τι τῶν ὄντων καὶ περὶ τῶν στρατηγῶν εἰπεῖν; ὅτι ἐνταῦθα μέν ἐστι τἆθλ’ ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐστιν ὁ πόλεμος ὑμέτερα (Ἀμφίπολίς γ’ ἂν ληφθῇ, παραχρῆμ’ ὑμεῖς κομιεῖσθε), οἱ δὲ κίνδυνοι τῶν ἐφεστηκότων ἴδιοι, μισθὸς δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν· ἐκεῖ δὲ κίνδυνοι μὲν ἐλάττους, τὰ δὲ λήμματα τῶν ἐφεστηκότων καὶ τῶν στρατιωτῶν. 402 403 See Demosthenes 4.35-6. Demosthenes 2.29. ὑμεῖς δ’, ὅταν μὲν εἰς τὰ πράγματ’ ἀποβλέψητε φαύλως ἔχοντα, τοὺς ἐφεστηκότας κρίνετε, ὅταν δὲ δόντες λόγον τὰς ἀνάγκας ἀκούσητε ταύτας, ἀφίετε. 404 Demosthenes 2.29: the result is that you dispute and quarrel with each other – some have one opinion, others another, and our collective interest suffers’ περίεστι τοίνυν ὑμῖν ἀλλήλοις ἐρίζειν καὶ διεστάναι, τοῖς μὲν ταῦτα πεπεισμένοις, τοῖς δὲ ταῦτα, τὰ κοινὰ δ’ ἔχειν φαύλως. One could compare this preservation of personal interest to Praxagora’s comments in Aristophanes Assembly Women 205-7 ‘You each look out for a way to gain a personal profit for yourself, while the public interest gets kicked around.’ Christ 2006: 33 notes the selfishness of the second citizen (the cynical Athenian) is ‘fully consistent with that attributed to the Athenians at large by Praxagora.’ 405 124 internal breakdown of their affairs, rather than a policy specifically against Philip, that Demosthenes has been addressing. Indeed, I suggest that asserting this correlation between the Assembly’s attitude and their declining situation and Philip’s rise has been Demosthenes’ priority in the First Philippic and Olynthiacs so far. For Demosthenes, the Athenians needs to acknowledge and tackle this, because there is no hope to improve matters if they do not change their attitude: Are you so senseless, men of Athens, that you hope to improve our city’s situation by following the very same policies that led to its decline?406 Again, Demosthenes associates the futile promises of the other rhētors with their continued decline, noting that their situation has only deteriorated further since the First Philippic to a point that: But in our case, as a result of the war, we no longer have any of our previous possessions to defend, we must reacquire them. This is now the task that we face.407 Despite this physical evidence of the inevitable outcome for Athens if they do not act, the Assembly not long previously had rejected the First Olynthiac. Accordingly, Demosthenes calls on the Athenians to learn from both these recent mistakes, and also by the example set by their ancestors – who, as he reminded them, ‘rose up against the Spartans in the cause of justice for the Greeks.’408 Demosthenes 2.26. εἶθ’ οὕτως ἀγνωμόνως ἔχετ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὥστε δι’ ὧν ἐκ χρηστῶν φαῦλα τὰ πράγματα τῆς πόλεως γέγονεν, διὰ τούτων ἐλπίζετε τῶν αὐτῶν πράξεων ἐκ φαύλων αὐτὰ χρηστὰ γενήσεσθαι; This is also a continuation of his points in the First Olynthiac 1.14-15, ‘my purpose is to make you understand…the harm done by our continual neglect of affairs…we refuse to apply ourselves robustly to any situation, how can matters be expected to end? …our homeland may be at risk.’ 406 Demosthenes 2.26. νῦν δ’ ὅ τι μὲν φυλάξομεν, οὐδέν ἐσθ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ πολέμου λοιπὸν τῶν πρότερον, κτήσασθαι δὲ δεῖ. αὐτῶν οὖν ἡμῶν ἔργον τοῦτ’ ἤδη. 407 408 Demosthenes 2.24. 125 Epilogue Demosthenes concludes the speech by reasserting his proposals and calling the Athenians to shake off their current attitude: You must put such conduct aside and even now recover your self-control, and join together in deliberating, speaking, and taking action for the common good.409 Demosthenes asserts with no uncertainty that they cannot serve the common good if they do not complete their logos with ergon. He also calls them to act democratically, reasserting the need for the Athenians to all do their part: If you grant some citizens the right to give orders as if in a tyranny, compel others to serve as trierarchs, to pay the wealth-tax, and to campaign, and to allow others still to do nothing but vote against them and make no other contribution to the collective effort, you will fail to accomplish any of the things you need to in a timely fashion.410 In this way, Demosthenes calls the Assembly to recognise these errors and make them realise that their interests (and reputation) are at stake if they refuse to act: I say in summary, that you should all contribute equitably according to your means; you should all go on campaign in turn until everyone has served; you should give a hearing to all who come forward to speak; and you should choose the best proposals you hear, rather than whatever this man or that should say. 411 Demosthenes 2.30. δεῖ δὴ ταῦτ’ ἐπανέντας καὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἔτι καὶ νῦν γενομένους κοινὸν καὶ τὸ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὸ πράττειν ποιῆσαι. 409 Demosthenes 2.30. εἰ δὲ τοῖς μὲν ὥσπερ ἐκ τυραννίδος ὑμῶν ἐπιτάττειν ἀποδώσετε, τοῖς δ’ ἀναγκάζεσθαι τριηραρχεῖν, εἰσφέρειν, στρατεύεσθαι, τοῖς δὲ ψηφίζεσθαι κατὰ τούτων μόνον, ἄλλο δὲ μηδ’ ὁτιοῦν συμπονεῖν, οὐχὶ γενήσεται τῶν δεόντων ἡμῖν οὐδὲν ἐν καιρῷ· As Ober 1989: 320 notes, ‘When the political orator blamed the people, he typically did so by appealing to egalitarian principles. He took the position of reminding his audience of the pristine democratic code of thought and behaviour from which they had strayed.’ 410 Demosthenes 2.31. λέγω δὴ κεφάλαιον, πάντας εἰσφέρειν ἀφ’ ὅσων ἕκαστος ἔχει τὸ ἴσον· πάντας ἐξιέναι κατὰ μέρος, ἕως ἂν ἅπαντες στρατεύσησθε· πᾶσι τοῖς παριοῦσι λόγον διδόναι, καὶ τὰ βέλτισθ’ ὧν ἂν ἀκούσηθ’ αἱρεῖσθαι, μὴ ἃν ὁ δεῖν’ ἢ ὁ δεῖν’ εἴπῃ. 411 126 Moreover, Demosthenes assimilates his own proposals to the definition of the ideal citizen, a ‘selfless civic benefactor…one who puts his capacitates, talents and resources freely at the disposal of the polis’, and emphasises how their neglect of their civic duty has led to the external issues against Macedonian expansion, and their failure to halt it. 412 As in the First Philippic, Demosthenes ask the Athenians to act, in person, and fund their forces, demonstrating a new commitment and conviction of their words by their actions. Gray 2015: 60 notes that in this passage Demosthenes ‘closely associated egalitarian civic organisation with each citizen having the opportunity and duty to participate in politics and war, and to make an equal financial contribution according to his means’. 412 127 CHAPTER 2.3 THE THIRD OLYNTHIAC The Second Olynthiac was only a partial success as the Assembly moved Demosthenes’ proposals, but not in their entirety. In the Third Olynthiac, Demosthenes recounts the events after the Second Olynthiac and how following Philip’s Thracian campaign and the siege of Heraion Teichos, the Athenians voted to ‘launch forty triremes and man them with those up to forty-five years old and to levy a wealth-tax of sixty talents.’413 But, it was nearly a year later, after the Eleusinian Mysteries, that Charidemus was dispatched ‘with ten empty ships and five talents of silver’, which was somewhat short of what had been proposed and voted for. 414 Moreover, Demosthenes notes that, ‘when it was announced that Philip was sick or dead…you thought that you no longer needed to send a relief force and disbanded the expedition.’ 415 By not capitalising on the weakness of Philip, and failing to follow through on their ratified proposals, the Athenians lost the initiative Philip returned to Chalcidice with a strengthened resolve. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Demosthenes’ account was delivered to persuade the Athenians, and by flagging up their errors, he was slightly unjust in his assessment of Athenian action. Philochorus and Diodorus tell us that initially Chares set out for Olynthus with 2000 Thracian cavalry and thirty triremes. 416 By the time they arrived at Olynthus, Philip had left for Thessaly to deal with the expelled tyrant of Pherae, Peitholaus, i413 Demosthenes 3.4. Lane-Fox 1997:197 dates the siege at November 351 suggesting that Philip campaigned against Arybbas of Epirus early 351 before moving east to Heraion Teichos, citing Errington 1975: 41-50 based on Diodorus’ account. Hammond 1937 uses Demosthenes 3.4 to suggest November 352. Demosthenes 3.5. Trevett 2011: 57 notes that ‘An “empty” ship was one for which the commander rather than the city was responsible for finding rowers.’ I argue this demonstrated the Assembly’s failure to man their forces with Athenians as Demosthenes had proposed, and which he viewed as critical in demonstrating their changed attitude and commitment to defending their interests. See too Gabrielson 1994: 108. 414 Demosthenes 3.5. ὡς γὰρ ἠγγέλθη Φίλιππος ἀσθενῶν ἢ τεθνεώς ... οὐκέτι καιρὸν οὐδένα τοῦ βοηθεῖν νομίσαντες ἀφεῖτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν ἀπόστολον. 415 Pearson 1976: 121 states that Philochorus ‘recorded three separate efforts by the Athenians to save Olynthus, all unsuccessful…and early commentators found it convenient to believe that each of these efforts were the result of one of the speeches.’ Pearson refers to Dionysius Letter to Ammaeus 9-10; Philochorus, FGrH 328, F.49-51. 416 128 and then returned to Pella for the winter of 349. 417 The Athenians, therefore, returned home. Philip resumed his Chalcidic campaign in the spring, which generated another appeal for help from Olynthus. The Athenians sent Charidemus, who was based in the Chersonese, with 18 triremes, 4000 peltasts, and 150 cavalry to join the Olynthian army ‘of 1000 cavalry and 10000 infantry.’418 This joint force actually recaptured some Pallene cities, and attacked Bottiaea, but despite their efforts recorded by Philochorus and Diodorus, Philip dominated the Chalcidic peninsular, taking Mecyberna by late spring/ early summer 348.419 Following this, the Olynthians appealed again to Athenians for aid, and the subsequent debate sets the context for the Third Olynthiac. For Demosthenes, their ‘half-a-job’ attitude towards Chares’ expedition force epitomised their apathetic approach to the situation as a whole. This was exacerbated by their failure to capitalise on Philip’s injury as they returned home, hoping the situation was resolved.420 Accordingly, the Third Olynthiac returns to confronting the Assembly’s attitude: ‘you must also know, men of Athens, that a decree is worthless if it is not accompanied by the will to carry out the decision with enthusiasm.’ 421 Demosthenes forcefully reiterates his complaints from the previous three speeches, and his frustration that they have let the situation deteriorate by refusing to heed his advice. In keeping with the conventions of the Assembly, Demosthenes does not criticise individuals directly but delivers his denunciation to the dēmos as a whole.422 This is most striking in his scathing comparison of fifth and 417 Worthington 2013: 138. Philochorus, FGrH 328 F 49. Diodorus 16.52.9. 418 Worthington 2013: 138-9. Philochorus, FGrH 328 F 50. Diodorus 16.52.9. 419 Worthington 2013: 139. Diodorus 16.53.2. Mecyberna was Olynthus’ port. 420 Compare with Demosthenes 2.25. Demosthenes 3.14. οὐ μὴν οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνό γ’ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν δεῖ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅτι ψήφισμ’ οὐδενὸς ἄξιόν ἐστιν, ἂν μὴ προσγένηται τὸ ποιεῖν ἐθέλειν τά γε δόξαντα προθύμως ὑμᾶς. 421 Gray 2015: 178 argues Dem. 3.30-6 is an example of mass denunciation ‘with the potential to be rallying rather than divisive’, as it criticised ‘the dēmos as a whole for failing short of its own generic, uncontroversial ideals of probity, intelligence, courage, or self-sacrifice, in ways which could be made good through collective effort.’ See too Thucydides 3.38.4. 422 129 fourth century Athens, which develops his assertion from the First Philippic that the current Athenians no longer reflect defining Athenian values. Demosthenes emphasises this through his interweaving use of praise and blame to contrast their current practices to their fifthcentury ancestors. In his reference to the past, Demosthenes calls the Assembly to recognise that their failure to maintain the virtues of the ancestors has caused the current crisis. 423 This atavism is not a nostalgic reminiscence in an Hesiodic degenerative view of the polis, but rather an assertion of the fundamental qualities that are associated with the Athenian past. 424 The comparison’s effectiveness lies in ‘its simplicity, picking up on the ‘shared’ knowledge of certain key figures and events’. 425 By making the Assembly see the discrepancy between their current reflections and their ancestral exempla, Demosthenes’ proposals became performing Athenian democratic values to recover their past greatness and security. By the Third Olynthiac, Demosthenes no longer argues that the Athenians need to understand the situation, he has explained it enough times for them to comprehend. Rather, he pointedly suggests that they understand the situation, but their apathy and self-gratification prevails over reason and duty, provoking them to prove him wrong. Demosthenes also returns to the Theoric fund, and while some such as Eubulus saw an expedition to a potentially dead Philip a waste of money and resources, for Demosthenes, this epitomised the apathy and avoidance of action which had caused their problems in the first place.426 Moreover, the promise of action was no longer sufficient for their allies, who were now dubious of Athenian promises, especially now that Athens had failed to enact their voted proposals and capitalise on Philip’s injury. Athens was now in a position where it could 423 Demosthenes 3.28-9. 424 Karvounis 2002: 238 says something similar with regard to the First Philippic, and how the reader gets the impression that a sleeping giant is among the Athenians, whose awakening alone would be sufficient to defeat their enemies: ‘Der Leser bekommt den Eindruck, daß es sich bei den Athenern um einen schlafenden Riesen handelt, dessen Erwachen allein ausreichen würde, um seine Feinde zu bezwingen.’ 425 Clarke 2008: 256. 426 On Eubulus’ economic reforms see earlier discussion of Demosthenes 4.15, p. 49. 130 not retaliate against Philip and they were ‘reduced to defending themselves and their allies.’427 The speech aims to make the Athenians enact their original proposals before it is too late. To this end, Demosthenes returns to his arguments in the previous speeches that the Athenians need to act, in person and fund their expedition, and recognise what is expected of them as Athenians: So, men of Athens, you should examine what is possible in our situation, and how you will be able to go on campaign and receive pay. Prudent and honourable men do not neglect their military responsibilities for want of money or taking the resulting criticism lightly; nor, after taking up arms against the Corinthians or Megarians, do they permit Philip to enslave Greek cities for want of subsistence money for those who are on campaign.428 Indeed, by focusing on: οὔ τοι σωφρόνων οὐδὲ γενναίων ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπων, and noting the positive connotations of sōphrōn and gennaios, Demosthenes represents the current Athenians as falling far short of the behaviour expected of ‘prudent (sōphrōn) and honourable (gennaios) men’, expressing the current crisis as more a crisis of Athenian identity than one brought about by Philip. 427 Trevett 2011: 53. As argued at the start of this chapter, the dating of the Olynthiacs are hard to exactly determine, but we can definitely date this speech to after the Thracian campaign, and scholarly consensus agrees that the increased daring and solemn tone of the speeches suggests that Philip’s siege at Olynthus had progressed. Worthington 2013: 139 notes that Demosthenes’ claims at 3.1 were overstated, but the situation ‘was in fact grim.’ Demosthenes 3.20. ὁρᾶτ’ οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ταῦθ’ οὕτως, ὅπως καὶ τὰ πράγματ’ ἐνδέχεται καὶ δυνήσεσθ’ ἐξιέναι καὶ μισθὸν ἕξετε. οὔ τοι σωφρόνων οὐδὲ γενναίων ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐλλείποντάς τι δι’ ἔνδειαν χρημάτων τῶν τοῦ πολέμου εὐχερῶς τὰ τοιαῦτ’ ὀνείδη φέρειν, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ μὲν Κορινθίους καὶ Μεγαρέας ἁρπάσαντας τὰ ὅπλα πορεύεσθαι, Φίλιππον δ’ ἐᾶν πόλεις Ἑλληνίδας ἀνδραποδίζεσθαι δι’ ἀπορίαν ἐφοδίων τοῖς στρατευομένοις. 428 131 Analysis Proemium Demosthenes’ proemium establishes that the deterioration of events are a direct consequence of the Assembly’s attitude, and in particular the decline of the deliberative process: For the speeches deal with how to punish Philip, but our situation has deteriorated so badly that we are reduced to examining how to prevent him from harming us first. As a result, I believe that those who deliver speeches of this nature are simply mistaken and have set before you an untrue basis for deliberation. 429 While on the one hand they seek to punish Philip, on the other they do not recognise that their failure to deliberative effectively – and on the correct issues – has resulted in the need to safeguard themselves from further harm. As such, their failure to recognise their own flaws and culpability implies that they cannot – in this present state – resolve this crisis as they cannot deliberate effectively. It is the reluctance of the Assembly to reflect self-critically and acknowledge this, and their refusal to listen, that Demosthenes addresses in the proemium: The present situation, more than any previous one, requires much thought and deliberation, but I do not consider it particularly difficult to advise you on what to do in our current circumstances. I am, however, at a loss, men of Athens, as to the manner in which I should speak to you about them. For I am convinced both from personal experience and what I have heard, that we have lost control of the situation more because of our unwillingness to do our duty than from any lack of intelligence on our part.430 Demosthenes 3.1. τοὺς μὲν γὰρ λόγους περὶ τοῦ τιμωρήσασθαι Φίλιππον ὁρῶ γιγνομένους, τὰ δὲ πράγματ’εἰς τοῦτο προήκοντα, ὥσθ’ ὅπως μὴ πεισόμεθ’ αὐτοὶ πρότερον κακῶς σκέψασθαι δέον. οὐδὲν οὖν ἄλλο μοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγοντες ἢ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, περὶ ἧς βουλεύεσθε, οὐχὶ τὴν οὖσαν παριστάντες ὑμῖν ἁμαρτάνειν. 429 Demosthenes 3.3. ὁ μὲν οὖν παρὼν καιρός, εἴπερ ποτέ, πολλῆς φροντίδος καὶ βουλῆς δεῖται· ἐγὼ δ’ οὐχ ὅ τι χρὴ περὶ τῶν παρόντων συμβουλεῦσαι χαλεπώτατον ἡγοῦμαι, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖν’ ἀπορῶ, τίνα χρὴ τρόπον, ὦ ἄνδρες 430 132 Indeed, the Athenians have failed to heed his assertions since the First Philippic that the worst aspect of the situation (their lack of action) presents their best hope. Their failure to act leaves them in a paralysis: ‘but before we have made a sound beginning, I think that it is pointless to say anything about the end.’ 431 In stating this, Demosthenes asserts that they still do not move beyond words to action. This discrepancy between logos and ergon is a central theme throughout the speeches and contributes significantly to their current situation, as noted above ‘a decree is worthless’ if it is not qualified with the will to enact the decision with enthusiasm.’ 432 Narrative In this regard, the Athenians are still behaving as if ‘paper forces’ are sufficient, and have failed to learn that: If decrees alone had the power either to compel you to do your duty or to accomplish the goals for which they were proposed, you would not find yourselves voting for many things but accomplishing few if any of them, nor would Philip have been insulting you for such a long time, since, to judge by your decrees at any rate, he would long ago have been punished. 433 Moreover, the allies have lost faith in Athenian logos: their words alone are no longer sufficient due to their failure to follow through with actions, which has been perceived as weakness by their allies and enemies alike. As Demosthenes stated in the First Philippic, the Ἀθηναῖοι, πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν. πέπεισμαι γὰρ ἐξ ὧν παρὼν καὶ ἀκούων σύνοιδα, τὰ πλείω τῶν πραγμάτων ἡμᾶς ἐκπεφευγέναι τῷ μὴ βούλεσθαι τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν ἢ τῷ μὴ συνιέναι. Demosthenes 3.2 πρὶν δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὀρθῶς ὑποθέσθαι, μάταιον ἡγοῦμαι περὶ τῆς τελευτῆς ὁντινοῦν ποιεῖσθαι λόγον.This is repeated with greater vitriol in the Third Philippic 9.5 ‘you have not been defeated: you have not even been aroused!’ This is also another topoi of the epitaphioi logoi, to not be defeated by an enemy, but by their own errors, or in this case, by doing nothing. 431 432 Demosthenes 3.14. Demosthenes 3.14. εἰ γὰρ αὐτάρκη τὰ ψηφίσματ’ ἦν ἢ ὑμᾶς ἀναγκάζειν ἃ προσήκει πράττειν ἢ περὶ ὧν γραφείη διαπράξασθαι, οὔτ’ ἂν ὑμεῖς πολλὰ ψηφιζόμενοι μικρά, μᾶλλον δ’ οὐδὲν ἐπράττετε τούτων, οὔτε Φίλιππος τοσοῦτον ὑβρίκει χρόνον· πάλαι γὰρ ἂν εἵνεκά γε ψηφισμάτων ἐδεδώκει δίκην. Cf. 4.19: at p.51 on paper forces (ἐπιστολιμαίους), and p. 71 on 4.45 ‘whether you send out a general and an empty decree and hopes from the speaker’s platform, you achieve nothing that you should…and your allies die of fear.’ 433 133 Athenians are experiencing difficulties because while they debate about issues, they do not do what is necessary to address them: they only fulfil one half of the ideal of logos and ergon.434 Here in the Third Olynthiac, Demosthenes implores the Athenians to realise that, ‘for although action comes after speaking and voting in time, it precedes them in effectiveness and is more powerful than them.’ 435 Thus, it is imperative to convince the Athenians to act in their best interests, which essentially is to act itself: Action then, is what you must add, since you have the other things [speeches] already. You have men who can tell you your duty, men of Athens, and you are yourselves the smartest of people at understanding what has been said; and you will be able to act now, if you do what is right. 436 This is the same sentiment as in the Second Olynthiac where Demosthenes asserted that ‘all speech, if it is not accompanied by action, seems vain and empty.’ 437 To this end, the Third Olynthiac seeks to address how and why the Assembly refuses to bridge this gap and recognise the best advice. Demosthenes, therefore, requests that they listen with goodwill (eunoia): I ask you, if I speak freely, to bear with me and to see whether I am telling the truth and am aiming to bring about some improvement in the future, since you see that it is as a result of the speeches that certain men address to you in the Assembly in order to gain your approval that our affairs have reached an utterly wretched state. 438 434 Cf. Demosthenes 4.20. Demosthenes 3.15. τὸ γὰρ πράττειν τοῦ λέγειν καὶ χειροτονεῖν ὕστερον ὂν τῇ τάξει, πρότερον τῇ δυνάμει καὶ κρεῖττόν ἐστιν. 435 Demosthenes 3.15. τοῦτ’ οὖν δεῖ προσεῖναι, τὰ δ’ ἄλλ’ ὑπάρχει· καὶ γὰρ εἰπεῖν τὰ δέοντα παρ’ ὑμῖν εἰσιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δυνάμενοι, καὶ γνῶναι πάντων ὑμεῖς ὀξύτατοι τὰ ῥηθέντα, καὶ πρᾶξαι δὲ δυνήσεσθε νῦν, ἐὰν ὀρθῶς ποιῆτε. While the Greek says ‘this’, refering to action, I follow Trevett’s translation here and his choice to emphasise that it is ‘action’ that Demosthenes is discussing in this section of the speech. 436 437 Demosthenes 2.12. Demosthenes 3.3. ἀξιῶ δ’ ὑμᾶς, ἂν μετὰ παρρησίας ποιῶμαι τοὺς λόγους, ὑπομένειν, τοῦτο θεωροῦντας, εἰ τἀληθῆ λέγω, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ἵνα τὰ λοιπὰ βελτίω γένηται· ὁρᾶτε γὰρ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς χάριν δημηγορεῖν ἐνίους εἰς πᾶν προελήλυθε μοχθηρίας τὰ παρόντα. 438 134 Demosthenes utilises his parrhēsia to invoke the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric to portray himself as a speaker of truth (giving himself a moral authority from which to make this assessment of their wretched state), which consequently fashions any opponent as a ‘master of lies’. 439 By appealing to their ethos to generate a sense of eunoia Demosthenes not only attempts to neutralise the hostility of the Assembly against his parrhēsia, but uses the practice common in forensic oratory to make the audience ‘feel that they have been wronged personally’, by the other rhētors.440 As in the First Philippic, Demosthenes asserts that the Assembly cannot hope to function when it is corrupted from within. This sets the foundations for his condemnation of the misuse of rhetoric and their attitude towards advice-givers in sections 11-13 of this speech.441 Yet even here it is clear that, unlike the proud reputation of Athenian logos, the Assembly is manipulated and undermined by its own desire for rhetorical flare and flattery. Indeed, their current situation has deteriorated because they would rather listen to flattering pleasing speeches, than the hard truths Demosthenes has been advocating. Instead, they have been manipulated by men who sought popularity over serving the collective ends of the polis. Demosthenes has consistently positioned himself in opposition to these speakers, as a speaker of hard truths, who is not self-seeking but speaks even to the detriment of his own popularity for the sake of the polis.442 Demosthenes suggests that the Assembly has undermined its own decision by failing to enact the proposals of the Second Olynthiac, and that the promise of Athenian manned and Hesk 2000: 238-9 on the moments where meta-discourse between rhetoric and representation find ‘expression in rhetoric itself…The democratic orator can be seen to represent himself as a “master of truth” through the antagonistic theorisation of the opponent as a master of lies.’ 439 Carey 2000: 29. Carey 2000: 28 also notes that ‘an important component in the establishment of goodwill is the neutralisation of any hostility against the speaker.’ This is also noted in the dicussion of the proemium First Philippic pp 30-1. The need to generate eunoia intensifies in speeches 8 and 9, discussed in Chapter 4. 440 441 This is regarding the Theoric fund and is discussed later in this chapter at pp 97; 238; 256. 442 This develops fully in Demosthenes 5, On the Peace. I believe Demosthenes evokes the traditional wise advisors: a wise Nestor or a Phoenix, beseeching the Athenians to be men of both words and deeds, to be the men they can and ought to be. 135 funded action, instead, turned into a delayed despatch of ‘Charidemus with ten empty ships and five talents of silver.’ As such, the Athenians did exactly what Demosthenes criticised in the First Philippic.443 Moreover, following rumours of Philip’s injury/death, ‘you thought you no longer needed to send a relief force and disbanded the expedition,’ and in disbanding the relief force, the Athenians failed to seize their kairos: But this was the moment of opportunity: if on that occasion we had enthusiastically sent a relief force there, as we had voted, Philip even if he survived, would not now be bothering us.444 For Demosthenes, in refusing to seize the kairos, the Assembly failed to nullify Philip, and his return to Olynthus demonstrates the consequences of their consistent failure to commit to their logos. By saying one thing, but doing another, the Athenians allowed Philip to flourish, as noted above, to judge by their decrees, Philip would have been punished a long time ago.445 Demosthenes asserts it is imperative that they address this discrepancy between logos and ergon: ‘Action, then is what you must add’, which builds Demosthenes’ amazement at the end of the Second Olynthiac that the Athenians would go to war for others, but not in defence of their own possessions. 446 In particular, Demosthenes highlights how they still fail to act despite the fact that, ‘we no longer have any of our previous possessions to defend, but must acquire them.’ 447 This now has a greater effect due to their increased losses and the deteriorated crisis at Olynthus. Having once more shirked their duty by making the minimum effort and hoping it Demosthenes 4.43 ‘It is clear that he [Philip] will not stand still, unless he is stopped. Should we just wait for this to happen? Or, if you were to dispatch empty ships and hopes inspired by so and so, do you suppose that everything would be all right?’ 443 Demosthenes 3.5. ἦν δ’ οὗτος ὁ καιρὸς αὐτός· εἰ γὰρ τότ’ ἐκεῖσ’ ἐβοηθήσαμεν, ὥσπερ ἐψηφισάμεθα, προθύμως, οὐκ ἂν ἠνώχλει νῦν ἡμῖν ὁ Φίλιππος σωθείς. 444 Demosthenes 3.14. cf. 1.9 ‘if we had energetically dispatched an appropriate relief force…we would now be dealing with a more tractable and much weaker Philip.’ 445 446 cf. Demosthenes 2.24-5. 447 Demosthenes 2.26. 136 will suffice, this lack of action has had a devastating effect. 448 Demosthenes targets this idle attitude, asserting that it is this which ultimately sealed both the fate of Olynthus and their hopes of regaining what they have lost, as he stated in the proemium, ‘I am convinced that it is enough for us to secure as our primary goal the protection of our allies.’449 Demosthenes aims to ensure they ‘make use of this opportunity’, by reminding them of their past actions: What was done at that time cannot be undone. But now a further opportunity for war has come, and this is why I have reminded you of that occasion, so that you do not suffer the same fate as before. 450 Demosthenes again asserts that the Athenians need to recognise that if they still ‘fail to send help “at full strength to the best of your ability”’, they ‘will have been acting in every respect to Philip’s advantage.’451 This formulaic language also reminds the Athenians that by failing to send sufficient aid, they are breaching their moral obligation to their allies. 452 It is therefore imperative that the Athenians realise that not to send aid will bring further dishonour onto Athens: What remains then for us to do, men of Athens, but to send help resolutely and enthusiastically? I see no other option. For apart from the shame that would envelop us, if we were to surrender our interests, the danger in doing so would in my opinion be considerable.453 448 Demosthenes warned about idlers at 2.23. 449 Demosthenes 3.1. This echoes his comments at 4.20 that the Assembly should take small measures and provide for them. Demosthenes 3.6. τὰ μὲν δὴ τότε πραχθέντ’ οὐκ ἂν ἄλλως ἔχοι· νῦν δ’ ἑτέρου πολέμου καιρὸς ἥκει τις, δι’ ὃν καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐμνήσθην, ἵνα μὴ ταὐτὰ πάθητε.This is reminiscent of his question in the previous speech 2.26 ‘are you so senseless, men of Athens, that you hope to improve our city’s situation by following the same policies that led to its decline?’ 450 451 Demosthenes 3.6. Sandys 1910 notes how παντὶ σθένει κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν is formulaic of treaties between allies. 452 This moral obligation is emphasised in On the Chersonese. Demosthenes 3.8. τί οὖν ὑπόλοιπον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πλὴν βοηθεῖν ἐρρωμένως καὶ προθύμως; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐχ ὁρῶ· χωρὶς γὰρ τῆς περιστάσης ἂν ἡμᾶς αἰσχύνης, εἰ καθυφείμεθά τι τῶν πραγμάτων, οὐδὲ τὸν φόβον, ὦ ἄνδρες 453 137 This sense of shame is a continuation of his previous argument in the Second Olynthiac that ‘it would be shameful – indeed most shameful – to be seen to have given up the cities and places that we once controlled but also the allies and the opportunities that Fortune has provided.’454 By failing to act in a manner worthy of the city, Demosthenes highlights the reality of the dangers Athens has left themselves open to, as ‘there is nothing to stop Philip, after he has subdued what is before him from turning against us here.’ 455 This is not only a repetition of his warning in the First Olynthiac of ‘who will prevent him from marching here?’, but it reinforces the shame and damage they have inflicted on their own reputation and sense of identity. 456 As such, Demosthenes affirms that to not act is to accept these inevitable consequences, ‘for I imagine that we are all well aware that this is how things will turn out, if we discard the present opportunity’, presenting the unthinkable scenario that they end up in the same position as the Olynthians, and asserting that: If any of you wishes to put off doing their duty until that time, then he is choosing to see suffering close at hand when he could be hearing of it happening elsewhere, and wishes to be forced to look for people who will help him when he could now be helping others.457 Ἀθηναῖοι, μικρὸν ὁρῶ τὸν τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα. This is reminiscent of 1.11 and Demosthenes’ call to ‘wipe away the dishonour’ incurred by their past conduct. Demosthenes 2.2. ὡς ἔστι τῶν αἰσχρῶν, μᾶλλον δὲ τῶν αἰσχίστων, μὴ μόνον πόλεων καὶ τόπων ὧν ἦμέν ποτε κύριοι φαίνεσθαι προϊεμένους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης παρασκευασθέντων συμμάχων καὶ καιρῶν. See discussion in Chapter 2.2 pp. 108. On Fortune see Demosthenes 1.1 p. 84; 2.2 p. 108; 2.22 p. 121. 454 Demosthenes 3.8. μηδενὸς δ’ ἐμποδὼν ὄντος Φιλίππῳ τὰ παρόντα καταστρεψαμένῳ πρὸς ταῦτ’ ἐπικλῖναι τὰ πράγματα. 455 Demosthenes 1.25. cf. Demosthenes 2.3 ‘the worse your handling of the situation, the greater shame you have incurred’. See too 1.14-15 and 2.26. 456 Demosthenes 3.9. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ τις ὑμῶν εἰς τοῦτ’ἀναβάλλεται ποιήσειν τὰ δέοντα, ἰδεῖν ἐγγύθεν βούλεται τὰ δεινά, ἐξὸν ἀκούειν ἄλλοθι γιγνόμενα, καὶ βοηθοὺς ἑαυτῷ ζητεῖν, ἐξὸν νῦν ἑτέροις αὐτὸν βοηθεῖν· 457 138 By asserting categorically the certain dangerous consequences of their inaction, Demosthenes presents a dichotomy between what they can logically deduce and how they currently choose to act. Emblematic of these misguided priorities and is the laws governing the Theoric fund. Demosthenes returns to his arguments in the First Olynthiac against the Theoric fund, but this time calls for the laws protecting it to be repealed: I am referring directly to the laws relating to the Theoric fund and to certain laws relating to those who go on campaign. 458 Demosthenes makes it clear that these laws are indicative of the self-sabotaging practices that enable the Assembly to put off its duty, and contributes to the shambolic state he described in the First Philippic: Some of these laws distribute military funds as Theoric payments to those who stay at home; others let those who shirk military service get off scot-free and make even those who wish to do their duty more despondent. 459 Demosthenes shrewdly does not call for the fund itself to be used, but rather states that, ‘you should appoint lawmakers. Use these lawmakers not to pass a law – you have enough of them – but to repeal those laws that are presently harming your interests’. 460 As such, Demosthenes protects himself from prosecution. But nevertheless, even suggesting that the nomothetai (law-givers) should do this is risky and demonstrates the essence of Demosthenes’ parrhēsia as honest selfless advice as ‘the parrhēsiastes says something that is dangerous to himself Demosthenes 3.11. λέγω τοὺς περὶ τῶν θεωρικῶν, σαφῶς οὑτωσί, καὶ τοὺς περὶ τῶν στρατευομένων ἐνίους. Cawkwell 1962:134 argues that Demosthenes was despondent to the mercenary force deployed after the Second Olynthiac, and ‘this would also explain why in the Third Olynthiac he has ceased to demand mere εἰσφοραί: he now saw that only a regular war-fund would make possible an expedition of the sort he demanded.’ Cf. arguments at Demosthenes 1.19-20. 458 Demosthenes 3.11. ὧν οἱ μὲν τὰ στρατιωτικὰ τοῖς οἴκοι μένουσι διανέμουσι θεωρικά, οἱ δὲ τοὺς ἀτακτοῦντας ἀθῴους καθιστᾶσιν, εἶτα καὶ τοὺς τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν βουλομένους ἀθυμοτέρους ποιοῦσιν. cf Demosthenes 4.25. 459 Demosthenes 3.10. νομοθέτας καθίσατε. ἐν δὲ τούτοις τοῖς νομοθέταις μὴ θῆσθε νόμον μηδένα (εἰσὶ γὰρ ὑμῖν ἱκανοί), ἀλλὰ τοὺς εἰς τὸ παρὸν βλάπτοντας ὑμᾶς λύσατε. Worthington 2013: 141 observes this risk and also notes how Pickard-Cambridge 1914: 203-204 observed the ‘considerable courage’ in making this unpopular suggestion. 460 139 and thus involves risk.’ 461 Indeed, the legal and reputational dangers of engaging with parrhēsia developed it into a form of democratic civic courage, and displayed a ‘willingness to run risks in order to speak freely [indicating] their sincerity and patriotism.’ 462 For Demosthenes the risk was necessary as the Assembly could only function when ‘they have repealed these laws and made it safe to offer the best advice.’463 Indeed, Demosthenes asserts the hostility of the Assembly has now intimidated its dutiful citizens to silence: Until that is done, do not expect anyone to be willing to give you the best advice and then be destroyed by you. You will not find anyone, especially when the only likely result is that whoever speaks and makes these proposals will be unjustly punished and, far from improving the situation, will make people even more afraid to give good advice than they are already. 464 Moreover, the risk of this unpopular proposal was necessary to help heal the corruption of the deliberative process, which prevented them receiving the best (if not pleasant) advice. Such attitudes and the laws protecting them are the cause of their current misfortunes, and as such Demosthenes wished them to remove such payments, which are like the foods that doctors prescribe: they neither build strength nor allow the patient to die. In the same way, these sums that you distribute among yourselves 461 Foucault 2001: 13. See further discussion in this thesis pp. 144; 166; 300. Balot 2004: 247. Balot adds ‘in the hands of the Orators, a novel conception of civic courage enabled speakers to become the “real men” of their day.’ See introduction for earlier discussion. On free speech Hansen 1991: 400; 83-85. Monoson 2000: 51-63 462 463 Demosthenes 3.11. This self-sabotage by misplaced priorities refers back to the shambolic state of affairs described at 4.25. Demosthenes 3.12. πρὶν δὲ ταῦτα πρᾶξαι, μὴ σκοπεῖτε τίς εἰπὼν τὰ βέλτισθ’ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν ἀπολέσθαι βουλήσεται· οὐ γὰρ εὑρήσετε, ἄλλως τε καὶ τούτου μόνου περιγίγνεσθαι μέλλοντος, παθεῖν ἀδίκως τι κακὸν τὸν ταῦτ’ εἰπόντα καὶ γράψαντα, μηδὲν δ’ ὠφελῆσαι τὰ πράγματα, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν μᾶλλον ἔτ’ ἢ νῦν τὸ τὰ βέλτιστα λέγειν φοβερώτερον ποιῆσαι. 464 140 are not large enough to have any lasting benefit, nor would renouncing them allow you to do anything else, but they serve to make each of you more idle. 465 Thus, for Demosthenes, the laws protecting the Theoric fund are damaging to the wellbeing of the polis itself because it keeps it in an apathetic state. It also demonstrates how the Assembly is at odds with receiving the best advice, and how its own desires and ‘each man’s wishes, I believe, contribute greatly to such proposals [addressing the laws protecting theorika], and that is why it is the easiest thing in the world to deceive oneself.’ 466 It is this self-deception which poses the greatest danger to the Athenians and it is only by recognising this that the Assembly can break the vicious self-harming cycle and act in its own interest. Only then, can the Assembly make informed decisions and act efficiently with the necessary funds: ‘when you have repealed these laws and made it safe to offer the best advice, only then should you look to someone to propose the measures that you all know to be beneficial.’467 Therefore, the call to repeal the laws protecting the Theoric fund had larger ramifications than just the redistribution of money for military purposes, but epitomised the Assembly’s corrupted inversion of its defining values. They cannot recognise friend from foe and citizens are intimidated to silence, afraid to offer advice: For it is not right that those who at that time passed laws that damaged the whole city should be popular for having done so, whereas anyone who now gives the best advice, Demosthenes 3.33. ἃ τοῖς [ἀσθενοῦσι] παρὰ τῶν ἰατρῶν σιτίοις [διδομένοις] ἔοικε. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖν’ οὔτ’ ἰσχὺν ἐντίθησιν οὔτ’ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἐᾷ· καὶ ταῦθ’ ἃ νέμεσθε νῦν ὑμεῖς, οὔτε τοσαῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὥστ’ ὠφέλειαν ἔχειν τινὰ διαρκῆ, οὔτ’ ἀπογνόντας ἄλλο τι πράττειν ἐᾷ, ἀλλ’ ἔστι ταῦτα τὴν ἑκάστου ῥᾳθυμίαν ὑμῶν ἐπαυξάνοντα. On this medical reference Das 2015: 118 notes that ‘the comparison of the dole's effect to a diet is interesting, for diet (i.e. regimen) was the cornerstone of Hippocratic therapeutics because it was considered safe and less painful than surgery or cauterization.’ She suggests that perhaps Demosthenes was calling for more radical treatment to the Assembly’s ailments. 465 Demosthenes 3.19. ἀλλ’, οἶμαι, μέγα τοῖς τοιούτοις ὑπάρχει λόγοις ἡ παρ’ ἑκάστου βούλησις, διόπερ ῥᾷστον ἁπάντων ἐστὶν αὑτὸν ἐξαπατῆσαι· 466 Demosthenes 3.11. ἐπειδὰν δὲ ταῦτα λύσητε καὶ τὴν τοῦ τὰ βέλτιστα λέγειν ὁδὸν παράσχητ’ ἀσφαλῆ, τηνικαῦτα τὸν γράψονθ’ ἃ πάντες ἴσθ’ ὅτι συμφέρει ζητεῖτε This self-sabotage by misplaced priorities refers back to the shambolic state of affairs described at 4.25. 467 141 which will result in all of us faring better, should be punished with your hatred for doing so.468 Moreover, Demosthenes could be reflecting a wider concern here about advisers’ treatment when they address the Assembly; a parallel can be drawn to the Thucydidean Diodotus' complaint at the injustice within the Assembly that ‘we can be held account for the advice we give, while you are not accountable for the way in which you receive it.’ 469 While Demosthenes does not directly refer to the Assembly’s lack of accountability in their decision making (and their hostility to honest advice), his repeated assertions of Athenian culpability suggests that their deteriorated situation is a consequence of their unaccountability: the Assembly is no longer immune to the fallout when they reject good advice. One of the consequences of this is that, as things are, advisers are reluctant to speak out. Thus: Before you set this matter right, men of Athens, you should certainly not suppose that anyone is so prominent as to be able to break these laws with impunity, or so foolish as to throw himself into obvious trouble. 470 Indeed, I argue that Demosthenes presents the Assembly as being at a stalemate that is simultaneously a destructive spiral: they attack advisers, they therefore intimidate them into silence, they do not receive the necessary advice but only hear flattery. Moreover, in highlighting that speakers are aware of these dangers, and the ‘obvious trouble’ parrhēsia currently involves, Demosthenes reminds them of his own courage and Demosthenes 3.13. οὐ γάρ ἐστι δίκαιον, τὴν μὲν χάριν, ἣ πᾶσαν ἔβλαπτε τὴν πόλιν, τοῖς τότε θεῖσιν ὑπάρχειν, τὴν δ’ ἀπέχθειαν, δι’ ἧς ἂν ἅπαντες ἄμεινον πράξαιμεν, τῷ νῦν τὰ βέλτιστ’ εἰπόντι ζημίαν γενέσθαι. Ober 1989: 319 states the advisor role was a “structural element” which ‘required that the public speaker be willing to oppose the will of the dēmos.’ Demosthenes’ assertion here either suggests that this was not the case, or supports my argument that Demosthenes attacks the Assembly for forgetting its own conventions. 468 469 Thucydides 3.42 Demosthenes 3.13. πρὶν δὲ ταῦτ’ εὐτρεπίσαι, μηδαμῶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μηδέν’ ἀξιοῦτε τηλικοῦτον εἶναι παρ’ ὑμῖν ὥστε τοὺς νόμους τούτους παραβάντα μὴ δοῦναι δίκην, μηδ’ οὕτως ἀνόητον ὥστ’ εἰς προῦπτον κακὸν αὑτὸν ἐμβαλεῖν. 470 142 adds a sincere and authentic force to his rhetoric. 471 From this perspective, the repeal of the laws protecting the Theoric fund is imperative to make the Assembly safe since, as stated above, even challenging the protective laws is a radical suggestion, and in doing so Demosthenes offers to sacrifice himself in order to perform his duty to speak truthfully in the best interests of the polis.472 Indeed, Demosthenes’ parrhēsia correlates with the necessity of shame noted within modern democracies as a means to reinforce shared moral values, which would suggest that Demosthenes’ courage in confronting the Assembly is part of his role as the dutiful democratic adviser. 473 Balancing the potential backlash of criticising the Assembly, Demosthenes uses his parrhēsia to demonstrate both his own virtue, and the utilitarian aspect of his advice: I have chosen to say these things not with the senseless aim of making myself an object of hatred to some of you. For I am not so foolish or perverse as to wish to be hated, when I do not think that I am doing any good. But I judge it to be the mark of a good citizen to put the safety of the community before his own popularity as a speaker.474 Quiroga suggests that for Demosthenes ‘parrhēsia was not an uncomplicated virtue, but a demanding duty for the orator that involved risking the speaker’s status on behalf of the Worthington 2013: 141 adds that ‘there is no question that his recommendation was a courageous one and that he must have known it would be unpopular.’ 471 472 Worthington 2013: 139 proposes that Demosthenes created the special committee to repeal the laws governing the Theoric fund so as to increase funding for military operations because of the deteriorated situation with Philip. Tuplin 1998: 290 likewise cites the proposals regarding the Theoric fund as evidence for an advanced stage of the siege at Olynthus, due to the lengths Demosthenes will go to now the situation has deteriorated. Etzioni 2001, as noted by Tarnopolsky 2010: 4-5. This correlates with Ober 1989: 320 ‘when the political orator blames the people…he took the position of reminding the audience of the pristine democratic code of thought and behaviour from which they had strayed.’ 473 Demosthenes 3.21. καὶ ταῦτ’ οὐχ ἵν’ ἀπέχθωμαί τισιν ὑμῶν, τὴν ἄλλως προῄρημαι λέγειν· οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἄφρων οὐδ’ ἀτυχής εἰμ’ ἐγὼ ὥστ’ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι βούλεσθαι μηδὲν ὠφελεῖν νομίζων· ἀλλὰ δικαίου πολίτου κρίνω τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων σωτηρίαν ἀντὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ λέγειν χάριτος αἱρεῖσθαι. This is similar to 1.16 ‘I do not think out of concern for one’s personal safety one should refrain from saying what is to your advantage.’ 474 143 common good.’475 Not only does it pardon his criticism unapologetically, as his duty as a rhētor and citizen, it also defines this duty and contrasts his own advice against the rhetorical flattery he denounces. As Foucault notes: Whereas rhetoric provides the speaker with technical devices to help him prevail upon the minds of his audience (regardless of the rhetorician's own opinion concerning what he says) … the parrhēsiastes acts on other people's minds by showing them as directly as possible what he actually believes. 476 Demosthenes removes any possible hints of deception by assimilating himself with his advice and the best interests of Athens. Moreover, Demosthenes suggests that the Assembly’s hostility towards parrhēsia is a part of their wider failure to recognise their own responsibility: But, by the gods, after we have neglected everything and all but helped him in his preparations, are we not to inquire who was responsible for this state of affairs? For we shall not admit that we are responsible – that I know for certain. 477 In particular, this returns to Demosthenes’ complaint that the Athenians ignore their culpability for the situation, resulting from their preference for avoiding effort. 478 It also again evokes his previous assertions that Athens’ problems are a result of the Assembly choosing the easy option over the virtuous one, and Demosthenes makes it clear that because of their failure to act, they can no longer delude themselves that they can have the best of both worlds: Quiroga 2015: 293. Quiroga likewise observes that in his Declamations, Libanius uses parrhēsia in contexts analogous to Demosthenes’ usage (Decl. 3.2, 4.2, 15.39, 34.2, 50.8). 475 476 Foucault 1983 (2001): 12. Demosthenes 3.17. ἀλλὰ πρὸς θεῶν πάντ’ ἐάσαντες καὶ μόνον οὐχὶ συγκατασκευάσαντες αὐτῷ, τότε τοὺς αἰτίους οἵτινες τούτων ζητήσομεν; οὐ γὰρ αὐτοί γ’ αἴτιοι φήσομεν εἶναι, σαφῶς οἶδα τοῦτ’ ἐγώ. General denial is discussed: 3.16-20. I think this can be considered a continuation from 1.15 ‘our constant search to do what brings pleasure’. 477 478 See Demosthenes 2.25. 144 To make a choice, however, when serious matters are under discussion, it is not so easy, but one must choose what is best over what is pleasant, if one cannot have both.479 Again, Demosthenes advocates arguments that are both unpopular and uncomfortable, but necessary, as to maintain their current attitude would be to walk straight into disaster since ‘what each man wishes, this he also believes to be true, although the facts are often not so.’ 480 To this end, they must do as he said in the First Olynthiac and ‘listen attentively to those who wish to offer you advice’, but to make the distinction between good advice and flattery. 481 Argument: Use of the Past Remembering Demosthenes’ assertion that he is speaking for the benefit of the polis, and not his own popularity, Demosthenes reminds the audience of their fifth century advisers: For, I have heard, as perhaps you have too, that the public speakers in the time of our ancestors – men whom all the speakers praise, even though they do not imitate them at all – adopted this manner of political conduct: the famous Aristides, Nicias, my namesake, and Pericles.482 Demosthenes’ subtle echoes of Periclean ideals transforms ‘imperceptibly into selfauthorisation’, and with this overt reference ‘the Periclean paradigm serves additionally to validate his own rhetorical line and persona in the adversarial assembly contests.’ 483 By Demosthenes 3.18. ἑλέσθαι δ’, ὅταν περὶ πραγμάτων προτεθῇ σκοπεῖν, οὐκέθ’ ὁμοίως εὔπορον, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὰ βέλτιστ’ ἀντὶ τῶν ἡδέων, ἂν μὴ συναμφότερ’ ἐξῇ, λαμβάνειν. 479 480 Demosthenes 3.19. ὃ γὰρ βούλεται, τοῦθ’ ἕκαστος καὶ οἴεται, τὰ δὲ πράγματα πολλάκις οὐχ οὕτω πέφυκεν. 481 Demosthenes 1.1. Demosthenes 3.21. καὶ γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν προγόνων ἡμῶν λέγοντας ἀκούω, ὥσπερ ἴσως καὶ ὑμεῖς, οὓς ἐπαινοῦσι μὲν οἱ παριόντες ἅπαντες, μιμοῦνται δ’ οὐ πάνυ, τούτῳ τῷ ἔθει καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς πολιτείας χρῆσθαι, τὸν Ἀριστείδην ἐκεῖνον, τὸν Νικίαν, τὸν ὁμώνυμον ἐμαυτῷ, τὸν Περικλέα. Trevett 2011:62 n31 notes that ‘it is possibly to see why Demosthenes chose three of the four to demonstrate his argument: Aristides was famously upright’ and Nicias challenged the Sicilian expedition. See also MacDowell 2009: 237 n 93. 482 483 Mader 2007: 157. Mader is speaking in general on the Periclean influence, but I think this can be applied specifically here. 145 reminding the Assembly of ‘our ancestors, whom the speakers of the day neither indulged nor loved, as these men now do you’, Demosthenes contrasts the fifth and fourth century Athenians to remind the Assembly of the behaviour expected of them. 484 Demosthenes asserts how: In public they created buildings and objects of beauty of such kind and size – temples and the offerings in them – that none of their descendants could surpass them. In private they were so restrained and true to the nature of their constitution that if any of you knows which is the house of Aristides or of Miltiades or of the distinguished men of that time, he sees that it is no grander than that of its neighbour. For they did not conduct the affairs of the city to their own profit, but each of them thought it right to make the commonwealth more prosperous. Because they managed the affairs of Greece honestly, and matters relating to the gods piously, and their own affairs in a spirit of equality, they rightly enjoyed great fortune. 485 Demosthenes summaries these men as embodying true Athenian democratic values of honesty (πιστῶς), piety (εὐσεβῶς) and by conducting their matters in this way, they enjoyed good fortune εὐδαιμονίαν. In stark contrast, he turns to the Athenians of the present day, ‘how do we fare nowadays, under the leadership of these men who are now deemed admirable?’486 His apophasis ‘I pass over other matters – though I have much that I could say’487 presents an ominous start to his appraisal of their own (lack of) achievements, noting with sardonic irony: 484 Demosthenes 3.24. ἐκεῖνοι τοίνυν, οἷς οὐκ ἐχαρίζονθ’ οἱ λέγοντες οὐδ’ ἐφίλουν αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ ὑμᾶς οὗτοι νῦν. Demosthenes 3.25-6. δημοσίᾳ μὲν τοίνυν οἰκοδομήματα καὶ κάλλη τοιαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα κατεσκεύασαν ἡμῖν ἱερῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις ἀναθημάτων, ὥστε μηδενὶ τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων ὑπερβολὴν λελεῖφθαι· ἰδίᾳ δ’ οὕτω σώφρονες ἦσαν καὶ σφόδρ’ ἐν τῷ τῆς πολιτείας ἤθει μένοντες, ὥστε τὴν Ἀριστείδου καὶ τὴν Μιλτιάδου καὶ τῶν τότε λαμπρῶν οἰκίαν εἴ τις ἄρ’ οἶδεν ὑμῶν ὁποία ποτ’ ἐστίν, ὁρᾷ τῆς τοῦ γείτονος οὐδὲν σεμνοτέραν οὖσαν· οὐ γὰρ εἰς περιουσίαν ἐπράττετ’ αὐτοῖς τὰ τῆς πόλεως, ἀλλὰ τὸ κοινὸν αὔξειν ἕκαστος ᾤετο δεῖν. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τὰ μὲν Ἑλληνικὰ πιστῶς, τὰ δὲ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσεβῶς, τὰ δ’ ἐν αὑτοῖς ἴσως διοικεῖν μεγάλην εἰκότως ἐκτήσαντ’ εὐδαιμονίαν. 485 486 Demosthenes 3.27. νυνὶ δὲ πῶς ἡμῖν ὑπὸ τῶν χρηστῶν τούτων τὰ πράγματ’ ἔχει; 487 Demosthenes 3.27. τὰ μὲν ἄλλα σιωπῶ, πόλλ’ ἂν ἔχων εἰπεῖν 146 But you all see how much freedom we have to act, since the Spartans have been ruined, the Thebans are preoccupied, and none of the others is sufficiently prominent to rival us for supremacy, but when we should both keep a firm grip on our own possessions and arbitrate over the rights of others, we have been deprived of our own territory, and have spent more than fifteen hundred talents in vain. 488 Demosthenes particularly focuses on their costly and futile attempts to recapture Amphipolis, and how in such failures, Demosthenes asserts that ‘we have trained a great enemy against ourselves.’489 Demosthenes’ rhetoric suggests that such disasters are the result of their failure to maintain the standards set by their ancestors, who gained their (now lost) possessions in more difficult circumstances. Indeed, in comparison to their fifth-century counterparts, the Assembly is more concerned with popularity than duty: But ever since the appearance of these politicians who ask you “What do you want? What shall I propose? What favour can I do you?” the affairs of the city have been pledged in exchange for immediate gratification and this is the result: all their affairs prosper, while yours are in a shameful state. 490 This corruption of oratory in the Assembly has resulted in a malfunction where individuals prevail at the expense of the polis. Demosthenes’ criticism is directed at both those who manipulate the polis for their own ends, and at the dēmos for indulging their own desire for rhetoric over the needs of the polis. These elements of corruption and debilitating flattery, as Demosthenes 3.27-8. ἀλλ’ ὅσης ἅπαντες ὁρᾶτ’ ἐρημίας ἐπειλημμένοι, [καὶ] Λακεδαιμονίων μὲν ἀπολωλότων, Θηβαίων δ’ ἀσχόλων ὄντων, τῶν δ’ ἄλλων οὐδενὸς ὄντος ἀξιόχρεω περὶ τῶν πρωτείων ἡμῖν ἀντιτάξασθαι, ἐξὸν δ’ ἡμῖν καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερ’ αὐτῶν ἀσφαλῶς ἔχειν καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων δίκαια βραβεύειν, ἀπεστερήμεθα μὲν χώρας οἰκείας, πλείω δ’ ἢ χίλια καὶ πεντακόσια τάλαντ’ ἀνηλώκαμεν εἰς οὐδὲν δέον. Montiglio 2000: 133 views this as an instance of aposiopesis, which aside from Demosthenes’ use, is very rare in Athenian oratory. Montiglio notes how except for two instances (On the Crown 22 and Against Aristogiton 1.79) Demosthenes uses aposiopesis to ‘break off his speech only when it might risk being blasphemos in the specific sense of “ill-omened”. Other examples are Against Leptines 115, On the Crown 195, For the people of Megalopolis 18. 488 489 Demosthenes 3.28. ἐχθρὸν δ’ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς τηλικοῦτον ἠσκήκαμεν. Demosthenes 3.22. ἐξ οὗ δ’ οἱ διερωτῶντες ὑμᾶς οὗτοι πεφήνασι ῥήτορες ‘τί βούλεσθε; τί γράψω; τί ὑμῖν χαρίσωμαι;’ προπέποται τῆς παραυτίκα χάριτος τὰ τῆς πόλεως πράγματα, καὶ τοιαυτὶ συμβαίνει, καὶ τὰ μὲν τούτων πάντα καλῶς ἔχει, τὰ δ’ ὑμέτερ’ αἰσχρῶς. 490 147 I have argued above, have created a vicious cycle of inactivity causing a political paralysis, which the Athenians refuse to acknowledge. Their current losses are in direct contrast to the behaviour of their ancestors, whose past successes were ‘connected to their refusal to be flattered by public speakers.’ 491 Furthermore, in Panhellenic affairs, unlike the current Athenians who have lost both their interest and the Social War, the ancestors, ruled the Greeks as willing subjects for forty-five years, carried up more than ten thousand talents to the Acropolis, and had the king who possesses this land [Macedonia] as their subject, which is the proper relationship between a foreigner and Greeks.492 This latter point highlights the inversion of these clearly defined roles, which as Demosthenes argued in the First Philippic, have become both blurred and inverted. 493 Demosthenes also reminds us of his earlier arguments that their force must be Athenian by noting how the ancestors were respected for ‘fighting in person both on land and at sea, and alone among men left behind glorious achievements that are beyond the reach of envy.’ 494 This again suggests that the current practices of relying on under-funded mercenaries is one of the reasons for their lack of success. Moreover, with regard to their domestic affairs, Demosthenes scoffs at any suggestion that Athens is in a better position now than then, arguing they mask reality. He asks 491 Clarke 2008: 277. Demosthenes 3.24. πέντε μὲν καὶ τετταράκοντ’ ἔτη τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἦρξαν ἑκόντων, πλείω δ’ ἢ μύρια τάλαντ’ εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἀνήγαγον, ὑπήκουε δ’ ὁ ταύτην τὴν χώραν ἔχων αὐτοῖς βασιλεύς, ὥσπερ ἐστὶ προσῆκον βάρβαρον Ἕλλησι. Hunt 2010: 81 notes how ‘any reference to Philip as a barbaros served the purpose of arousing feelings of antipathy and outrage against the outsider.’ 492 However, the Macedonian Kings were not subjects but did have alliances with Athens, usually to the end of securing both Athenian Timber in the North and access to trade routes for the Macedonians during Athens’ thalassocracy particularly in the fifth century (460s-440s). Trevett 2011: 63 n 34 lists Arrian Anabasis 7.9.4, Cargill 1981:85-87 and Harding 2006:232 to demonstrate that Amyntas (Philip’s father) was a contribution paying member of the Second Athenian Confederacy. 493 Such as the visual metaphor of the Athenians surrounded as if by nets pp. 42-3 in the First Philippic. Demosthenes 3.24. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ καλὰ καὶ πεζῇ καὶ ναυμαχοῦντες […] αὐτοὶ στρατευόμενοι, μόνοι δ’ ἀνθρώπων κρείττω τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔργοις δόξαν τῶν φθονούντων κατέλιπον. Cf. 4.16 on the call for an Athenian core to the proposed force. 494 148 rhetorically, ‘What improvement can you name? The battlements we plaster, the roads we repair, the fountains, and similar rubbish?’ 495 Instead, he scrutinises the politicians in charge of its maintenance, commanding the Assembly to: Look at the politicians who are responsible for these things. Some of them were beggars and are now rich; others were obscure and are now prominent. Some have built private houses that are grander than our public buildings. The more our city has declined, the more these men have flourished. 496 Not only does this present these men in opposition to the ancestors, but in observing the correlation between their personal rise and the city’s declining fortunes, Demosthenes attributes blame and shame to these men for parasitically draining the life out of the polis. The correlation of the rise of individuals to the decline of the polis unequivocally presents how the current Assembly no longer upholds the democratic values which are fundamental to Athenian ideology. Demosthenes, in idealising the merits and achievements of the ancestors, makes their current crisis a result of their degenerative progression away from such virtues: What is the reason for this? Why is it that everything was fine in the past, but is in a wretched state now? Because then the people had the courage to act and campaign in person, and were the masters of the politicians, and controlled all good things, and each of the others was content to receive a share of honour or office or any other benefit from the hands of the people. 497 Demosthenes 3.29. καὶ τί ἂν εἰπεῖν τις ἔχοι; τὰς ἐπάλξεις ἃς κονιῶμεν, καὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς ἃς ἐπισκευάζομεν, καὶ κρήνας, καὶ λήρους; 495 Demosthenes 3.29. ἀποβλέψατε δὴ πρὸς τοὺς ταῦτα πολιτευομένους, ὧν οἱ μὲν ἐκ πτωχῶν πλούσιοι γεγόνασιν, οἱ δ’ ἐξ ἀδόξων ἔντιμοι, ἔνιοι δὲ τὰς ἰδίας οἰκίας τῶν δημοσίων οἰκοδομημάτων σεμνοτέρας εἰσὶ κατεσκευασμένοι, ὅσῳ δὲ τὰ τῆς πόλεως ἐλάττω γέγονεν, τοσούτῳ τὰ τούτων ηὔξηται. 496 Demosthenes 3.30. τί δὴ τὸ πάντων αἴτιον τούτων, καὶ τί δή ποθ’ ἅπαντ’εἶχε καλῶς τότε, καὶ νῦν οὐκ ὀρθῶς; ὅτι τότε μὲν πράττειν καὶ στρατεύεσθαι τολμῶν αὐτὸς ὁ δῆμος δεσπότης τῶν πολιτευομένων ἦν καὶ κύριος αὐτὸς ἁπάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν, καὶ ἀγαπητὸν ἦν παρὰ τοῦ δήμου τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστῳ καὶ τιμῆς καὶ ἀρχῆς καὶ ἀγαθοῦ τινος μεταλαβεῖν· 497 149 By using the moral authority of the ancestors, Demosthenes asserts that the inversion and rejection of Athenian identity and democratic values is at the heart of Athens problems, and makes his unpopular and controversial proposals into a return to the virtuous civic behaviour of their idealised ancestors.498 Indeed, when Demosthenes asks, ‘Or does someone wish to come forward and tell me how Philip has grown strong other than through our own actions?’ Demosthenes affirms that the external crisis is of their own making, and is a product of their internal failure to live up to their own ideals. 499 But as he has asserted since the First Philippic, their culpability offers their best solution if they acknowledge their mistakes, accept good advice and act. As such, Demosthenes’ denunciation aims to provoke the Athenians to reflect self-critically and inspire them to action. This is emphatic in Demosthenes’ assessment of the current Assembly, in his assertion that the polis is physically emasculated by the men who ought to serve it: Now the opposite is the case: the politicians control all the good things, and everything is done through them, and you the people are hamstrung. Deprived of money and allies, you now play the part of a servant and an extra, content if these men give you a share of the Theoric Fund, or dispatch the procession at the Boëdromia, and, bravest of all, you thank them for your own possessions! They have confined you to the city, and entice you with these baits and tame you, turning you into docile pets. 500 Demosthenes’ criticism is directed at the dēmos as a whole. Gray 2015: 176 argues that at 3.23-6 Demosthenes ‘offers a vague, uncontroversial account of past Athenian heroism, comparable to Thucydides’ Pericles, to give an uncontroversial veneer to controversial foreign-policy proposals.’ I think this refers particularly to the laws protecting the Theoric fund. See too Gray 2015: 178 as quoted at p. 129. 498 Demosthenes 3.28. ἢ φρασάτω τις ἐμοὶ παρελθών, πόθεν ἄλλοθεν ἰσχυρὸς γέγονεν ἢ παρ’ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν Φίλιππος. 499 Demosthenes 3.31. νῦν δὲ τοὐναντίον κύριοι μὲν οἱ πολιτευόμενοι τῶν ἀγαθῶν, καὶ διὰ τούτων ἅπαντα πράττεται, ὑμεῖς δ’ ὁ δῆμος, ἐκνενευρισμένοι καὶ περιῃρημένοι χρήματα, συμμάχους, ἐν ὑπηρέτου καὶ προσθήκης μέρει γεγένησθε, ἀγαπῶντες ἐὰν μεταδιδῶσι θεωρικῶν ὑμῖν ἢ Βοηδρόμια πέμψωσιν οὗτοι, καὶ τὸ πάντων ἀνδρειότατον, τῶν ὑμετέρων αὐτῶν χάριν προσοφείλετε. οἱ δ’ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πόλει καθείρξαντες ὑμᾶς ἐπάγουσ’ ἐπὶ ταῦτα καὶ τιθασεύουσι χειροήθεις αὑτοῖς ποιοῦντες. 500 150 This is particularly interesting if we observe that ἐκνευρίζω is a neologism. Das observes that together with the noun νεῦρον (which she states is ‘used of the penis’), the verb ἐκνευρίζω becomes literally "to remove the testicles" or "to castrate."’ In using the participle form ἐκνενευρισμένοι, Demosthenes presents a vivid metaphor that the Assembly has permitted itself to be castrated and emasculated. 501 Moreover, hupērētes is more specific than ‘servant’, it can also mean specifically the servant that follows and assists a hoplite master, and as such Demosthenes is arguably commenting on how their citizen identity is being undermined by their current deliberative practices. 502 Together with this vivid metaphor of emasculation, Demosthenes stresses that is their own behaviour that threatens their civic Athenian identity, and as Das observes, insinuates: That they have become tame animals, whose agency has been completely removed by a cage of political complacency. The latter not only reinforces the image of the Athenians as caged animals (Pl. Plt. 264a), but it also suggests emasculation, for τιθασεύω is also used of the subservient/docile wife. 503 More so than being the opposite of their ancestors, they are now the opposite of concepts of ‘Athenian’, ‘Man’ and ‘Free’. Thus, the immediate concern facing Athens is this internal corruption, the prime crisis, which has created the opportunities that Philip has taken advantage of, thus creating a chain of crises outside of Athens. Emasculated and ‘othered’ as they are, the Assembly cannot rely on the nuances of their past reputation to safeguard their interests.504 This relegation of the Athenian citizen to hoplite servant and docile pet reflects Das 2015: 116. Das translates ἐκνενευρισμένοι ‘hamstrung’ as specifically ‘robbed of nerve and sinew’, and καὶ τὸ πάντων ἀνδρειότατον, τῶν ὑμετέρων αὐτῶν χάριν προσοφείλετε as ‘your manliness reaches it climax when…’ She also notes that Aeschines mocks this neologism in Against Ctesiphon (3.166). For more on medical language in Demosthenes see Das 2015. Das 2015: 116. Pl. Com. 173. 19; Galen 8.442. 501 The LSJ entry for ὑπηρέτες notes that at Athens the term referred to ‘the servant who attended each man-atarms (ὁπλίης) to carry his baggage, rations, and shield,’ citing the example of Thucydides 3.17. 502 503 Xenophon. Oik. 7.10 cited by Das 2015: 117. On the concept of the Greeks’ (and particularly the Athenians’) process of defining themseles via others and polarisation see Cartledge 2002 which is dedicated to a series of oppositions. 504 151 their current crisis, and demonstrates how the polis is a product of its citizens. As Ober observes, in a constitution that is a ‘city of words’ the corruption of speeches created a corruption of mores.505 Moreover, just as Thucydides’ Pericles ‘distinguishes between the constitution (politeia)…and the practice (epitēdeusis) and spirit (tropoi) of Athens’ and how ‘the notion of the constitution is gradually contaminated, not to say destroyed’, Demosthenes too maintains that the polis is dependent on its citizens to maintain its health/strength. 506 Subsequently, the current external situation is a direct result of this attitude, which Demosthenes claims has been is manipulated by self-serving rhētors who prioritise their own popularity over they duty to deliver parrhēsia. This intensifies the despair of Demosthenes’ inquiry at the lengths they will endure before they act: What occasion or opportunity, men of Athens, do you seek that will be better than the present one? When will you do your duty, if not now? Has this man not taken all our territories? If he becomes master of this land [Olynthus], shall we not suffer the utmost ignominy? Are those people, whom we promised to support if they were to go to war, not now at war with him? Is he not our enemy? Does he not possess what is ours? Is he not a foreigner? Can anyone find words to describe him?507 Demosthenes’ hypophora to the Assembly on what it will take for them to act is immediately resolved with his rhetorical questions about Philip. From this perspective, by understanding that Philip (for Demosthenes) is all of these things, the Assembly is invited to ask the same questions of themselves – when will they act if they will not seize this moment against a man who is enemy, barbarian and in possession of what is Athenian? Just as Yunis argues that in 505 Ober 1998:276. 506 Loraux 1981: 221. Thucydides 2.41.2. Demosthenes 3.16. τίνα γὰρ χρόνον ἢ τίνα καιρόν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦ παρόντος βελτίω ζητεῖτε; ἢ πόθ’ ἃ δεῖ πράξετ’, εἰ μὴ νῦν; οὐχ ἅπαντα μὲν ἡμῶν προείληφε τὰ χωρί’ ἅνθρωπος, εἰ δὲ καὶ ταύτης κύριος τῆς χώρας γενήσεται, πάντων αἴσχιστα πεισόμεθα; οὐχ οὕς, εἰ πολεμήσαιεν, ἑτοίμως σώσειν ὑπισχνούμεθα, οὗτοι νῦν πολεμοῦσιν; οὐκ ἐχθρός; οὐκ ἔχων τὰ ἡμέτερα; οὐ βάρβαρος; οὐχ ὅ τι ἂν εἴποι τις; 507 152 On the Crown Demosthenes defends his policies as the only honourable course of action given the burden of the Athenian past, here I argue that Demosthenes’ rhetorical framing makes it almost impossible for the Athenians not to act and also maintain their honour. Having made their options essentially limited, Demosthenes presents his proposals as the chance to readdress the situation in the North: If then, even now, you abandon these habits and are willing to go on campaign and to act in a way that is worthy of yourselves, and to use these domestic surpluses as a starting point for external success, perhaps, men of Athens, perhaps you may acquire some great and lasting benefit. 508 Indeed, in returning to the Theoric Fund, Demosthenes again poses the hypothetical question ‘Do you mean military pay?’, but in this instance he emphatically confirms that he does indeed mean redirecting these funds. 509 Moreover he asserts this should be done as part of the fundamentals of their democracy: Yes I do, and I mean the same system for everyone, men of Athens, in order that each man, in taking his share of public funds should play whatever role the city requires. 510 Demosthenes calls on the Assembly to in act in an egalitarian manner stating that his proposals have ‘brought order to the city, with a uniform system for receiving pay, going on campaign, serving as jurors, and doing what is appropriate to each man’s age and to our situation.’511 Consequently, in calling for each citizen to do ‘his patriotic duty as he should’, I argue that, for Demosthenes, the problems facing Athens are a direct product of Demosthenes 3.33. ἐὰν οὖν ἀλλὰ νῦν γ’ ἔτι ἀπαλλαγέντες τούτων τῶν ἐθῶν ἐθελήσητε στρατεύεσθαί τε καὶ πράττειν ἀξίως ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ ταῖς περιουσίαις ταῖς οἴκοι ταύταις ἀφορμαῖς ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω τῶν ἀγαθῶν χρῆσθαι, ἴσως ἄν, ἴσως, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τέλειόν τι καὶ μέγα κτήσαισθ’ ἀγαθὸν. 508 509 Demosthenes 3.34. οὐκοῦν σὺ μισθοφορὰν λέγεις; Demosthenes 3.34. καὶ παραχρῆμά γε τὴν αὐτὴν σύνταξιν ἁπάντων, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἵνα τῶν κοινῶν ἕκαστος τὸ μέρος λαμβάνων, ὅτου δέοιθ’ ἡ πόλις, τοῦθ’ ὑπάρχοι. 510 Demosthenes 3.35 εἰς τάξιν ἤγαγον τὴν πόλιν, τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ λαβεῖν, τοῦ στρατεύεσθαι, τοῦ δικάζειν, τοῦ ποιεῖν τοῦθ’ ὅ τι καθ’ ἡλικίαν ἕκαστος ἔχοι καὶ ὅτου καιρὸς εἴη, τάξιν ποιήσας. Ober 1989: 144 regards this passage as evidence that Demosthenes’ proposals attempted to ‘prevent citizens from falling into shameful (aischron) conditions because of need.’ 511 153 their internal decline and corrupted attitude. 512 This is evident most clearly in his substantially altered attitude towards addressing the Theoric Fund from the First Olynthiac, which arguably reflects the deterioration of the situation at Olynthus. As he demonstrably asserts: I emphatically deny that money should be taken from those who are active and distributed to those who do nothing, or that you should be idle and have leisure and not know what to do, or that you should learn that so-and-so’s mercenaries have won a victory – which is what happens now. 513 Therefore, rather than being polemically targeted at Philip, I maintain that the speech’s priority is this internal crisis, and that it is didactic in its efforts to inform and instruct the Assembly internally, so it can then resolve the consequent external crisis. Demosthenes’ proposals offer clarity, having ‘eliminated the existing confusion, and brought order to the city’, by explaining the situation via their own collective awareness of how Athenians should act.514 I argue that Demosthenes presupposes a collective self-understanding of Athenian identity embedded in the psyche of the dēmos, to inspire a reaction and to motivate a change of attitude.515 The power of Athenian ideology resonates in Demosthenes’ assertion that given their past actions, which are essentially institutionally idealised in Athenian social memory, their belief in the ideal of freedom is more powerful than the military force of Macedonia, as it was against Persia. 516 But this is, again, dependent on the Athenians shaking off their apathy and their denial: 512 Demosthenes 3.34. ὥσπερ ἐστὶ δίκαιον ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος. Demosthenes 3.35. οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπου μηδὲν ἐγὼ ποιοῦσι τὰ τῶν ποιούντων εἶπον ὡς δεῖ νέμειν, οὐδ’ αὐτοὺς μὲν ἀργεῖν καὶ σχολάζειν καὶ ἀπορεῖν, ὅτι δ’ οἱ τοῦ δεῖνος νικῶσι ξένοι, ταῦτα πυνθάνεσθαι· ταῦτα γὰρ νυνὶ γίγνεται. 513 514 Demosthenes 3.35. 515 It is important to note the Athenians were surrounded by projections of Athenian identity in their public buildings, in the transmission of social memory through tragedy and comedy, in the annual epitaphios logos and in historiography. Steinbock 2013: 4 notes ‘landmarks, monuments, and inscriptions, forming the Athenian cadre matériel functioned as material reminders of crucial events’, which informed social memory. As Loraux 1981:26 notes, ‘the authors of the epitaphioi [logoi] proclaim the unique character of the city: monoi tōn anthrōpon, the Athenians are “unique among men” in all their exploits’, citing Thucydides 2.40.2 and 5, 41.3. 516 154 I am not blaming anyone who is doing his duty on your behalf, but I do urge you to do for yourselves the things for which you honour others, and not withdraw from a position of virtue that was left to you, men of Athens, by your ancestors, who acquired it undergoing many glorious dangers. 517 I believe that Demosthenes’ comments here draw parallels with the epitaphioi logoi and Periclean rhetoric, where he too called for the Athenians to act in a manner worthy of their ancestors: Our fathers, when they withstood the Persian, had no such power as we have; what little they had they forsook: not by good fortune but by wisdom, and not by power but by courage, they drove the Barbarian away and raised us to our present height of greatness. We must be worthy of them, and resist our enemies to the utmost, that we may hand down our empire unimpaired to posterity. 518 By assimilating himself with these ideals, Demosthenes uses the voice of the ancestors to call the Athenians to regain their honour and act against those threatening them, that is, to make the Athenians seize this kairos of Olynthus before it is too late. To do this they must bridge the gap between logos and ergon, by addressing the corruption of the Assembly, and the prevalence of flattering rhetoric and their hostility to parrhēsia. This inversion of their priorities is epitomised, as noted above, in the Theoric fund and the laws protecting it, and the removal of such laws are not only imperative for the effort against Philip, but to change the attitude of the Athenians, which is the malignant cause within. 519 Lysias 2. 18, 20, 24. Plato Menexenus 245c5. Demosthenes 4.10. This also echoes Herodotus’ account at 6.101105 of Demaratos telling Xerxes the Hellenes (especially the Spartans), fight believing in their ideology and that respect of the law is more powerful than Persian numbers. Demosthenes 3.36. καὶ οὐχὶ μέμφομαι τὸν ποιοῦντά τι τῶν δεόντων ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἀξιῶ πράττειν ταῦτ’ ἐφ’ οἷς ἑτέρους τιμᾶτε, καὶ μὴ παραχωρεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῆς τάξεως, ἣν ὑμῖν οἱ πρόγονοι τῆς ἀρετῆς μετὰ πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν κινδύνων κτησάμενοι κατέλιπον. 517 518 Thucydides 1.144. 519 It is interesting to note that at the Assembly of 19th Elaphebolion 346 on the Peace of Philocrates, even Eubulus (who was commissioner of the Theoric fund from 354-350) will go on to propose that the Athenians ‘convert the Theoric fund… into the military fund, in order to meet the needs for the war’, Efstathiou 2004: 401. 155 Conclusion This call for change has been the consistent aim of all the Olynthiacs, and each speech has reinforced and developed Demosthenes’ assertions in the First Philippic that they must shake off their apathy, act, in person, and fund their initiatives. Their refusal to do so, and to consistently ignore Demosthenes’ advice, has resulted in the neglect of their possessions and allies and the decline of their reputation. 520 Thus, rather than viewing the Olynthiacs as ‘an attempt to stimulate hostility against Philip’, I argue that Demosthenes’ policy is to stimulate Athenian self-reflection and a change in attitude. 521 As he later argues in On the Chersonese and the Third Philippic, it is impossible for the Athenians to deal with any external threats if they do not firstly resolve their own internal crisis. 522 Having called on the Assembly to ‘wipe away the dishonour you have incurred from your past conduct’ in the First Olynthiac, Demosthenes also prescribes their ancestral actions as examples to emulate and follow. 523 Through his use of the Athenian past, Demosthenes augments his rhetoric with the collective awareness of the honour of these ancestral actions and, in evoking these social memories, I argue that Demosthenes uses the past to motivate the current Athenians to act in a manner worthy of their ancestors. Therefore, as discussed in the introduction, to view these speeches as primarily anti-Macedonian and as a drama between Demosthenes and Philip, arguably overshadows the more immediate concerns Demosthenes addresses within the Assembly itself, and that resolving the internal corruption that prevents effective decision-making is paramount to regaining an Athenian presence in Northern Greece. 520 Assertions that Athenian neglect that has helped Philip occur at 3.6; 1.8; 1.9; 2.3; 2.4. At 3.17-18 Demosthenes uses the example of how deserters are to blame for defeat to explain the situation within the Assembly, the deserters being those who accept bad advice and choose to not act. 521 Carey 2000: 34. 522 Demosthenes 8.61 and 9.53. 523 Demosthenes 1.11. 156 CHAPTER THREE ON THE PEACE In On the Peace, Demosthenes constructs the new situation for Athens following their failure to capitalise on the kairos in the pre-peace speeches.524 I argue that On the Peace can be considered a watershed moment in the deliberative corpus, where a clear contrast is apparent between the pre-peace speeches, which forewarned the Athenians of the consequences of their detrimental attitude, and the post-peace speeches where Demosthenes is able to claim that events have validated his previous arguments. A brief overview of the events between the Third Olynthiac and On the Peace in 346 is necessary to understand Demosthenes’ arguments in the next four speeches: that Macedonian expansion and the deteriorated relationship between Philip and Athens is a result of the Assembly’s decision to follow false promises, and their failure to act on Demosthenes’ earlier advice. In particular, it is important to observe how the Peace signifies the deteriorated state of Athenian power, which is epitomised in the surrender of Athenian rights to Amphipolis despite decades of attempts to regain the colony since its seizure by Brasidas in the Peloponnesian war. 525 The Fall of Olynthus In the Third Olynthiac, Demosthenes used Philip’s return to Chalcidice as evidence that Athens was in a much weaker position, and whilst some of Demosthenes’ claims were ‘overstated’, nonetheless the ‘situation was in fact grim.’ 526 Yet despite Demosthenes’ failure to persuade the Athenians to revoke the laws protecting the Theoric Fund, they did eventually For the purpose of this half of the thesis, I refer to Demosthenes 4,1,2,3 as ‘pre-peace speeches’, and Demosthenes 5,6,8,9 as ‘post-peace speeches’. 524 525 As Lazardis 2003:17 notes: Amphipolis was granted to Athens in the Peace of Nicias, however, the Amphipolitans ‘showed no desire to return to their mother-city’ and considered themselves independent. 526 Worthington 2013: 139. 157 send aid to Olynthus. 527 Philochorus reports that the Athenians were delayed by the Etesian winds, by which time Philip had attacked Olynthus who, as Demosthenes asserts in On the Chersonese, were betrayed from within by Euthycrates and Lasthenes. Their betrayal is consistent with Demosthenes’ own warnings against enemies within Athens, and likewise was ‘consistent with the king’s [Philip’s] use of bribes.’528 Archaeological finds at Olynthus include engraved sling-bullets and spear heads with ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟY, which Worthington notes were used to test ‘the determination of the defenders’.529 The devastation of poleis was characteristic of Philip’s Chalcidic campaign, and Pliny describes Philip as ‘a blood-red meteor, which fell to earth’. 530 When Olynthus fell in 348, Philip ordered it to be razed, and its inhabitants enslaved. 531 Moreover, Philip now held many Athenian prisoners of war. 532 Concurrent to the crisis at Olynthus was the ongoing Third Sacred War between Phocis and Thebes. Philip had marched back into Greece triumphant following his victory over the Phocians at Crocus Field in 352, having his men wear laurel-wreaths as defenders of Apollo. The Athenians, however, had marched to block his passage through Thermopylae (as 527 Worthington 2013:141. 528 Worthington 2013: 142. 529 Worthington 2013: 142. Philochorus FGrH 328 F 49. See too Cawkwell 1962: 131. Kosmidou and Malamidou 2004:136 note how ‘the power that emanated from the “mystic” archaism of past scripts escalated the vivifying power of words’ and from this perspective the engraved legends were more than humouristic: ‘Ethnic or personal badges and their bearers could embody the individual or cities themselves as if they have delivered the strike in close combat.’ Kosmidou and Malamidou 2004: 136 note how further finds at Amphipolis, Torone and Olynthus demonstrate Philip’s generals engaved their bullets, with ΚΛΕΟΒ/ΟΥΛΟΥ believed to refer to one of Philip’s generals at the sieges of 348 and (if the same general) at Amphipolis in 357. Inscribed sling bullets were discovered on the Acropolis at Argilos which was attacked by Philip in 357: Personal Communication Prof. Jacques Perrault, Université de Montréal June 2014. I was part of the 2014 excavation team (working on the seventh century BCE stoa). This find was unpublished at the time of writing this thesis. 530 Pliny, Natural History 2.27, Worthington 2013: 142 cites Philochorus FGrH 328 F 50-51 and 156; Diodorus 16.53.2-03, 55.1. Gabriel 2010: 155 argues that Demosthenes claim at 9.26 that the wholescale destruction of Chalcidice is false, asserting that Stageria was the only site destroyed in this manner, early in Philip’s campaign as ‘an example of psychological warfare.’ He argues that due to its natural resources it made more sense to annex Chalcidice than to destroy it. But he does concede that Olynthus was destroyed ‘brick by brick’, and this is attested to in Cawkwell 1978: 82. Indeed, due to its lack of occupation following the siege of Philip, Olynthus is one of the best-preserved Hippodamian plans in Greece. Zosia Archibald is currently conducting a five-year project at Olynthus (started in 2014), which will include a field survey of the whole urban area. 531 Diodorus 16.53.3. 532 Trevett 2011: 88. 158 Demosthenes praised them for doing in the First Philippic), and Philip could not pass into Central Greece. However, as MacDowell notes, the central Greek states were exhausted by the Sacred War between Thebes and Phocis, and following the eventual fall of Olynthus, the Athenians also wanted to secure the return of their citizens who were now Macedonian prisoners of war. 533 Due to Philip’s military strength and now undisputed presence in Greece, ‘the expectation was that he, not the Amphictyonic Council, would settle the war.’ 534 Just prior to this in the summer of 348 Philip sent Ctesiphon back to Athens with a request for both peace and an alliance, following Athens’ grievance that their citizen was captured during the Olympian truce. 535 As Worthington notes, we cannot be certain of Philip’s motives, but the Athenians’ blocking of his passage at Thermopylae arguably motivated Philip’s decision, especially since the capture of Olynthus made the Athenians dubious of Philip and they sent embassies across Greece to ‘join Athens in war against Philip.’536 Moreover, Philip risked alienating the Athenians if he intervened further in the Sacred War by sending aid to Thebes following the invasion of Boeotia by the Phocians in 347. 537 Yet, to not send aid risked a Theban-Athenian alliance, thus Philip sent ‘a few soldiers’ to Thebes in 346.538 Phocis appealed to Athens and Sparta who both responded: the Athenians sent Chares to ‘establish garrisons along the coastline of the Propontis and North Aegean’, 533 MacDowell 2009: 314. Trevett 2011: 88. 534 Worthington 2013: 155. 535 Worthington 2013: 148, cites Aeschines 2.12-17. MacDowell 2000: 314-5. Thus, even before the fall of Olynthus Philip sought Peace with Athens, but events at Olynthus took priority. 536 Worthington 2013: 150, Demosthenes 19.304. It is important to note that Demosthenes did not take part in this, which further supports my argument that his agenda is not primarily ‘anti-Macedonian’. Worthington 2013: 150 suggest this was because he did not want to be determined by the success or failure of the embassies, and perhaps returned to logography. Efstathiou 2004: 388 notes ‘there are several incidents which created the momentum which led to Philip’s proposal for peace’, citing the mission of Aristodemos to release Iatrokles and Eueratos, son of Strombichos, and the ‘capture and ransoming of Phrynon, and lastly the mission of Ktesiphon to take the ransom money and bringing back proposals of peace and goodwill by Philip.’ 537 Worthington 2013: 153. 538 Diodorus 16.58.2-3. 159 and troops to Halus in Thessaly as a means to ‘distract him [Philip] from central Greek affairs.’539 At the same time, the Athenians sent out a second embassy to the Greeks to determine if peace with Philip was in their collective interests. 540 The Athenians also sent an embassy to Pella to release the prisoners of Olynthus, and it was at the subsequent negotiation of the release of these prisoners that Philip once more sought a peace agreement with the Athenians. 541 The Peace of Philocrates The main sources for our understanding of the peace are the forensic speeches of Aeschines and Demosthenes on the embassy to Pella, which by their nature are not all together reliable testimonies.542 Yet as Yunis notes, while it is important to remember that speeches are shaped towards political ends, that ‘does not mean they have no value as historical sources’.543 Using Speech 19 Ryder states that, contrary to their agreement, the Phocians refused to hand over the strategic cities that controlled Thermopylae in return for Athenian support in the Sacred War. Following their failure to keep hold of Thermopylae, the Athenians sent an initial embassy to Pella to negotiate peace in February 346. 544 Ryder suggests the delay was caused by Athenian reluctance to ‘concede that Philip had got the upper hand’, and that in the peace ‘they were not going to recover lost possessions.’ 545 Philip wanted a ‘bilateral treaty’ which consisted of Athens, Macedonia and their respective allies with ‘the stipulation that 539 Worthington 2013: 163. 540 Worthington 2013: 163. Cawkwell 1960: 416-438. 541 MacDowell 2009: 314-5. Worthington 2013: 163. Demosthenes 19 and Aeschines 2. Worthington 2013: 156 goes as far to state ‘a definitive account of the events of 346 is impossible’. 542 543 Yunis 1996: 239. 544 Ryder 2000: 60. Demosthenes 19.163. 545 Ryder 2000: 59. 160 each party was to recognise only the others current allies.’ 546 The significance of this was that the Athenians would finally give up their claims to Amphipolis, as well as enabling Philip to complete his plans against Cersobleptes in Thrace, much to the discomfort of the Athenians.547 Demosthenes appears to shift opinion on the peace, initially proposing crowns for the envoys, but accuses Aeschines of bribery in exchange for Amphipolis at the Assembly on Elaphebolion 8.548 In his later forensic speech, Demosthenes maintains that he urged the Assembly to ponder and consider Philip’s peace terms.549 The Assembly met on 18 and 19 Elaphebolion to discuss the peace where Philocrates proposed they accept Philip’s terms. 550 However, the Athenians raised their concerns over both the Phocians and Cersebleptes, and in particular, the declining state of Athenian affairs. A fragment of Theopompus suggests Philocrates warned: This is not the time to engage in contentious rivalry…many grave dangers surround us. For we know that the Boeotians and the Megarians are at enmity with us, the Peloponnesians are courting some of the Thebans and others the Spartans, the Chians and the Rhodians, and their allies are hostile to our state, and they are negotiating with Philip for his friendship. 551 The Athenian allies requested a common peace (koinē eirēnē) with Philip, that anyone could join for three months. Despite both Aeschines and Demosthenes accepting this, Parmenion, Antipater and Eurylochus made it clear to Demosthenes after the first day that Philip would 546 Worthington 2013: 166. See too Ryder 2000: 62-63. 547 Philip left for Thrace the day the envoys went home. Aeschines 2.82; Ryder 2000: 62. Worthington 2013: 166. 548 Demosthenes 19.254. Worthington 2013: 167. 549 Worthington 2013: 167. Sealey 1993: 143-157. 550 Worthington 2013: 167 states this was due to the Dionysia being on the 9th. 551 Theopompus FGrH 115 F 164. Worthington 2013: 168 notes Harding 2006 disputes the authenticity of this fragment. 161 never agree to these terms. 552 Thus on Elaphebolion 19 Demosthenes proposed that the Assembly agree with Philocrates’ and Philip’s terms, which ‘meant abandoning Cersebleptes, Phocis, and Halus’, and Amphipolis. 553 By the time the Athenians reached Pella to swear the Peace with Philip, he had already defeated Cersebleptes at Heraion Oros, further cementing his position in Thrace. 554 On Skirophorion 15 the embassy reported to the Boule, and an Assembly was held on the 16th. Philocrates and Aeschines presented Philip’s promise to end the Sacred War, to ‘besiege Thebes, restore Thespiae and Plataea, and give them back Oropus.’ 555 Demosthenes, in contrast, urged caution and proposed ‘a fleet to be deployed to the north coast of Euboea to prevent Philip taking control of Thermopylae.’ 556 He was unsuccessful, and the Peace of Philocrates was ratified by the Assembly. The Fallout As Trevett observes, by 343 the peace had become unpopular in Athens and, in particular, the ‘insistence that only those allies of Athens who were members of the Second Athenian Confederacy’ could be included. 557 This enabled Philip to attack Cersobleptes and Halus without breaching the peace, and such influence in the area was certainly a threat to Athenian interests in the Chersonese/Black Sea region. Moreover, Philip’s unobstructed access to Thermopylae was symbolic of Athenian impotence in the North Aegean, and the outcome of 552 Aeschines 3.71-72, Demosthenes 19.174, 278. Worthington 2013: 169. Worthington 2013: 169-170. Efstathiou 2004: 401 remarks how Eubulus’ speech also put forward a ‘simple choice before the Assembly: it must either start at once the preparations for war, go to the Piraeus immediately or simply had to vote for Philocrates’ motion.’ 553 Aeschines 2.89-92. Worthington 2013: 171. At Pella, Philip agreed to Demosthenes’ demand for the overdue release of the Athenian prisoners before the Panathenaea, as noted by Worthington 2013: 173. 554 555 Worthington 2013: 175. Demosthenes 19.18-22, 34-35, 58. 556 Worthington 2013: 175. 557 Trevett 2011: 89. Worthington 2013: 176 notes the discontent of the Athenians. 162 the Sacred War was a disappointment as ‘they still naively supposed Philip would crush Thebes and the state of Phocis would escape unscathed.’ 558 As Yunis notes, the peace was an ‘utter failure…far from being settled, the problem of how to respond to Macedonian expansion was exacerbated.’ 559 In On the Peace, Demosthenes differentiates himself from those who promoted (false) hopes in the peace, and given his alleged humiliation at Pella which was capitalised upon by his rival Aeschines, together with insults of him as a ‘water-drinker’ by Philocrates, it is unsurprising that in On the Peace Demosthenes affirms his validity as a speaker and advice-giver.560 Certainly, Demosthenes reinforces the opinions within On the Peace on the responsibility of citizens (in this particular case ambassadors) to speak the truth unequivocally, and the corruption of other speakers later in 343 in On the Dishonest Embassy: For what else should envoys be held accountable if not their speeches? Envoys are not in charge of triremes, territory, soldiers, or citadels…but of words and time... For there is no greater crime someone could commit against you than to speak false words. For how could people whose government is based on speeches govern themselves securely unless the speeches are true? And if someone is bribed to speak in support of policies that favour the enemy, how does that not also put you at risk? … The politicians who offer the best policy must defeat and overcome those who oppose them out of ignorance or corruption. 561 558 Worthington 2013: 176. 559 Yunis 2005: 115. 560 Aeschines 2.34-5 states that Demosthenes became literally lost for words in front of Philip, but as Worthington 2013: 165 notes we should treat this with scepticism given the context of the false embassy trial. Demosthenes refers to these criticisms at 19.23-24, 44-46. One could argue that Demosthenes begins to settle personal scores with political ends. Demosthenes 19.183-185. τίνος γὰρ ἄλλου δεῖ δίκην παρὰ πρέσβεων ἢ λόγων λαμβάνειν; εἰσὶ γὰρ οἱ πρέσβεις οὐ τριήρων οὐδὲ τόπων οὐδ᾿ ὁπλιτῶν οὐδ᾿ ἀκροπόλεων κύριοι … ἀλλὰ λόγων καὶ χρόνων … οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔσθ᾿ ὅ τι μεῖζον ἂν ὑμᾶς ἀδικήσειέ τις, ἢ ψευδῆ λέγων. οἷς γάρ ἐστ᾿ ἐν λόγοις ἡ πολιτεία, πῶς, ἂν οὗτοι μὴ ἀληθεῖς ὦσιν, ἀσφαλῶς ἔστι πολιτεύεσθαι; ἐὰν δὲ δὴ καὶ πρὸς ἃ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς συμφέρει δῶρά τις λαμβάνων λέγῃ, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ κινδυνεύσετε; … εἶτα κρατῆσαι καὶ περιγενέσθαι δεῖ τοὺς τὰ βέλτιστα λέγοντας τῶν ἢ δι᾿ ἄγνοιαν ἢ διὰ μοχθηρίαν 561 163 Dating Dionysius of Halicarnassus dates this speech to the autumn of 346, which is generally agreed to be correct. 562 The specific context for this speech comes, as Trevett notes, from ‘the transfer of two of the twenty-four seats on the council of the Delphic Amphictyony from Phocis to Philip.’ 563 The prospect of accepting both Philip’s position on the Amphictyonic Council and presidency over the Pythian Games was arguably intolerable for the Athenians, especially given that ‘in the fourth century the status of Delphi was international ground…as Geneva often is today’, and a place of arbitration. 564 The Assembly gathered to contest this, and in his response Demosthenes equates this to chasing the shadow of a donkey. 565 Demosthenes asserts that defiance ‘was not in Athens’ best interest’, but that it would prove futile and costly.566 For Demosthenes, their attitude is indicative of the Assembly’s complete ignorance of the situation and how it came about. On the Speech Some scholars do not view On the Peace as having the same passion and conviction as the other ‘Philippic’ speeches, if we must use such a term. Usher remarks that On the Peace is small scale and subdued in tone, noting an absence of ‘focused criticism.’ 567 I argue there is focused criticism in the speech, however, it is not focused on Philip and subsequently it is overlooked. Pearson likewise notes that Demosthenes ‘is much less aggressive than in ἀντιλεγόντων. Hesk 2000: 164 sees this passage as ‘an emblem of Athenian democracy’s confrontation with the problem of deceptive communication.’ 562 Trevett 2011: 88. 563 Trevett 2011: 90. 564 Buckler and Beck 2008: 214. Cartledge 2002: 50 discusses how presiding over the games was important for Philip asserting his Greek-ness and that ‘he celebrated the quadrennial Pythian Games with especial magnificence.’ 565 MacDowell 2009: 327 in contrast does not believe the speech was delivered as part of the debate, or was possibly delivered at a later meeting. 566 Worthington 2013: 183. 567 Usher 2010: 232; Usher 1999: 231. 164 the Olynthiacs. He is less optimistic, more cautious, more willing to recognise difficulties…Demosthenes makes his points soberly and briefly’; Sandys calls the speech ‘studiously moderate and dispassionate’ and Milns comment that ‘the speech is ‘somewhat less fiery and assertive and more defensive’. 568 Whilst this is always ultimately subjective, I believe these opinions are indicative of a general dismissal of the speech because it does not fit the ‘Philippic’ stereotype expected by scholarship. Indeed, assertions that in On the Peace: ‘caution and cool-headed reason were more important than fiery anti-Philip passions,’ are built on the assumption that ‘anti-Philip passions’ dominated the speeches prior to this which, as I have demonstrated, is not necessarily the case. 569 It also suggests that the speech has a cool temperate tone, but as this chapter demonstrates, Demosthenes’ criticism of the Assembly is full of passionate (yet reasoned) indignation at the Athenians for ignoring his advice. I seek to readdress what I believe to be a general undervaluing of On the Peace, which is reflected in the brief treatment the speech gets in comparison to the Philippics and the Olynthiacs.570 Refreshingly, Worthington remarks on this underestimation, asserting that On the Peace ‘was a turning point in the emergence of the orator to the centre-stage in Athenian politics, preparing the way for the influence Demosthenes would wield after Philippic 2.’571 My analysis likewise seeks to assert the importance of On the Peace and, in contrast to Usher et al listed above, I personally view this speech as indignantly vibrant. Indeed, while Demosthenes calls for reason on Philip’s position at Delphi, he does not refrain from his continued admonishment of the Assembly. The speech presents the serious 568 Pearson 1976: 138; Sandys 1913: 99; Milns 2000: 211. 569 Milns 2000: 221 n31. I argue that this overlooks how Demosthenes is still addressing the Assembly, and thus it does not lack impact, passion nor gumption because Demosthenes has not been arguing solely against Philip. 570 Such an example is MacDowell’s remarkably brief treatment of the speech 2009: 327-8. Worthington 1995: On Usher 1993. Jaeger 1938: 157 too asserts: On the Peace was ‘the most important document to [Demosthenes’] political position at this difficult time.’ 571 165 ramifications of ignoring parrhēsia, and the situation Athens now finds itself in as a direct result of ignoring Demosthenes’ warnings of what would happen if they did not shake off their apathetic attitude. Demosthenes’ continued focus is on how the Assembly still ignores good advice and permits themselves to be persuaded by people acting in self-interest. In particular, Demosthenes presents himself as a dutiful parrhēsiastes, whose advice has been both consistent and justified by events, compared to those who are motivated by self-profit.572 The second half of the speech aims at making the Athenians recognise the danger of breaking the peace, and not to risk more than what has already been conceded merely over Philip presiding at Delphi. 573 Demosthenes’ aim is to make the Athenians acknowledge how internal persuasion and the peddling of false hopes has resulted in this less than desirable position: Philip, through Athenian apathy, has become the glue that can unite Athens’ enemies in the name of Sacred War. Through failing to seize previous kairos-moments to stop Philip, nor addressing any of the problems Demosthenes attested to in the previous four speeches, the Athenians must now co-exist with Macedonian influence in Greece. The speech focuses on asserting how and why the Athenians must tread carefully, act sensibly and in a manner worthy of the city. Demosthenes’ parrhēsia again presents uncomfortable truths to make the Athenians recognise their culpability and prevent further self-sabotage. Such examples are his stance on Euboea: ‘you all realised that the men who had then persuaded you of that course of action were worthless and that what I had said was best’; how others ‘were offering such hopes and deceiving you with promises…I did not deceive you and was not silent’. Demosthenes 5.5, 5.10. At 5.12 Demosthenes asserts: ‘I judge and calculate matters without being paid to do so, and no one can point to any profit that attaches to my political actions and speeches.’ 572 573 Emphasis that Athens has already surrendered/ neglected/ thrown away their possessions to Philip is evident in Demosthenes’ repeated use of προΐημι– at 5.1, 5.3, 5.10, 5.13, 5.15 (previously used at 1.9, 1.12, 1.14, 2.2, 3.9). LSJ s.v. definition ‘II. give up, deliver, betray one to his enemy, Hdt.1.159, 3.137; χρήματα μέν σφι π. offering to give them . . , Id.1.24, cf. Ar.Nu.1214; τὰς ναῦς π. τινί Th.8.32: with an inf. added, γυναῖκα . . π. ἀπάγεσθαι Hdt.2.115:—Pass., to be given or thrown away, εἰ ταῦτα προεῖτ’ ἀκονιτεί D.18.200; καιροὶ προεῖνται Id.19.8, cf. 25.10’. I believe this emphasis on what Athens has surrendered/neglected/abandoned and how they cannot afford to abandon anything else (including the Greeks) becomes characteristic of the post-peace speeches: 6.8, 6.10, 6.17, 6.30, 6.35, 8.49.3, 8.49.7, 8.50, 8.56, 9.1, 9.4, 9.65, 9.73. 166 Analysis Proemium Demosthenes’ proemium returns to his complaint against the empty and useless rhetoric he witnesses in the Assembly, as ‘it is pointless to make fine speeches about everything that has been squandered but also because there is absolutely no agreement about where our future interests lies.’574 Demosthenes builds upon his previous argument that speeches must serve a purpose of improving the situation and lead towards proposed action, rather than circular complaints: Deliberation is inherently difficult and irksome, but you, men of Athens, have made it considerably harder. For all other people are in the habit of deliberating before they act, but you do so afterwards!575 As in the First Philippic, the Assembly still reacts to events rather than anticipating them, and consequently do not act as they ought.576 Instead of benefiting the polis, the values of isēgoria and isōnomia are being abused and hinder genuine political agency. It is the corruption of these values by self-serving politicians that has undermined Athens from within, and compromised its power and position, and their ability to deliberate effectively. Demosthenes’ appraisal of the Assembly also engages with Thucydidean concepts on deliberation: Demosthenes’ Assembly are at odds with Pericles’ praise of the Athenians as 574 Demosthenes 5.1. Demosthenes 5.2. δυσκόλου δ᾿ ὄντος φύσει καὶ χαλεποῦ τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι, ἔτι πολλῷ χαλεπώτερον ὑμεῖς αὐτὸ πεποιήκατ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι πάντες ἄνθρωποι πρὸ τῶν πραγμάτων εἰώθασι χρῆσθαι τῷ βουλεύεσθαι, ὑμεῖς δὲ μετὰ τὰ πράγματα. Sandys 1913: 84 remarks that the ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι has been placed at the end (like 6.9) to ‘emphasise the expression of pain and reproach.’ Sandys also notes that ὑμεῖς δὲ μετὰ τὰ πράγματα rings with ‘bitter disappointment’ with none of the ‘satirical scorn’ applied to Cleon in Lucian: §2 ‘Κλέων Προμηθεύς ἐστι μετὰ τὰ πράγματα. The text Sandys refers to is To One Who Said ‘You’re a Promethius in Words’, and Lucian’s comment ‘Cleon’s a Prometheus after the event’, is introduced as a quotation from a comic poet (possibly Eupolis). This is from the fragment Comica adespota F461 and from further examples cited in Olson 2007 and 2014, it is possible that Προμηθεύς μετὰ τὰ πράγματα ‘wise after the event’ could have been a proverbial expression in the fifth century, and Demosthenes could be making a side reference to it here. 575 576 Demosthenes 4.40 asserted that the Athenians act like a foreigner boxes. They are at odds with the values and behaviour which characterises Athenian identity. 167 being able to take risks whilst simultaneously estimating them before hand, and he evokes the Mytilenean Debate in the dangers of acting rashly without consideration. 577 Firstly, in noting this flaw in their decision-making, Demosthenes asserts how the problem facing Athens is (still) the Assembly itself; more specifically, their attitude towards speakers and their failure to move beyond deliberation: As a result, for as long as I can remember, anyone who criticises those things that might lead you into trouble wins a good reputation and is thought to speak well, but the actual situation which you are deliberating gets away from you. 578 As he argued in the Third Olynthiac, without a definitive course of action the speeches are worthless, and only benefit the speaker’s reputation. 579 These men trick the Assembly into believing they are dealing with the situation, when in reality (Demosthenes’ version of it) they are ensnared by their desire for displays of rhetoric and flattery, thus consistently neglecting the actual issue at hand. Their current complaining likewise follows the same pattern that they come to things far too late. The Athenians could have prevented Philip’s rise to power (that enabled this honour at Delphi), if they had acted on Demosthenes’ advice. 580 Now, however, they deliberate on the audacity of Philip when the opportunities to prevent his rise have long passed. As in the previous speeches, however, Demosthenes offers the Athenians hope that they can rectify some of the self-inflicted damage if they act accordingly: 577 Thucydides 2.40; 3.36-50. Such an example suggests Demosthenes was potentially influenced by and derived ideals from his knowledge of Thucydides. At the end of On the Peace Demosthenes calls on the Athenians to avoid rash decisions on popular opinion, which again evokes Thucydides’ analysis of post-Periclean deliberation. Demosthenes 5.2. ἐκ δὲ τούτου συμβαίνει παρὰ πάντα τὸν χρόνον ὃν οἶδ᾿ ἐγώ, τὸν μὲν οἷς ἂν ἁμάρτητ᾿ ἐπιτιμῶντ᾿ εὐδοκιμεῖν καὶ δοκεῖν εὖ λέγειν, τὰ δὲ πράγματα καὶ περὶ ὧν βουλεύεσθ᾿ ἐκφεύγειν ὑμᾶς. 578 579 Demosthenes 3.19. 580 Demosthenes has already frequently claimed that Philip was a self-made problem: 4.4, 4.11, 1.9, 2.3, 2.3-4, 3.35, 3.17. 168 Nevertheless, although this is so [i.e. their bad practices], I stand before you convinced that if you are willing to listen, without making a disturbance or showing ill will, as is appropriate for those who are deliberating on behalf of the city about matters of great importance, I will be able to speak and to advise you how the present situation may be improved and how what has been squandered may be regained. 581 But again, this is contingent on the Athenians recognising their mistakes and learning from them. To this end, Demosthenes seeks to make the Athenians see the real situation at hand; the reality of both their own attitudes and how rhetoric used to manipulate them to the detriment of the polis. Narrative To assert this, and affirm his own consistency, Demosthenes recalls his previous advice which with hindsight develops a sense of authenticity and generates a rhetoric of sincerity and truth.582 At the end of the Third Olynthiac, Demosthenes defined his proposals with the atavistic ideals of Athenian identity; now Demosthenes asserts his Athenianness in his oratorical narratives: in his recollections of Euboea, Neoptolemus, and the embassy to Philip, Demosthenes reminds the Athenians how they were persuaded to act against their interests, but also provides a lesson in the consequences of their hostile reception of honest frank advice. Firstly, Demosthenes reminds them of the Euboean fiasco: Demosthenes 5.3. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καίπερ τούτων οὕτως ἐχόντων οἴομαι καὶ πεπεικὼς ἐμαυτὸν ἀνέστηκα, ἂν ἐθελήσητε τοῦ θορυβεῖν καὶ φιλονικεῖν ἀποστάντες ἀκούειν, ὡς ὑπὲρ πόλεως βουλευομένοις καὶ τηλικούτων πραγμάτων προσήκει, ἕξειν καὶ λέγειν καὶ συμβουλεύειν δι᾿ ὧν καὶ τὰ παρόντ᾿ ἔσται βελτίω καὶ τὰ προειμένα σωθήσεται. 581 Val Alpen, Bal and Smith 2008: 2 on the rhetoric of sincerity, observe how in postmodern irony the ‘authentic’ and the ‘sincere’ are valourised ‘over political intelligence and rhetorical sophistication.’ 582 169 First, men of Athens, at a time when affairs in Euboea were in disarray, and certain people were trying to persuade you to help Plutarchus and undertake an inglorious and costly war, I was the first, indeed the only one to come forward and oppose it. 583 Both Worthington and Trevett suggest that Demosthenes probably argued intervention in Euboea would distract the Athenians from their responsibilities in the North at Olynthus, but Demosthenes was ultimately ignored stating: ‘I was virtually torn apart by those who were trying to persuade you, for the sake of small profits to commit many errors.’ 584 Demosthenes again notes the dangers for speakers in addressing an Assembly hostile towards honest advice. Moreover, in asserting how he was the only man to oppose the momentum to intervene in Euboea, further parallels can be drawn with Thucydides’ History and with the epitaphioi logoi that Athenian failures are a result of Athenian mistakes, and in this particular instance, the error of pandering to the whim of the people and popularist rhetoric. 585 Indeed, the decision to intervene in Euboea demonstrates both their failure to recognise/ prioritise their issues and their misguided judgements, and that in being persuaded by popularist rhetoric they have inflicted costly errors upon themselves. This is exacerbated by the insinuation of internal manipulation if we follow Worthington’s suggestion that ‘Philip may even have been backing Callias to divert Athenian attention from his siege of Demosthenes 5.5. ἐγὼ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πρῶτον μέν, ἡνίκ᾿ ἔπειθόν τινες ὑμᾶς, τῶν ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ πραγμάτων ταραττομένων, βοηθεῖν Πλουτάρχῳ καὶ πόλεμον καὶ ἄδοξον καὶ δαπανηρὸν ἄρασθαι, πρῶτος καὶ μόνος παρελθὼν ἀντεῖπον. For more on the expedition to Euboea see Worthington 2013: 144-146. The Athenians sent forces to Euboea fearing that Callias’ alliance with Philip would threaten Athenian interest in the area. Their general, Phocion, was expelled by Plutarchus when he arrived at Eretria. Moreover, the Athenians ‘committed a strategic error by recalling Phocion …Plutarchus took advantage of the new commander’s unfamiliarity with the island to attack him, capturing all the Athenian troops.’ Athens, who had entered Euboea to send aid, ended up paying a ransom of fifty talents for their men, and Euboea declared its independence. Worthington 2013: 145. 583 Demosthenes 5.5 καὶ μόνον οὐ διεσπάσθην ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπὶ μικροῖς λήμμασι πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἁμαρτάνειν πεισάντων· Worthington 2013: 145; Trevett 2011: 92. 584 Thucydides 1.144. 2.65.12: ‘in the end it was only because they had destroyed themselves by their own internal strife that finally they were forced to surrender.’ See too Plato Menexenus 243d. 585 170 Olynthus.’586 Thus, with the Euboean fiasco, Demosthenes develops his opening criticism that the Assembly complains after events, when their mistakes cannot be rectified: And a short time later, when we had incurred a further burden of shame (αἰσχύνην), and had suffered such things as no men have ever suffered at the hands of those whom they had helped, you all realised that the men who had then persuaded you of that course of action were worthless and that what I had said was best. 587 This realisation comes too late, but now serves as a reminder of the dangers of the misuse of rhetoric, the dangers of an Assembly that is ensnared by its own vices, and the dangers of not listening to Demosthenes’ advice. The second example refers to the Assembly’s faith in the actor Neoptolemus instead of Demosthenes: Again, men of Athens, when I saw that Neoptolemus the actor was free to go about as he pleased, shielded by his profession, 588 and was doing the greatest harm to our city and was managing and controlling your affairs for the benefit of Philip, I came forward and addressed you not out of any private enmity or maliciousness, as had become clear from subsequent events. 589 Worthington 2013: 144. Ryder 2000: 56. This could also be evidence to support Roisman 2006’s rhetoric of conspiracy within the deliberative speeches. 586 Demosthenes 5.5. καὶ χρόνου βραχέος διελθόντος, μετὰ τοῦ προσοφλεῖν αἰσχύνην καὶ παθεῖν οἷα τῶν ὄντων ἀνθρώπων οὐδένες πώποτε πεπόνθασ’ ὑπὸ τούτων οἷς ἐβοήθησαν, πάντες ὑμεῖς ἔγνωτε τήν τε τῶν τότε ταῦτα πεισάντων κακίαν καὶ τὰ βέλτιστ’ εἰρηκότ’ ἐμέ. 587 Sandys 1913: 88 notes ἔγνωτε after παθεῖν is ‘of learning by sad experience’, as in Hesiod Works and Days 218: ‘παθὼν δέ τε νήπιος ἔγνω.’ The shame Demosthenes refers to is the ransom Athens paid to release citizens imprisoned during the expedition. Trevett 2011: 92n8 notes how ‘the tragic actor Neoptolemus of Scyros had a successful career at Athens and enjoyed the favour of Philip, with whom he advocated that Athens make peace. As an actor, he was evidently free to travel without arousing suspicion.’ 589 Demosthenes 5.6. πάλιν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, κατιδὼν Νεοπτόλεμον τὸν ὑποκριτὴν τῷ μὲν τῆς τέχνης προσχήματι τυγχάνοντ’ ἀδείας, κακὰ δ’ ἐργαζόμενον τὰ μέγιστα τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν διοικοῦντα Φιλίππῳ καὶ πρυτανεύοντα, παρελθὼν εἶπον εἰς ὑμᾶς, οὐδεμιᾶς ἰδίας οὔτ’ ἔχθρας οὔτε συκοφαντίας ἕνεκα, ὡς ἐκ τῶν μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἔργων γέγονεν δῆλον. 588 171 As an actor Neoptolemus would have the ability to deceive an audience by his acting talents, and as Hesk notes, this is a frequent attack of Demosthenes’ against Aeschines. 590 But Aeschines too warns of the danger of an opponent professionally wielding and ‘harnessing a technē of speech and performance’.591 Thus Neoptolemus epitomises the dangers of expert rhetoric compared to Demosthenes’ parrhēsia, and the Athenians’ naïve self-indulgent attitude in Assembly deliberations. 592 Indeed, in the case of Neoptolemus, Demosthenes condemns the dēmos for treating the serious deliberations within the Assembly as an extended Dionysia, detached from the reality and impact of their decisions: In that case, the people I criticise are not those who spoke on Neoptolemus’ behalf, since not a single person did so, but you! For even if you had been watching tragedies in the Theatre of Dionysus, rather than a debate about the safety of the city, you would not have listened to him with so much favour or to me with so much hostility.593 This complaint also presents a parallel to Cleon’s complaints in Thucydides’ Mytilenean debate against the Assembly goers: The blame is yours, for stupidly instituting these competitive displays. You have become regular speech-goers (θεαταὶ τῶν λόγων)… victims of your own pleasure in 590 Hesk 2000:207: Demosthenes 18.129, 209, 232, 261-2, 308. 591 Hesk 2000: 207: Aeschines 2.56. This suspicion is similar to that associated with Sophists and professional manipulation of rhetoric. In criticising Neoptolemus’ deinotēs legein, Demosthenes also defends his own advice, which as Hesk 1999: 210 notes is another topos of the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric: ‘In these instances [documented by Ober 1989-187-91] the speaker draws a contrast between a rhetorical activism which is deceitful and harmful to the polis, and the honest beneficial activism which (of course) he has always adhered to.’ 592 Demosthenes 5.7 καὶ οὐκέτ’ ἐντούτοις αἰτιάσομαι τοὺς ὑπὲρ Νεοπτολέμου λέγοντας (οὐδὲ εἷς γὰρ ἦν), ἀλλ’ αὐτοὺς ὑμᾶς• εἰ γὰρ ἐν Διονύσου τραγῳδοὺς ἐθεᾶσθε, ἀλλὰ μὴ περὶ σωτηρίας καὶ κοινῶν πραγμάτων ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὐκ ἂν οὕτως οὔτ’ ἐκείνου πρὸς χάριν οὔτ’ ἐμοῦ πρὸς ἀπέχθειαν ἠκούσατε. 593 He will return to this criticism at On the Chersonese 8.77 p.270. 172 listening, and are more like an audience sitting at the feet of a professional lecturer than a parliament discussing matters of state. 594 Such anxieties about the Assembly’s attitude towards deliberative oratorical performances are also evident at the opening of Aristophanes’ Archarnians and the ambiguity on whether Dikaeopolis is at the theatre of the Pnyx. 595 This wider concern of the Assembly’s attitude towards deliberative performance is crucial to understanding how such attitudes have had a negative impact upon the democratic decision-making process, and have arguably created the internal crisis that has enabled the Macedonian ascendency at Athenian expense. The categorical problem facing the Athenians is one of self-sabotage, demonstrated in this longstanding issue that they do not conduct their deliberations responsibly, but indulgently become ensnared by their own rhetoric; as noted in the proemium, they have made deliberation considerably harder than it already inherently is. Thus, Demosthenes recounts these past events to demonstrate the Assembly’s errors in judgement, and the real consequences of rejecting good advice, and as he says at 5.7 quoted above, it is not Neoptolemus but the Assembly that Demosthenes holds responsible. Thus of greater concern for Demosthenes is not how people will act in Philip’s interests within Athens (as serious as that is), but that the Assembly permitted this by refusing to listen to honest advice, preferring the sophisticated persuasive performance of an actor. This itself demonstrates the delusion of the Assembly, as parrhēsia ‘was a practice of opening and revealing one’s true beliefs’, as opposed to the Sophistic reputation for hiding self-interest behind flattering rhetoric. 596 This internal confusion not only stresses again the Assembly’s mundus perversus in their gullibility, but Demosthenes’ complaint that their thoughtlessness, 594 Thucydides 3.38.4-7. Aristophanes Acharnians 15-30: ‘Oh they’ll get here all right at the last minute, falling over each other, pushing and shoving for front row seats.’ Hesk 2000: 260. Goldhill 1991:186. Slater 2002: 45-47 suggests Dikaeopolis is both a ‘theatrical and political spectator.’ 595 596 Saxonhouse 2006: 88. 173 caused by manipulation and their desire for flattery, has mutated crucial deliberation into a spectacle.597 Thus the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric against Neoptolemus and his supporters is actually meta-metadiscursive against the Assembly for their utter failure to recognise the deception. The Athenians are persuaded to act against their own interests, and to be hostile to those acting in their best interests, when they ought to be masters of logos and too virtuous to be deceived.598 Unlike in the previous speeches, however, Demosthenes can now demonstrate the outcome of not listening to him: And yet I think you all now recognise this at least, that after he had arrived at that time in the enemy’s country, wishing (so he said) to bring a sum of money that was owed to him there back here to pay for the performance of a liturgy, and after he had made extensive use of the argument that it was terrible for anyone to criticise those who were bringing wealth from Macedonia to Athens, when the peace provided him with immunity from prosecution, he turned the visible assets that he had acquired here into cash and went off to Philip. 599 Again it is not the disloyalty of Neoptolemus nor Philip’s scheming that Demosthenes criticises here, but the naïve gullibility of the Assembly and their manipulation by traitors within Athens.600 Demosthenes’ complaints at their contrasting attitude towards himself and Neoptolemus resonates particularly with Thucydides’ assertion that following the death of 597 Hesk 1999: 214 notes how at Thucydides 3.38.7 Cleon criticises the Assembly for listening to speeches as ‘sophistic displays rather than deciding on national and international policy.’ Cartledge 2002: 197 notes Plato’s contempt for ‘theatrocracy’ in Laws 701a. Further examples of Demosthenes’ complaint at the hostility of the Assembly include: 4.38, 4.51, 1.16, 3.4, 3.12-13, 3.21-22, 3.32, 5.2, 5.5-6, 6.34, 8.31-14, 8.64, 8.69-71, 9.2, 9.54-55. 598 Demosthenes 5.8. καίτοι τοῦτό γ’ ὑμᾶς οἶμαι νῦν ἅπαντας ᾐσθῆσθαι, ὅτι τὴν τότ’ ἄφιξιν εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους ποιησάμενος ὑπὲρ τοῦ τἀκεῖ χρήματ’ ὀφειλόμεν’, ὡς ἔφη, κομίσας δεῦρο λῃτουργεῖν, καὶ τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ πλείστῳ χρησάμενος, ὡς δεινὸν εἴ τις ἐγκαλεῖ τοῖς ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδε τὰς εὐπορίας ἄγουσιν, ἐπειδὴ διὰ τὴν εἰρήνην ἀδείας ἔτυχεν, ἣν ἐνθάδ’ ἐκέκτητ’ οὐσίαν φανεράν, ταύτην ἐξαργυρίσας πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἀπάγων οἴχεται. 599 Guth 2015: 345 notes on Demosthenes 19.320 that Philip and his ambassadors take care to ‘leave the actual business of lying to the Greek traitors.’ Demosthenes’ criticism again focuses on the internal traitors. 600 174 Pericles, Athenian leaders followed policies which ‘when successful, only brought credit and advantage to the individuals, and when they failed, the whole war potential of the state was impaired.’601 As Thucydides remarks, this was due to the nature of Pericles, who ‘could respect the liberty of the people and at the same time keep them in check.’ 602 Demosthenes in a similarly Periclean manner attempts to instruct the Assembly, to make it clear how their misguided decisions are responsible for Philip’s position in the power politics of Greece. Thus in these two examples, Demosthenes has vindicated his own arguments, stating that, ‘these two predictions that I made prove that my speeches were right and just and truthful.’ 603 Demosthenes’ final example recounts his own actions on the second Athenian embassy to Philip in 346: ‘Third, men of Athens… relates to the occasion when we ambassadors had returned after accepting the oaths relating to the peace.’604 Specifically, Demosthenes refers to the terms of the peace which have been proven vain: At that time some men were promised that Thespiae and Plataea would be restored, and that Philip would preserve the Phocians, if he got control of them, and would disperse the city of Thebes into villages, and that Oropus would be given to us, and that Euboea would be surrendered in return for Amphipolis, and were offering such hopes and deceiving you with promises, by which you were induced, neither to your advantage nor perhaps to your credit, to abandon the Phocians. 605 601 Thucydides 2.65. 602 Thucydides 2.65. Demosthenes 5.9. δύο μὲν δὴ ταῦθ’ ὧν προεῖπον ἐγὼ μαρτυρεῖ τοῖς γεγενημένοις λόγοις ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως, οἷά περ ἦν, ἀποφανθένθ’ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ· Vince’s translation reads: ‘there, then, you have two of my warnings, bearing testimony to the value of my earlier speeches, and uttered by me honestly and in strict conformity with the facts.’ I believe a parallel can be drawn to Thucydides’ description of Pericles at 2.65 who likewise ‘never sought power from any wrong motive, he was under no necessity of flattering them…he was able to speak angrily to them and to contradict them.’ 603 Demosthenes 5.9. τὸ τρίτον δ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, … ἡνίκα τοὺς ὅρκους τοὺς περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης ἀπειληφότες ἥκομεν οἱ πρέσβεις, 604 Demosthenes 5.10. τότε Θεσπιάς τινων καὶ Πλαταιὰς ὑπισχνουμένων οἰκισθήσεσθαι, καὶ τοὺς μὲν Φωκέας τὸν Φίλιππον, ἂν γένηται κύριος, σώσειν, τὴν δὲ Θηβαίων πόλιν διοικιεῖν, καὶ τὸν Ὠρωπὸν ὑμῖν ὑπάρξειν, καὶ τὴν Εὔβοιαν ἀντ᾽ Ἀμφιπόλεως ἀποδοθήσεσθαι, καὶ τοιαύτας ἐλπίδας καὶ φενακισμούς, οἷς ὑπαχθέντες ὑμεῖς οὔτε συμφόρως οὔτ᾽ ἴσως καλῶς προεῖσθε Φωκέας, 605 175 As with Neoptolemus, Demosthenes make the serious accusation the Assembly was deceived by false hopes, which were utilised for personal gain at the expense of the polis.606 Demosthenes contrasts this with his consistent and dutiful parrhēsia: But I shall show that I did not deceive you and was not silent about any of these matters but declared to you, as I am sure you remember, that I neither knew nor expected that any of these things would happen, and that I thought the speaker was talking nonsense.607 Demosthenes, in keeping with the previous four speeches, contrasts himself to these other rhētors who, unlike Demosthenes and their ancestors, put their self-interests before that of Athens. Demosthenes utilises the rhetoric of conspiracy to both condemn his opponents and to promote his own honesty, as Roisman notes, even the most intelligent and skilled plotter cannot fool the detector ‘who is able, often uniquely able, to identify them, uncover their schemes, and if time and other factors permit, frustrate their plans.’ 608 The Assembly, according to Demosthenes, made this impossible in their rejection of his warnings, and are as culpable for the peace as much as the men that peddled these false hopes. Moreover, rather than the general argument against the treatment of speakers we have seen in the previous speeches, On the Peace functions as a defence of Demosthenes’ advice, in a forensic manner. 609 Singling himself out, he explains to the Assembly why he unlike others could see both the situation and what was required of the Athenians: As Hesk 2000: 52 notes by the fourth century ‘the specific charge of “deceiving the people” was associated with making false or unfulfilled promises.’ 606 Demosthenes 5.10. οὐδὲν τούτων οὔτ᾽ ἐξαπατήσας οὔτε σιγήσας ἐγὼ φανήσομαι, ἀλλὰ προειπὼν ὑμῖν, ὡς οἶδ᾽ ὅτι μνημονεύετε, ὅτι ταῦτ᾽ οὔτ᾽ οἶδα οὔτε προσδοκῶ, νομίζω δὲ τὸν λέγοντα ληρεῖν. 607 608 Roisman 2006: 5. Roisman is not referring to Demosthenes in his comment, but I think it can be applied here. 609 The traditional divisions of oratory are not always useful, as practice came before the theory (cf. Carey 2000: 33: ‘the neat divisions in classical rhetoric are the product of schematisation by theorists rather than oratorical practice’). Steinbock 2013: 38: the ‘often overly schematic studies ignore that classical rhetoric, which stemmed from an analysis of oratorical praxis, ought to be regarded as a secondary phenomenon.’ Perlman 1961: 150 ‘a clear example of putting the cart before the horse.’ 176 If I have been more successful than others in predicting the future in all these matters, I do not attribute this to my cleverness or to any talent I might boast of, nor do I claim any other reason for my special understanding and perception than these two. First, men of Athens, is good luck, which I observe, is more powerful than any human cleverness or wisdom. 610 As we saw in the Olynthiacs, Fortune was both the vital element to all human affairs, and Fortune granted the Athenians kairos, which suggested a benevolence from the gods.611 Here, Demosthenes presents himself as a recipient of Fortune, which potentially suggests he is fortunate due to his own unique conduct and divine benevolence. This would be supported by Demosthenes’ second point, that his foresight is a result of his honesty: ‘the second is that I judge and calculate matters without being paid to do so, and no one can point to any profit that attaches to my political actions and speeches. As a result, our advantage is revealed to me directly from the facts themselves.’ 612 Because he is not a “bought man”, Demosthenes implies he is motivated solely by what benefits the polis. Demosthenes has been steadily establishing himself and his proposals as a microcosm of Athenian values. 613 Here Demosthenes seems to be echoing, perhaps even deliberately, Thucydides’ description of a Periclean inflection of virtue: Demosthenes 5.11. ταῦτα τοίνυν ἅπανθ᾿, ὅσα φαίνομαι βέλτιον τῶν ἄλλων προορῶν, οὐδ᾿ εἰς μίαν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, οὔτε δεινότητ᾿ οὔτ᾿ ἀλαζονείαν ἐπανοίσω, οὐδὲ προσποιήσομαι δι᾿ οὐδὲν ἄλλο γιγνώσκειν καὶ προαισθάνεσθαι πλὴν δι᾿ ἃ ἂν ὑμῖν εἴπω, δύο· ἓν μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δι᾿ εὐτυχίαν, ἣν συμπάσης ἐγὼ τῆς ἐν ἀνθρώποις οὔσης δεινότητος καὶ σοφίας ὁρῶ κρατοῦσαν· 610 611 Demosthenes 2.22; 2.2; 3.27. Demosthenes could also be tempering any connotations of arrogance in lauding himself, by appearing modest rather than boastful. Demosthenes 5.12. ἕτερον δέ, προῖκα τὰ πράγματα κρίνω καὶ λογίζομαι, καὶ οὐδὲν λῆμμ᾿ ἂν οὐδεὶς ἔχοι πρὸς οἷς ἐγὼ πεπολίτευμαι καὶ λέγω δεῖξαι προσηρτημένον. ὀρθὸν οὖν, ὅ τι ἄν ποτ᾿ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ὑπάρχῃ τῶν πραγμάτων, τὸ συμφέρον φαίνεταί μοι. Demosthenes will use the same argument in On the Crown 18.247 where Guth 2015: 344 remarks on the similarity to his stance in On the False Embassy on being above bribery 19.139-41; consistently ‘Demosthenes bases his personal victory on the claim that he did not accept bribes from Philip and that he continued to council the Athenians in good faith.’ 612 As Christ 2006: 15 notes ‘Athenian civic ideology engaged with the problem of self-interest by portraying the relationship between the citizen and city as a mutually beneficial one.’ 613 177 So far as I am concerned, if you are angry with me you are angry with one who has, I think, at least as much ability as anyone else to see what ought to be done and to explain what he sees, one who loves his city, and one who is above being influenced by money. A man who has knowledge but lacks the power clearly to express it is no better off than if he never had any ideas. A man who has both these qualities, but lacks patriotism, could scarcely speak for his own people as he should. And even if he is patriotic as well, but not able to resist a bribe, then this one fault will expose everything to the risk of being bought and sold. 614 This anger provoked through dutiful parrhēsia is also attested to in Plato’s Apology where Socrates’ advice is unwelcome: ‘I dare say, though, that you will get angry, like people who are awakened from their doze’, further supporting the wider view of the Athenians (this time in a forensic context from a philosophical perspective) as hostile to frank dutiful parrhēsia.615 Demosthenes further develops his account of their internal issues by asserting how corruption and bribery has exacerbated the Assembly’s already corrupted state: But whenever you add money to either side, as if to a pair of scales, it drops down and drags judgement with it, and whoever does so will no longer offer a straight (ὀρθὸν) or sound opinion about any matter. 616 Thucydides 2.60.5-6. καίτοι ἐμοὶ τοιούτῳ ἀνδρὶ ὀργίζεσθε ὃς οὐδενὸς ἥσσων οἴομαι εἶναι γνῶναί τε τὰ δέοντα καὶ ἑρμηνεῦσαι ταῦτα, φιλόπολίς τε καὶ χρημάτων κρείσσων. ὅ τε γὰρ γνοὺς καὶ μὴ σαφῶς διδάξας ἐν ἴσῳ καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐνεθυμήθη: ὅ τε ἔχων ἀμφότερα, τῇ δὲ πόλει δύσνους, οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως τι οἰκείως φράζοι: προσόντος δὲ καὶ τοῦδε, χρήμασι δὲ νικωμένου, τὰ ξύμπαντα τούτου ἑνὸς ἂν πωλοῖτο. Ellis and Milns 1970: 86 note Demosthenes’ similarities to Pericles here. Sandys likewise links ὀρθόν in Demosthenes 5.11 to Thucydides 2.61. I argue that there is potentially a combination at play here: (i) that we, as readers of Classics, are reminded of Pericles, (ii) that Demosthenes potentially wanted to remind the Assembly of Pericles, (iii) that Demosthenes could be drawing on Thucydides’ Pericles as a model for his own advice. 614 615 Plato Apology 31a. Demosthenes 5.11. ὅταν δ᾿ ἐπὶ θάτερ᾿ ὥσπερ εἰς τρυτάνην ἀργύριον προσενέγκῃς, οἴχεται φέρον καὶ καθείλκυκε τὸν λογισμὸν ἐφ᾿ αὑτό, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔτ᾿ ὀρθῶς οὐδ᾿ ὑγιῶς ὁ τοῦτο ποιήσας περὶ οὐδενὸς λογίσαιτο. Sandys 1913: 95 notes that ‘the notion seems to be that the interests of Athens are in one of the scales and the politician’s judgment in the other; if a bribe is thrown into the later, it pulls down the judgment with it.’ Similar fateful scales can be seen in Iliad 8.69 and the judgment of Zeus and at 22.209, and with a comic twist in Aristophanes’ Frogs 1398. 616 178 This also reiterates his remarks in the Third Olynthiac that the current citizens are far removed from the virtuous mores of the ideal ancestors, and it is this parasitic corruption within the Assembly that has damaged the polis. Within an Assembly that refuses to acknowledge this, Demosthenes’ parrhēsia, whilst validated by events, cannot compete against such bribery and corruption if the Assembly gives in to its vices. Thus whilst validating his own worth, Demosthenes stresses how the problem is still, fundamentally, the Assembly. Moreover, aside from commenting on how Philip would always renege on his promises at 5.10, the speech is directed against Athenian politicians for making the Assembly believe in delusional hopes, and at the Assembly for its counterproductive attitude. Argument Having firmly established the Assembly’s culpability for their grievances, Demosthenes presents the real implications of the Peace of Philocrates and why they cannot afford to break it. To achieve this, Demosthenes returns to the themes of previous four speeches: how their lack of action, repeatedly warned about in the First Philippic and Olynthiacs, which now enables Philip to be in a position that can unite Athens’ enemies. Thus, the horrific consequence of the Peace is not the surrender of Amphipolis on top of possessions already lost through neglect, but that their enemies now have justifiable grounds to launch a coalition Sacred War if the Athenians breach the Peace. Now then, I say that one condition should hold, that if anyone wishes to provide allies or financial contributions or anything else for our city, he should do so without breaking the existing peace – not because the peace is wonderful or worthy of you but 179 because, whatever its character, it would be better for us that it had never been made than that we should break it now that it has been made.617 To explain this, Demosthenes firstly addresses their weakened position following the loss of their possessions, both before and as a result of the Peace: ‘for we have squandered many things, the possession of which would have made war easier and safer for us than it is now.’618 And because of these losses, they are more vulnerable to their enemies, who are now united under Philip’s influence at Delphi: Second, men of Athens, we must see that we do not provide these people who have come together and now claim to be Amphictyons with the need or excuse for a common war against us. 619 The ramifications of the Peace are that States that previously would have been disinclined to attack individually (by their own political agendas or power plays), now have a common ground which trumps individual agendas. The Peace has thus fundamentally changed the balance of power within Greece: For if war should break out between Philip and us over Amphipolis or some similar private grievance in which the Thessalians and Argives and Thebans are not involved, I do not imagine that any of these would go to war with us. 620 Demosthenes particularly singles out their great rival Thebes, noting how: Least of all – and let no one interrupt me before he hears what I have to say – the Thebans, not because they are well disposed to us or because they would not wish to Demosthenes 5.13. ἓν μὲν οὖν ἔγωγε πρῶτον ὑπάρχειν φημὶ δεῖν, ὅπως, εἴτε συμμάχους εἴτε σύνταξιν εἴτ᾿ ἄλλο τι βούλεταί τις κατασκευάζειν τῇ πόλει, τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν εἰρήνην μὴ λύων τοῦτο ποιήσει, οὐχ ὡς θαυμαστὴν οὐδ᾿ ὡς ἀξίαν οὖσαν ὑμῶν· ἀλλ᾿ ὁποία τίς ποτ᾿ ἐστὶν αὕτη, μὴ γενέσθαι μᾶλλον εἶχε τοῖς πράγμασι καιρὸν ἢ γεγενημένη νῦν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς λυθῆναι· 617 Demosthenes 5.13. πολλὰ γὰρ προείμεθα, ὧν ὑπαρχόντων τότ᾽ ἂν ἢ νῦν ἀσφαλέστερος καὶ ῥᾴων ἦν ἡμῖν ὁ πόλεμος. 618 Demosthenes 5.14. δεύτερον δ᾿, ὁρᾶν ὅπως μὴ προαξόμεθ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοὺς συνεληλυθότας τούτους καὶ φάσκοντας Ἀμφικτύονας νῦν εἶναι εἰς ἀνάγκην καὶ πρόφασιν κοινοῦ πολέμου πρὸς ἡμᾶς. 619 Demosthenes 5.14. ἐγὼ γάρ, εἰ γένοιθ᾿ ἡμῖν πρὸς Φίλιππον πάλιν πόλεμος δι᾿ Ἀμφίπολιν ἤ τι τοιοῦτ᾿ ἔγκλημ᾿ ἴδιον, οὗ μὴ μετέχουσι Θετταλοὶ μηδ᾿ Ἀργεῖοι μηδὲ Θηβαῖοι, οὐκ ἂν ἡμῖν οἴομαι τούτων οὐδένας πολεμῆσαι, 620 180 do Philip a favour but because they know perfectly well – however much they are described as stupid – that if war should break out between them and you, they will incur all the loses, but someone else will reap the benefits. 621 Athens’ previous position ensured a balance of the status quo, providing a reassurance that: No individual is so well disposed towards either us or the Thebans as to wish either of us both to be safe and to dominate others, rather, they would all wish us to be safe for their own sake, but none of them wishes either of us to defeat the other and thereby become their masters. 622 This reassurance that ‘they will not therefore give themselves up to this, unless war is jointly declared and has a common cause’, was now gone due to the political vacuum left by the Athenians in the North and Philip’s successful Chalcidic and Thracian campaigns. 623 Thus his new position on the Amphictyonic council has changed the game: What then do I find a frightening prospect, and what is it that you must guard against? It is that the coming war may offer everybody a common pretext and a shared ground of complaint against us.’ 624 This is a very real threat. Athens’ neglect of her affairs since the First Philippic, capitalised on by Philip, has resulted in making her more vulnerable to attack than ever. Athens has not Demosthenes 5.15. καὶ πάντων ἥκιστα (καί μοι μὴ θορυβήσῃ μηδεὶς πρὶν ἀκοῦσαι) Θηβαίους, οὐχ ὡς ἡδέως ἔχουσιν ἡμῖν, οὐδ᾿ ὡς οὐκ ἂν χαρίζοιντο Φιλίππῳ, ἀλλ᾿ ἴσασιν ἀκριβῶς, εἰ καὶ πάνυ φησί τις αὐτοὺς ἀναισθήτους εἶναι, ὅτι, εἰ γενήσεται πόλεμος πρὸς ὑμᾶς αὐτοῖς, τὰ μὲν κακὰ πάνθ᾿ ἕξουσιν αὐτοί, τοῖς δ᾿ ἀγαθοῖς ἐφεδρεύων ἕτερος καθεδεῖται. Trevett 2011: 96 notes that Demosthenes is presumably envisaging a war on land where the Thebans would suffer most, which would be to Philip’s benefit. Demosthenes’ view of Thebes is developed further in the Second Philippic Chapter 4.1 at p. 206. 621 Demosthenes 5.17. οὐκ ἄχρι τῆς ἴσης ἕκαστός ἐστιν εὔνους οὔθ᾿ ἡμῖν οὔτε Θηβαίοις, σῶς τ᾿εἶναι καὶ κρατεῖν τῶν ἄλλων, ἀλλὰ σῶς μὲν εἶναι πάντες ἂν βούλοινθ᾿ ἕνεχ᾿ αὑτῶν, κρατήσαντας δὲ τοὺς ἑτέρους δεσπότας ὑπάρχειν αὑτῶν οὐδὲ εἷς. 622 Demosthenes 5.15. οὔκουν πρόοιντ᾿ ἂν αὑτοὺς εἰς τοῦτο, μὴ κοινῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς αἰτίας οὔσης τοῦ πολέμου. 623 Demosthenes 5.17. τί οὖν ἡγοῦμαι φοβερὸν καὶ τί φυλάξασθαι δεῖν ἡμᾶς; μὴ κοινὴν πρόφασιν καὶ κοινὸν ἔγκλημ᾽ ὁ μέλλων πόλεμος πρὸς ἅπαντας λάβῃ. 624 181 only shown itself incompetent to prevent Philip, but Macedonia is now the glue to unite their enemies against them. To make the Athenians realise the danger of this new political climate, Demosthenes lists those with grievances against Athens, noting in particular how ‘the Argives and Messenians and Megalopolitans…are going to be hostile to us because of our embassy to Sparta’; the Thebans, as Athens accepted refugees from Boeotia; the Thessalians, for Athens harbouring the Phocians; and Philip ‘because we are trying to prevent him joining the Amphictyony.’625 My fear is that all of these, each angry about their own individual grievances, may launch a joint war against us, using the decrees of the Amphictyons as a pretext, and as a result may be drawn in beyond what is to their own advantage, just as happened in the case of Phocis.626 Thus, by not dealing with their apathy and lack of action, Athens has both diminished its reputation and permitted Philip to grow, enabling unforeseen consequences: their disjointed enemies can now achieve their individual aims, under the leadership of Philip.627 Demosthenes asserts it was the same with the Thessalians and their desire for the Pylaea and Delphi: 625 Demosthenes 5.18-19. Trevett 2011: 96-97 notes this embassy to Sparta is not recorded elsewhere. He also notes the Plataean refugees were granted Athenian citizenship which angered the Thebans, and Philip was angry at their attempt to block him receiving the two seats that had belonged to Phocis on the Amphictyonic council. Demosthenes 5.19. φοβοῦμαι μὴ πάντες περὶ τῶν ἰδίων ἕκαστος ὀργιζόμενος κοινὸν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀγάγωσι τὸν πόλεμον, τὰ τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων δόγματα προστησάμενοι, εἶτ᾿ ἐπισπασθῶσιν ἕκαστοι πέρα τοῦ συμφέροντος ἑαυτοῖς [ἡμῖν πολεμῆσαι], ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ Φωκέας. 626 Demosthenes 5.20-22 notes that this even involved them conceding power to Philip: the Thebans ‘were unable to prevent Philip from passing through and seizing the pass or from coming at the last minute and taking for himself the glory of their own labours. [21]…in terms of honour and reputation, the result has brought great shame on them. For if Philip had not passed through, they knew that they would have gained nothing.’ For the Thebans: [22] ‘since they wished to capture Orchomenus and Coroneia but were unable to do so, they put up with them all. 627 182 It was their desire for these that induced them to collaborate in what was done. You will find that each party was induced by private concerns to do much that it did not wish to do. This, is what we must guard against. 628 Furthermore, Philip’s particular acquirement of Thermopylae epitomised the extent of Athens’ decline. Praised in the First Philippic for their swift response in blocking Philip’s pass through the Hot Gates following Crocus Field, the Athenians now endure Philip’s unrestricted access to Greece. Through their neglect and apathy, Philip has succeeded in achieving his priority, access to Greece: And yet some dare to assert that Philip did not in fact wish to hand over Orchomenus and Coroneia to the Thebans but was forced to do so. Let them think so. I know that these things were of less concern to him than his wish to take the pass of Thermopylae and the glory of claiming responsibility for bringing the war to an end and the presidency of the Pythian festival – these were what he aimed for. 629 Epilogue Whilst all of this serves as a severe lesson in ignoring Demosthenes’ advice, it also reminds the Athenians what the Peace has already cost them, and the practicality that it is not worth justifying war against them over an indignity. They can, however, redeem themselves by recognising how their attitudes and decisions led to this decline in power. Having already asserted that it would have been better never to make the peace than to break it now, the Athenians must live with the consequences of their decisions without further exacerbating their situation: Demosthenes 5.23. τῷ δὲ τούτων γλίχεσθαι τάδε συγκατέπραξαν. τῶν τοίνυν ἰδίων ἕνεχ᾿ εὑρήσεθ᾿ ἕκαστον πολλὰ προηγμένον ὧν οὐδὲν ἐβούλετο πρᾶξαι. τοῦτο μέντοι, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν φυλακτέον ἡμῖν. 628 Demosthenes 5.22. Φίλιππον τοίνυν τινὲς μὲν δήπου τολμῶσι λέγειν ὡς οὐδ᾿ ἐβούλετο Θηβαίοις Ὀρχομενὸν καὶ Κορώνειαν παραδοῦναι, ἀλλ᾿ ἠναγκάσθη· ἐγὼ δὲ τούτοις μὲν ἐρρῶσθαι λέγω, ἐκεῖνο δ᾿ οἶδ᾿, ὅτι οὐ μᾶλλόν γε ταῦτ᾿ ἔμελεν αὐτῷ ἢ τὰς παρόδους λαβεῖν ἐβούλετο καὶ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ δοκεῖν δι᾿ αὑτὸν κρίσιν εἰληφέναι, καὶ τὰ Πύθια θεῖναι δι᾿ αὑτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτ᾿ ἦν ὧν μάλιστ᾿ ἐγλίχετο. 629 183 Must we then do as we are told, for fear of these consequences? Is this what you are telling us to do? Far from it. Rather, I think that we should not act in any way that is unworthy of ourselves, or so as to bring about war, but should let everyone see that we are sensible and that what we say is just. That is what I think we should do.630 By not acting on Demosthenes’ previous speeches, the unpleasant reality is that the Athenians can no longer afford to act as they please, and complaining after the event serves no other purpose than to further demonstrate their ignorance of the situation. As Demosthenes warned in the Olynthiacs and the First Philippic, that the gap between logos and ergon has not only made their ‘allies die of fear’, but has significantly damaged their reputation.631 To this end, he calls the Athenians to think of the bigger picture and note how: It would therefore be foolish and quite shocking for us, who are acting in this way towards each party individually about our own vital interests, to go to war now against all of them over the shadow at Delphi. 632 The P.Berol.inv.21188 papyrus from Hermoupolis preserves a commentary on this final part of On the Peace, stating that Didymus considered πρὸς πάντας περὶ τῆς ἐν Δελφοῖς σκιᾶς νυνὶ πολεμῆσαι an adaptation on the proverbial saying ‘to fight for an ass’ shadow’, i.e. not worth fighting over. 633 I believe Demosthenes plays on this to criticise their pointless deliberations, and to emphasise the need to address their own culpability rather than bemoan Demosthenes 5.24. “τὰ κελευόμεν᾿ ἡμᾶς ἄρα δεῖ ποιεῖν ταῦτα φοβουμένους; καὶ σὺ ταῦτα κελεύεις;” πολλοῦ γε καὶ δέω. ἀλλ’ ὡς οὔτε πράξομεν οὐδὲν ἀνάξιον ἡμῶν αὐτῶν οὔτ’ ἔσται πόλεμος, νοῦν δὲ δόξομεν πᾶσιν ἔχειν καὶ τὰ δίκαια λέγειν, τοῦτ’ οἶμαι δεῖν ποιεῖν. 630 631 Demosthenes 4.45. Demosthenes 5.25. οὐκοῦν εὔηθες καὶ κομιδῇ σχέτλιον, πρὸς ἑκάστους καθ᾿ ἕν᾿ οὕτω προσενηνεγμένους περὶ τῶν οἰκείων καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτων, πρὸς πάντας περὶ τῆς ἐν Δελφοῖς σκιᾶς νυνὶ πολεμῆσαι. 632 Gibson 2002: 172-3, ‘the standard aetiology of the expression is found’ in Pseudo-Plutarch Moralia 848a-b. The fable (which others associate with Aesop) is of a young man and an owner of an ass fighting over its shadow, resulting in the loss of the ass altogether. This proverbial expression was current during the fifth-century, the poet Archippus wrote a comedy Shadow of an Ass (ὄνου σκιά), and the expression is found at Aristophanes Wasps 191 Φιλοκλέων: περὶ ὄνου σκιᾶς, and at Plato Phaedrus 260c: μὴ περὶ ὄνου σκιᾶς ὡς ἵππου τὸν ἔπαινον ποιούμενος. 633 184 that which cannot be changed. 634 Moreover, I think Demosthenes seeks to shame their failure to act in defence of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea, Methone and Olynthus (that is, in defence of their interests), and yet they will risk war over Delphi to satisfy their vain pride. Instead, Demosthenes calls the Athenians to consider what they have already conceded: Those who rashly think that we should expose ourselves to any danger whatsoever, and who do not foresee the nature of such a war, I would invite to consider the following. We allow the Thebans to keep Oropus: if anyone should ask us why we do so, insisting that we tell the truth, we should reply “in order to avoid war.” [25] And now we have ceded Amphipolis to Philip in accordance with the treaty, and we allow the Cardians to be treated as separate from the other inhabitants of the Chersonese, and the Carian to seize the islands – Chios, Cos and Rhodes – and the Byzantines to detain ships, clearly believing that the tranquillity resulting from peace benefits us more than aggression and contentiousness about these issues. 635 Demosthenes shames them for their passive appeasement, and presents the illogical attitude of ‘those who rashly think that we should expose ourselves to danger whatsoever, and who do not foresee the nature of such a war’, and who risk provoking war – not to recover Amphipolis – but over an indignity. Demosthenes’ invitation to consider these events is likewise a reminder that they chose not to contest these losses, and of course the unmentioned failure to prevent the fall of Olynthus which was the topic of his Olynthiacs. That orators now spout outrage and enthusiasm to contest the indignity of Philip presiding over the Pythian 634 Gibson 2002: 174 notes that modern scholars tend to side with Weil 1912, who interprets Demosthenes as commenting on the worthlessness of participating in the Amphictyonic Council. Demosthenes 5.24-5. πρὸς δὲ τοὺς θρασέως ὁτιοῦν οἰομένους ὑπομεῖναι δεῖν καὶ μὴ προορωμένους τὸν πόλεμον, ἐκεῖνα βούλομαι λογίσασθαι. ἡμεῖς Θηβαίους ἐῶμεν ἔχειν Ὠρωπόν· καὶ εἴ τις ἔροιθ’ ἡμᾶς, κελεύσας εἰπεῖν τἀληθῆ, διὰ τί; ἵνα μὴ πολεμῶμεν, φαῖμεν ἄν. καὶ Φιλίππῳ νυνὶ κατὰ τὰς συνθήκας Ἀμφιπόλεως παρακεχωρήκαμεν, καὶ Καρδιανοὺς ἐῶμεν ἔξω Χερρονησιτῶν τῶν ἄλλων τετάχθαι, καὶ τὸν Κᾶρα τὰς νήσους καταλαμβάνειν, Χίον καὶ Κῶν καὶ Ῥόδον, καὶ Βυζαντίους κατάγειν τὰ πλοῖα, δῆλον ὅτι τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς εἰρήνης ἡσυχίαν πλειόνων ἀγαθῶν αἰτίαν εἶναι νομίζοντες ἢ τὸ προσκρούειν καὶ φιλονικεῖν περὶ τούτων. Trevett 2011: 99 notes that ‘the Carian’ is Idrieus, who succeeded his sister Artemisia as satrap and was a native Carian, not Persian. 635 185 Games just further demonstrates Demosthenes’ argument that the Assembly’s priorities are warped. Demosthenes’ disbelief is the same as in the First Philippic, where the Dionysia was always conducted efficiently, and yet their military preparations were on-the-spot reactionary efforts. So too now, the Assembly’s misunderstanding of the situation and their role in it, shows their ignorance of the true price of their apathy, and of a Peace they cannot afford to transgress. However, as stated in the proemium, Demosthenes believes there is hope and that this is rooted in the agency of the Athenians themselves if they are ‘willing to listen.’ 636 Thus, he closes the speech by appealing to the Assembly to remember its civic duty – ‘we should not act in any way that is unworthy of ourselves’ – and, evoking the Olynthiacs, to act in a manner worthy of the city and their identity as Athenian citizens. 637 Building on his previous speeches, where Demosthenes attributed their past successes to the virtues of their ancestors, likewise here in asking the Athenians to be seen as ‘sensible’ and ‘just’, he implores the Athenians to think rationally, to recover their equilibrium, and to demonstrate their characteristic wisdom. To act against Philip over a formality would cause catastrophic damage to their already tarnished reputation, demonstrating rash ignorance and a disregard for what they have already conceded to the Peace. Recalling their past mistakes, such as Euboea and Neoptolemus, and the danger of theatricality in deliberative oratory, Demosthenes entreats the Assembly to learn from past mistakes and to ignore the rash advice of populist rhētors. To conclude, this speech demonstrates how Demosthenes focuses fundamentally on the corruption of the Assembly and the impossible task of advising a hostile dēmos. Their Demosthenes 5.3. ‘I stand before you convinced that if you are willing to listen, without making a disturbance or showing ill will, as is appropriate for those who are deliberating on behalf of they city about matters of such importance, I will be able to speak and to advise you on how the present situation may be improved’. 636 637 Demosthenes 5.24. As quoted in full on p. 185. 186 refusal to acknowledge his assertion since the First Philippic, that their situation will only deteriorate if they do not shake of their apathy, has not only been vindicated by events, but stands as a testament to his own sincerity. Thus, reinforced by these events, Demosthenes condemns the Assembly for following the advice of self-serving rhētors, and their refusal to acknowledge their internal flaws and the dangers of empty rhetoric, which has only served to exacerbate their external problems. Their current deliberations further demonstrate their ignorance of the situation and its causes, and Demosthenes ties their delusion directly to their current problems. As he will go on to argue in the following speeches, the Athenians cannot hope to deal with their external issues without addressing this internal delusion and those maintaining it by manipulating the Assembly. As Demosthenes has asserted since the First Philippic, this is first and foremost an internal crisis and can only be mitigated by the Assembly recognising the self-inflicted damage caused by this internal corruption. Thus, On the Peace categorically affirms that they must learn the lessons from the Peace: to recognise the intentions of speakers, to listen to honest advice, and to act in a manner worthy of Athens.638 638 Sandys 1913: xxiv notes that that the speech was successful. 187 CHAPTER FOUR THE POST-PEACE SPEECHES ‘It would have been better had we never made the peace at all’ This chapter examines how the next three speeches (Demosthenes 6, 8, 9) continue and develop Demosthenes’ original arguments in the pre-Peace speeches, calling the Athenians to reflect self-critically and act. As demonstrated in the previous chapter in On the Peace, Demosthenes’ arguments have now been vindicated and validated by events, and consequently the speeches appear to ring with greater conviction. 639 But as established in On the Peace, the significant change in the post-Peace speeches is the need to avoid provoking war against Athens. To this end, criticism of Philip shifts from merely diminishing him as an unworthy opponent, to making it unequivocal that Macedonia, not Athens, has breached the terms of the peace, thus safeguarding the Athenians from a sacred coalition. 640 Demosthenes asserts in On the Chersonese and the Third Philippic that the Athenians cannot hope to deal with external issues before they resolve their internal crisis. 641 Thus his argument centres on making the Athenians realise that Macedonian expansionism is a product of Athenian apathy, and addresses this with his blunt parrhēsia. Continuing the careful balance of praise and blame from the pre-Peace speeches, Demosthenes uses social memory and Athens’ past reputation to prescribe the values that define Athenian identity. As such, I maintain that Demosthenes prioritises resolving Athens’ internal crisis over any potential ‘anti-Macedonian’ agenda. Indeed, the speeches, in my opinion, maintain a direct Mader 2004: 64 comments that ‘Yesterday’s warnings, duly vindicated by events, give cogency to Demosthenes’ predictions about tomorrow.’ 639 As established in On the Peace, Philip was now in a position that he could unite Athens’ enemies against them in the name of Sacred War if they breached the peace. 640 641 Indeed, their actions against Diopeithes and against their own interests presents a damning assessment of their lack of realisation, a woeful misreading of the situation, and a continued rejection of Demosthenes’ advice. 188 continuation of his arguments in the First Philippic: that their problems are self-inflicted through their misguided attitudes and lack of action, and thus can only be resolved by acknowledging their flaws and resolving to change. 642 As such, the speeches focus on promoting a return to Athenian values, and that practicing core Athenian virtues will see their ideology manifest itself against their external and internal enemies. Again I believe Usher 1999: 233 has overlooked this in his assertion that ‘the speech is directed at two enemies, not one.’ This is written under the pretence that Philip was the sole enemy, and this new ‘dual character’ is ‘not only a contribution… to the debate on Philip’s complaint, but a foretaste of Demosthenes’ personal crusade against “philippizers”.’ This gives the insinuation that these internal enemies are secondary to Philip, and the ‘personal crusade’ is a new angle of attack. As this thesis has demonstrated, Demosthenes’ consistent core arguments have focused on the internal corruption within the Assembly since the First Philippic, and the crisis with Philip is a byproduct of this internal crisis. And rather than adding the internal traitors to his arguments, this thesis has shown that Demosthenes’ argument focuses on resolving their internal crisis before they can hope to deal with their external issues, which he will explicitly state in On the Chersonese and the Third Philippic. 642 189 CHAPTER 4.1 THE SECOND PHILIPPIC The Second Philippic continues Demosthenes’ warnings since the First Philippic of their damaging behaviour in the Assembly, but his post-peace rhetoric channels this into demonstrating the damage caused by their apathetic attitude, and the deception within the Assembly. Demosthenes’ complaint is that the Assembly cannot differentiate between good advice and flattery, and do not (or will not) recognise that they have repeatedly been persuaded to act against their own interests. It is the Athenians who have inflicted untold damage upon themselves, not Philip despite his aggressive expansionism. For Demosthenes the problem, as in the First Philippic, is rooted in the corruption of their decision-making processes which is blinded by flattery, and easy gratification. In the Second Philippic, Demosthenes continues to vindicate himself to an Assembly that ignored good advice and shunned those brave enough to speak unwelcome truths. 643 Trevett observes that the speech takes on a ‘chauvinistic’ tone, which I believe reflects both Demosthenes’ sense of vindication following the fallout from the Peace of Philocrates, but also Trevett’s point that Demosthenes seeks to highlight how Athens is the only state concerned for Greece as a whole. But rather than being purely ‘chauvinistic’, I argue that Demosthenes’ emphasis on Athens’ unique position within Greece is central to his ongoing argument that they must recognise their responsibility in both enabling Macedonian expansion and change the attitudes which permitted this to happen. 644 A defining feature of this speech is Demosthenes’ narrative method of past exempla and the use of Persian War rhetoric and Herodotean ideals of Athenianness to strengthen the Again asserting parrhēsia as a form of civic courage (Balot 2004). See earlier reference p. 140 in Chapter 2.3 Third Olynthiac. 643 Again, I must emphasise that I am referring to Demosthenes’ rhetorical arguments and the narrative of the situation in Greece that he creates in the speeches, and not any historical reality of the causes of Macedonian Expansion. As noted earlier in the thesis, I view the expansion of the Macedonian Kingdom under Philip as the result of his own unique character and the reforms he put in place. 644 190 impact of his argument that the current Athenians no longer embody Athenian ideological values.645 Demosthenes uses the social memory of this conflict to define the natures of all involved in the current crisis and to remind the Athenians of their own role in Panhellenic affairs. Whilst this defines Philip in the role of external aggressor and the Thebans as inevitable Medizers, it also serves to remind the Athenians of the behaviour expected of them as the traditional defenders of Greek liberty. 646 Demosthenes applies these nuances to the current situation to denounce those within Athens who sought (and still seek) to persuade the Athenians to negotiate with Philip, and calls the Assembly to hold these men accountable and to reject them and their damaging practices. Historical Context The Second Philippic was delivered in 344/3 to persuade the Assembly to reject the proposed changes to the Peace of Philocrates. 647 Various sources refer to diplomatic actions occurring at this time: On Halonnesus in 343/2 refers to an embassy involving Python of Byzantium ‘from Philip to Athens that offered to negotiate changes to the Peace of Philocrates.’ 648 Didymus refers to an embassy from Philip that coincided with the Persians’ embassy for help on their Egyptian campaign, attested to by Philochorus, and Diodorus and Libanius cite the ‘Philippic Histories’ (presumably Theopompus’) remarking on an embassy to Athens of Particularly the ideals of Marathon, which became the ‘cornerstone of their identity’ and had a ‘prescriptive force for future conduct.’ Steinbock 2013: 53-54; Gehrke 2001: 302; Jung 2006: 130 n.11. 645 Steinbock 2013: 36 notes ‘the Thebans generally occupied an overwhelmingly negative place in Athenian historical consciousness due to their alliance with Xerxes...[nevertheless, Athens]… did not entirely forget Theban aid for the Athenian democrats in 404/3.’ 646 Trevett 2011: 100 notes that consensus of opinion accepts Dionysius’ date of 344/3 (Letter to Ammaeus 10), following an embassy ‘from the Peloponnese’. 647 648 Trevett 2011: 102. 191 ‘Macedonians, Messenians, and Argives’, and Philip’s letter to the Athenians complains that they had ignored representatives sent from ‘the whole alliance.’ 649 Prior to the Second Philippic, Athens had attempted to block Philip’s influence in the Peloponnese (as suggested by Demosthenes reference to his own ambassadorial role to the Messenians at 6.26). For reasons that are debated, Philip sent Python of Byzantium to Athens in 344/3 to renegotiate the Peace of Philocrates to a common peace. 650 If put into effect it would involve each polis swearing the mandatory oath to Philip and each other and subsequently Athens’ allies ‘would no longer be bound to Athens.’651 Such changes would only further shift the balance of power out of Athens’ favour, particularly when Philip’s expanding sphere of influence grew closer to the Chersonese and Hellespont region. 652 The Second Philippic however, does not comment directly on the revisions of the Peace, and Demosthenes’ lack of comment on the revisions can be considered a reply in and of itself, ‘Philip’s offer was not even worth discussing.’653 I argue that Demosthenes’ lack of comment demonstrates that his priority is to make the Athenians realise how Philip is a product of their own lack of action, and the pressing need to change their attitudes before it is 649 Trevett 2011: 100-1 citing Didymus Col.8.8; Philochorus FGH 328 fr. 157; Diodorus 16.44; Demosthenes 12.18. MacDowell 2009: 239 concurs. 650 The allied synedrion had originally wanted a common peace in 346. Worthington 2013: 193 suggests Python may have been sent in response to Artaxerxes III Orchus seeking Athenian support and to block any potential Greek-Persian alliance. MacDowell 2009: 329 conversely argues that ‘there is no particular reason why it should make any reference to Persia.’ Worthington 2013: 193-4 argues that peace was not necessarily in Athens’ best interest ‘the proposed change from a bilateral peace to a common peace would weaken the Athenians’ hegemony of their confederacy.’ 651 Worthington 2013: 199: considers this as Demosthenes ‘closing the door’ on any peaceful resolution with Macedonia, just one aspect of a growing Anti-Macedonian sentiment within Athens at the time. On Philip’s growing influence see Worthington 2013: 215. 652 653 Trevett 2011: 103. MacDowell 2009: 331-332 suggests that this was due to Demosthenes being unaware of Python’s suggestions, and so he did not prepare a direct response. Worthington 2013: 195 suggests that due to its abrupt ending, the surviving speech is a draft written in advance of Python’s speech, with the intention of extemporising a response. Worthington also alternatively suggests that Demosthenes ‘wanted to rouse the people against Philip’, leaving specific details to Hegesippus, however, I contest the presumption that the speech’s purpose is primarily anti-Philip. But the precedence for this team work is noted by Trevett 1996: 431 from Aeschines 3.72 that during the Peace negotiations Demosthenes prepared the way for Philocrates’ proposals, and thus just because Demosthenes does not ‘explicitly introduce a motion does not imply that the speeches were not delivered in support of one.’ 192 too late. The speech serves to remind the citizens that the Peace has not been to Athens’ interests, and their agreement to it was a result of deception, and manipulation by traitors working within Athens bribed by Philip. The speech seeks to make the Athenians realise, firstly, how Philip’s actions rather than his words declare his destructive intentions towards Athens. Secondly, anyone who attempts to convince the Assembly otherwise (who incidentally are the same men who deceived the polis with false hopes that Philip would be true to his word) misguides the Assembly, violating Athenian values and undermines their identity. Demosthenes juxtaposes Athenian ideology with the reality of the present, to force the Assembly to recognise themselves, and their real (internal) enemies. As he concludes, ‘if you had not been deceived then, there would be no danger to our city, since surely Philip would never have been able to attack Attica’. 654 Analysis Proemium Demosthenes opens by asserting two facts: that, it is indisputable that Philip has breached the peace, and secondly, that due to the gap between Athenian logos and ergon, Athens’ apathetic attitude is its own worst enemy: Whenever, men of Athens, we discuss Philip’s actions and his violent breaches of the peace, I always observe that the speeches on our side are manifestly just and considerate, and those who accuse Philip seem always to say what needs to be said, Demosthenes 6.36. He continues ‘...either with a fleet, by defeating you at sea, or with an army, by marching through Thermopylae and Phocis, but either he would be acting justly and keeping quiet, upholding the peace, or he would immediately find himself in a war similar to the one which led him at that time to desire peace.’ 6.36 in full, εἰ γὰρ μὴ παρεκρούσθητε τόθ᾿ ὑμεῖς, οὐδὲν ἂν ἦν τῇ πόλει πρᾶγμα· οὔτε γὰρ ναυσὶ δήπου κρατήσας εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἦλθεν ἄν ποτε στόλῳ Φίλιππος, οὔτε πεζῇ βαδίζων ὑπὲρ τὰς Πύλας καὶ Φωκέας, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ τὰ δίκαι᾿ ἂν ἐποίει καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην ἄγων ἡσυχίαν εἶχεν, ἢ παραχρῆμ᾿ ἂν ἦν ἐν ὁμοίῳ πολέμῳ δι᾿ ὃν τότε τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπεθύμησεν. 654 193 but virtually no necessary action is taken, which would make the speeches worth hearing.655 This returns to Demosthenes’ complaint at empty rhetoric and how speeches ad infinitum without qualifying action are worthless and detrimental to progress. 656 It is a new development, however, that Philip takes such a predominant position so early in the speech. Immediately after this opening remark, Demosthenes states that: Our entire situation has already reached the point that the more fully and clearly Philip is convicted of breaking the peace with you and of plotting against all of Greece, the more difficult it is to advise you what to do. 657 This continues the correlation between Philip’s rise and the deteriorating situation within the Assembly, but also demonstrates the difficulty in advising the dēmos, which is the only means to resolve their deteriorating situation. The assertion of Philip’s intentions against Greece serves the purpose of criticising the Athenians on their blinkered reality, and the difficulties they make for themselves. Here as in the previous speeches, Demosthenes attests to the difficulties in persuading the Assembly to take action in their own interests, particularly when it involves acknowledging unwelcome truths about their own responsibilities. Again, Demosthenes asserts that, ‘the blame belongs to all of us, men of Athens’ (αἴτιον δὲ τούτων, ὅτι πάντας, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι), because the Assembly is hostile to good advice: Demosthenes 6.1. ὅταν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, λόγοι γίγνωνται περὶ ὧν Φίλιππος πράττει καὶ βιάζεται παρὰ τὴν εἰρήνην, ἀεὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν λόγους καὶ δικαίους καὶ φιλανθρώπους ὁρῶ φαινομένους, καὶ λέγειν μὲν ἅπαντας ἀεὶ τὰ δέοντα δοκοῦντας τοὺς κατηγοροῦντας Φιλίππου, γιγνόμενον δ’ οὐδὲν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν τῶν δεόντων, οὐδ’ ὧν εἵνεκα ταῦτ’ ἀκούειν ἄξιον· MacDowell 2009: 329 observes that ‘by 344 this [logos and ergon] was a familiar theme, but it is handled more elaborately here than elsewhere.’ 656 As noted earlier at Demosthenes 4.50, 2.12. See further discussion at Demosthenes 8.23 p.239. 655 Demosthenes 6.2. ἀλλ’ εἰς τοῦτ’ ἤδη προηγμένα τυγχάνει πάντα τὰ πράγματα τῇ πόλει, ὥσθ’ ὅσῳ τις ἂν μᾶλλον καὶ φανερώτερον ἐξελέγχῃ Φίλιππον καὶ τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰρήνην παραβαίνοντα καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐπιβουλεύοντα, τοσούτῳ τὸ τί χρὴ ποιεῖν συμβουλεῦσαι χαλεπώτερον. 657 194 At a time when those who are greedy and ambitious should be punished by deeds and actions, not by words, first we speakers shrink from making proposals and offering advice, fearing we will incur your enmity.658 This evokes his complaint in the Third Olynthiac that advisers risk the wrath of the Assembly in their parrhēsia, but those who harm the polis are protected. In this Demosthenes also reflects the wider concerns of the breakdown of the deliberative process we see discussed by Thucydides – particularly consequences of generating a hostile environment for honest advisers.659 This is especially prominent if we compare the fettered speech of Persia in Aeschylus’ Persians to the freedom of parrhēsia in Athens, as Saxonhouse notes: The overthrow of Persian tyranny is marked by the unfettering of the tongue. Despotism restrains while the free city of Athens releases speech; it is the free city of the unfettered tongue that resists, with forces way outnumbered, the men of the Persian army whose tongues speak neither of truth nor of freedom. The pride of the Athenians in their practice of parrhēsia issues boldly from the lips of Aeschylus’ Persian chorus. The glory of Athens lies in this freedom. 660 In their hostility to parrhēsia, Demosthenes explains how Athenian misfortunes are the result of rejecting the values that assured Athenian victory. Moreover, as in On the Peace, the Athenians will speak at length on their injustices, but will not bridge the gap between their words and actions: Demosthenes 6.3. τοὺς πλεονεκτεῖν ζητοῦντας ἔργῳ κωλύειν καὶ πράξεσιν, οὐχὶ λόγοις δέον, πρῶτον μὲν ἡμεῖς οἱ παριόντες τούτων μὲν ἀφέσταμεν καὶ γράφειν καὶ συμβουλεύειν, τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀπέχθειαν ὀκνοῦντες. 658 One could compare Thucydides 3.4 and Diodotus’ complaint that the Assembly’s (or rather Cleon’s) attitude ‘does the city no good; her counsellors will be afraid to speak and she will be deprived of their services.’ 659 660 Saxonhouse 2006: 89 on Aeschylus Persians 584-94. This is also relevant later in the speech when Demosthenes’ specifically refers to the Persian Wars. 195 But we go on about how terrible his behaviour is and the like; then you who sit there are better prepared than Philip to make and listen to speeches that are just, but you are utterly idle when it comes to preventing him from carrying out his current plans.661 This highlights two crucial flaws Demosthenes has addressed in all of the speeches: that the Athenians are deficient because of the gap between their words and deeds, and subsequently, they are fundamentally at odds with their ideology and reputation as pre-eminently intelligent active defenders of Greece. 662 Consequently, Demosthenes deduces their situation as predictable: The result is inevitable, I suppose, and perhaps even reasonable – each of you surpasses the other in the things that you spend time on and that you take seriously – he in action and you in words. 663 Thus, their failure to translate logos into ergon has been to the detriment of the polis. Nor does the situation at hand call for a choice of words or action, but the need to recognise the damage caused by an Assembly that indulges itself with speeches and has forgotten its own civic responsibility to listen wisely and act.664 Isocrates too comments on attitudes towards oratory at the end of the Panathenaicus where he praises those in the audience who can differentiate between discourses that, Demosthenes 6.3. οἷα ποιεῖ δ’, ὡς δεινά, καὶ τοιαῦτα διεξερχόμεθα· ἔπειθ’ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθήμενοι, ὡς μὲν ἂν εἴποιτε δικαίους λόγους καὶ λέγοντος ἄλλου συνείητε, ἄμεινον Φιλίππου παρεσκεύασθε, ὡς δὲ κωλύσαιτ’ ἂν ἐκεῖνον πράττειν ταῦτ’ ἐφ’ ὧν ἐστι νῦν, παντελῶς ἀργῶς ἔχετε. Guth 2015: 342 argues that Philip’s ‘ignorance of the art of speaking is part of his characterisation as a typical barbarian king’, which will develop more fully later in On the False Embassy to silencing Philip as a ‘barbarian monarch lacking the capacity for persuasive speech’ Guth 2015: 341. 661 Pericles calls Athens ‘an education for Greece.’ Thucydides 2.41.1; Plato Protagoras 319b ‘City Hall of Wisdom of Hellas.’ 662 Demosthenes 6.4. συμβαίνει δὴ πρᾶγμ’ ἀναγκαῖον, οἶμαι, καὶ ἴσως εἰκός· ἐν οἷς ἑκάτεροι διατρίβετε καὶ περὶ ἃ σπουδάζετε, ταῦτ’ ἄμεινον ἑκατέροις ἔχει, ἐκείνῳ μὲν αἱ πράξεις, ὑμῖν δ’ οἱ λόγοι. 663 664 This again recalls his complaints at On the Peace 5.7 pp. 172-3 that they treat deliberation in the Assembly like the Theatre of Dionysius. 196 aim at the truth (tēs alētheias stochazomenous) rather than those that seek to deceive the opinions (doxas) of the audience, and those that rebuke and admonish wrongdoers more than those delivered to please or delight. 665 In doing so Isocrates, as Livingstone notes, creates the impression that there are fundamentally two types of logoi, good and bad, and defines his own ‘Isocratean Voice’ as the former which is morally superior. 666 In the same manner, I believe Demosthenes utilises the same dichotomy between his own benevolent logos against the malignant logos of others, and he repeatedly calls the Assembly to recognise this. 667 Unfortunately, the insinuation remains that the Athenians do not take their words seriously, but rather have paralysed themselves with empty rhetorical flattery. Thus, if the Athenians are all about words compared to Philip, they fail here too. Exacerbating this is their apathetic attitude rendering them ‘utterly idle’. 668 Now, like in the Pre-Peace Speeches, Demosthenes focuses attention away from the image of an insuppressibly powerful Philip, onto the agency of the Athenians: ‘If, even now, you are content to speak with more justice than he, it is easy for you to do so, and no additional effort is required from you.’669 665 Isocrates Panathenaicus 12.271. 666 Livingstone 1998: 273. 667 Again evoking the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric. 668 Philip is not unscathed here either, as Demosthenes presents the Macedonian King as likewise only half of an ideal at the other end of the logos/praxis spectrum. This lack of logos, however, is not surprising when describing others and non-Greeks. Of course, this is from Demosthenes’ perspective, who has no need to be truthful in his account of Philip. Archaeological evidence at Pella and Vergina demonstrate that the Macedonian capitals were far from the backwaters: Pella was built on a Hippodamian plan with a carefully designed water-supply and drainage system and was a centre of the arts: Euripides and Zeuxis were visiting artists to the Macedonian court. Vergina’s Royal Tombs contained items of exceptional work – such as the chryselephantine biers, the facade of Philip’s tomb of the hunt, and the abduction scene in the tomb of Persephone - probably by Nikomachos mid-4th century, (See Hammond 1994: 40-44; Andronikos 1984. Drougou and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2008). Archaeological discoveries at the Upper Macedonian site of Ainai have also demonstrated that ‘it is no longer possible to support the erroneous and anachronistic view – unfortunately once widely held – that Upper Macedonia was socially and culturally isolated.’ Karamitrou-Mentesidi 1996: 82. An understanding of Macedonian sophistication equalling that of established Greek poleis is now gaining increasing recognition in classical scholarship, most recently in Brun 2015: 10-11. Demosthenes 6.4. εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ νῦν λέγειν δικαιότερ’ ὑμῖν ἐξαρκεῖ, ῥᾴδιον, καὶ πόνος οὐδεὶς πρόσεστι τῷ πράγματι· 669 197 As such, Demosthenes offers a solution to the deficiencies of the Assembly by noting the flaws in deliberation: But if we must examine how to correct the present situation, and to prevent matters going even further without our noticing them, and the establishment against us of a massive and irresistible power, we must change our previous manner of deliberation, and all of us, speakers and audience, must choose those policies that are the best and will save us, instead of those that are easiest and most agreeable. 670 Demosthenes asserts that this external crisis, the now undisputed power and position of Macedonia in Greece, is a result of the vices of the Assembly, who still choose that which is pleasing and easy over that which is necessary. 671 Narrative The narrative focuses on establishing how Philip is their enemy, and reminds the Athenians of their historic role and duty to resist tyrannical powers. Firstly, the need for an urgent change of attitude is reflected in Demosthenes’ shift in opinion on Philip from the First Philippic. Whilst in 351 Demosthenes asserted that anyone who judged Philip as formidable was not acknowledging Athens’ role in enabling Macedonian expansion, now, as a result of their lack of action and the Peace of Philocrates, the danger of Philip’s power cannot be denied: First, men of Athens, if anyone is confident when he sees how great Philip is and how much he controls, and thinks that this carries no danger to our city, and that these preparations of his are not all directed at us, I am amazed and wish to ask all of you to Demosthenes 6.5. εἰ δ’ ὅπως τὰ παρόντ’ ἐπανορθωθήσεται δεῖ σκοπεῖν καὶ μὴ προελθόντ’ ἔτι πορρωτέρω λήσει πάνθ’ ἡμᾶς, μηδ’ ἐπιστήσεται μέγεθος δυνάμεως πρὸς ἣν οὐδ’ ἀντᾶραι δυνησόμεθα, οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος ὅσπερ πρότερον τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς λέγουσιν ἅπασι καὶ τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ὑμῖν τὰ βέλτιστα καὶ τὰ σώσοντα τῶν ῥᾴστων καὶ τῶν ἡδίστων προαιρετέον. 670 671 See earlier reference to Prodicus’ Virtue and Vice in Chapter 2.1 p.96 at Demosthenes 1.15. 198 listen briefly to the reasons why I expect the opposite result and judge Philip to be our enemy, so that you may be persuaded by me, if you think I show better foresight. 672 Their current pattern of behaviour has enabled Philip to rise as a formidable enemy and Demosthenes asserts that anyone who denies this as either naïve, short-sighted, or in Philip’s pay.673 This resonates specifically with Aeschines’ position that they should accept Philip’s proposed amendments, following the corruption that led to the Peace of Philocrates: For my part, men of Athens, I reckon as follows. Which places did Philip first get control of after making the peace? Thermopylae and Phocis. Well then, how did he treat them? He chose to act in the Thebans’ interests instead of ours. Why did he do this? I think that he examined his options with a view to his greed and to bringing everything under his control, not to peace or quite or justice. 674 As discussed in the previous chapter, this is exactly the opposite of what Athens had been promised would happen. Not only has Philip demonstrated that his true intentions speak through his actions not his words, but his actions are geared against Athenian interests. 675 Moreover, Philip’s motives of hybris (ὓβρις) and pleonexia (πλεονεξία) should trigger alarm in the Assembly as they ‘are exactly the same motives that the Athenians traditionally Demosthenes 6.6. πρῶτον μέν, εἴ τις, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, θαρρεῖ, ὁρῶν ἡλίκος ἤδη καὶ ὅσων κύριός ἐστι Φίλιππος, καὶ μηδέν’ οἴεται κίνδυνον φέρειν τοῦτο τῇ πόλει μηδ’ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς πάντα παρασκευάζεσθαι, θαυμάζω, καὶ δεηθῆναι πάντων ὁμοίως ὑμῶν βούλομαι τοὺς λογισμοὺς ἀκοῦσαί μου διὰ βραχέων, δι’ οὓς τἀναντί’ ἐμοὶ παρέστηκε προσδοκᾶν καὶ δι’ ὧν ἐχθρὸν ἡγοῦμαι Φίλιππον· ἵν’, ἐὰν μὲν ἐγὼ δοκῶ βέλτιον προορᾶν, ἐμοὶ πεισθῆτε, cf. 4.4-6. 672 As Usher 1999: 233 observes, the use of echthros instead of polemios to describe Philip ‘implies that the conduct of outright war was not necessary for enmity to be affirmed.’ 673 Demosthenes 6.7. ἐγὼ τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, λογίζομαι· τίνων ὁ Φίλιππος κύριος πρῶτον μετὰ τὴν εἰρήνην κατέστη; πυλῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Φωκεῦσι πραγμάτων. τί οὖν; πῶς τούτοις ἐχρήσατο; ἃ Θηβαίοις συμφέρει καὶ οὐχ ἃ τῇ πόλει, πράττειν προείλετο. τί δήποτε; ὅτι πρὸς πλεονεξίαν, οἶμαι, καὶ τὸ πάνθ’ ὑφ’ αὑτῷ ποιήσασθαι τοὺς λογισμοὺς ἐξετάζων, καὶ οὐχὶ πρὸς εἰρήνην οὐδ’ ἡσυχίαν οὐδὲ δίκαιον οὐδέν. Demosthenes repeats this point on Thermopylae and Phocis at the end of the speech 6.35. Worthington 2013: 194 notes that Aeschines was in favour of Philip’s changes, according to Demosthenes 18.136. 674 This is also reminiscent of Demosthenes’ assertion in the Olynthiacs that Philip deceived the Olynthians and Potideans. 675 199 ascribed to the Persian King.’ 676 Accordingly, anyone who continues to promote Philip’s promises both deceives the polis, but also surrenders Athens to Philip, in a shameful manner at odds with their past stance against tyranny. 677 As such, Demosthenes returns to his method of interweaving praise and criticism, which overarches the speech: the proemium criticised the Athenians, blaming them for Philip’s rise and their current position. Demosthenes in turn praises their national identity as both a solution to their crisis, but also a reminder of how far removed they are from these exempla. Through the lens of Philip, Demosthenes states that: He saw correctly that our city and our national character are such that nothing he could offer or do would induce us to abandon any of the other Greeks to him for our own benefit, but that you would take account of justice, shun the infamy associated with betrayal, make all necessary plans, and resist him, if he tried to do anything of this kind, just as if you were at war. 678 While τοῖς ἤθεσι τοῖς ἡμετέροις can mean ‘our character’ or ‘our customs’, in the context of this passage Demosthenes is arguably implying a sense of ‘national character’, as Trevett’s translation follows. Thus, just as Demosthenes evoked their behaviour in the Corinthian War in the First Philippic to remind the Athenians of what they could achieve when they acted with conviction, Demosthenes evokes the idealised image of Athens as incorruptible to remind them of their duty. 679 The irony (and arguably the point) is that due to traitors in Philip’s pay, the Assembly has allegedly been manipulated to endorse false hopes and act Steinbock 2013: 143: cf. Lysias 2.12 on Darius’ πλεονεξία, 2.29 on Xerxes’ hybris; Herodotus 7.8, 7.16; Aeschylus Persians 807-8, 816-22 where Darius’ ghost comments on Xerxes’ hybris. 676 Steinbock 2013: 143 notes that Demosthenes’ reference to hybris and pleonexia prepares the Assembly for further assimilation of Philip and Xerxes. 677 Demosthenes 6.8. εἶδε τοῦτ’ ὀρθῶς, ὅτι τῇ μὲν ἡμετέρᾳ πόλει καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσι τοῖς ἡμετέροις οὐδὲν ἂν ἐνδείξαιτο τοσοῦτον οὐδὲ ποιήσειεν, ὑφ’ οὗ πεισθέντες ὑμεῖς τῆς ἰδίας ἕνεκ’ ὠφελείας τῶν ἄλλων τινὰς Ἑλλήνων ἐκείνῳ προοῖσθε, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ δικαίου λόγον ποιούμενοι, καὶ τὴν προσοῦσαν ἀδοξίαν τῷ πράγματι φεύγοντες, καὶ πάνθ’ ἃ προσήκει προορώμενοι, ὁμοίως ἐναντιώσεσθε, ἄν τι τοιοῦτ’ ἐπιχειρῇ πράττειν, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ πολεμοῦντες τύχοιτε. 678 679 And how they must, therefore, act against tyranny. 200 against its best interests. Demosthenes asserts that, in reality, they have abandoned the other Greeks, such as the Phocians and, as attested to in the First Philippic and the Olynthiacs, surrendered the interest in the North, all to Philip’s advantage. By presenting this from the (imagined) perspective of Philip, Demosthenes does not directly criticise the Assembly, but softens his parrhēsia with ‘a psychological element’ by utilising Philip’s voice to present a traditional and ideological view of Athens from an outsiders’ (and enemy) perspective. 680 Noting that their enemies expect them to act against them, this is an interesting alternative and development from Demosthenes’ earlier use of outside perspectives of Athens’ allies, who no longer have faith in Athens’ words that are not translated into action. 681 As I have argued (particularly in the Third Olynthiac) the point of talking about Athenian ideology has been to compare and contrast their current behaviour to their ideal identity, and here ‘the flattering reference to Athenian traditions of independence carries a sting in its tail and really shows up the shortcomings of the present audience.’ 682 Demosthenes develops this evaluation of Athenian character by reference to Philip’s attitude to the other Greeks compared to Athens: For these developments show that he judges you to be the only people who will not abandon the common rights of the Greeks in return for any profit and will not trade your good will towards the Greeks for any benefit or advantage. He naturally took this Worthington 2013: 194. Usher 1999: 233 likewise notes that ‘no speech illustrates his command of [psychological insight] more tellingly than the Second Philippic.’ Mader 2004: 57 calls this a ‘psychological trick’ to confront the Athenians with their own behaviour. Guth 2015: 345-6 observes in On the False Embassy 19.320 Demosthenes utilises Philip’s voice and ‘re-enacts Philip’s decision to stay silent as an imaginary inner monologue’ to discredit the lies of the Macedonians/Athenian traitors, and how at 19.324 ‘Philip’s actions are explained by reference to his inner thoughts.’ She notes that when Philip does ‘speak’, Demosthenes ‘highlights his own ingenuity in “forcing” Philip to “betray” himself to the dēmos.’ Guth 2015: 334-35 notes more generally that both Demosthenes and Aeschines use Philip’s rhetorical skill ‘as a foil to articulate their own views of political leadership.’ 680 681 Demosthenes 2.12, ‘For the more we are ready to make speeches, the more everyone distrusts them.’ Mader 2004: 62. Mader also draw attention to Demosthenes 3.21029, and 9.36-45 for how he ‘roundly castigates the Athenians for failing to live up to their historical legacy.’ Usher 1999:233 also notes that ‘this deliberately idealised view of Athenian patriotism makes political reality, when it is introduced, all the more stark and shocking.’ However, Usher and Mader do not acknowledge that Demosthenes is not just using the past to contrast, but prescribes it for the present. 682 201 view of you, and the opposite view of the Argives and Thebans, in the light not only of present circumstances but also of past history. 683 Again, Demosthenes’ praise that Philip ‘is paying you the highest compliment, men of Athens’ is ironic as ‘what in Philip’s mouth sounds like a glowing tribute becomes from the rhētor’s perspective an ironic catalogue of Athenian failure.’ 684 As this thesis has demonstrated, the purpose of this criticism is to make the Assembly ashamed of their current practices, and to stress that, given the assimilation of Athenian enemies as Philip’s allies, the Assembly cannot trust those who suggest there is nothing to fear from Philip. However, Demosthenes also uses this device to inspire hope, and to remind the Athenians of the power of their ideology: For he finds it recorded, I think, and hears it said that your ancestors, when they had the chance to rule the rest of Greece on condition that they obey the King, not only rejected this proposal, when Alexander, the ancestor of these people came as a herald on this matter, but chose to abandon their land and endured suffering anything at all, and subsequently did things that everyone longs to tell but no one has been able to recount worthily, which is why I too will omit them, and rightly so – for their deeds are greater than anyone could do justice to in words. 685 Demosthenes 6.10. κέκρισθε γὰρ ἐκ τούτων τῶν ἔργων μόνοι τῶν πάντων μηδενὸς ἂν κέρδους τὰ κοινὰ δίκαια τῶν Ἑλλήνων προέσθαι, μηδ’ ἀνταλλάξασθαι μηδεμιᾶς χάριτος μηδ’ ὠφελείας τὴν εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας εὔνοιαν. καὶ ταῦτ’ εἰκότως καὶ περὶ ὑμῶν οὕτως ὑπείληφε καὶ κατ’ Ἀργείων καὶ Θηβαίων ὡς ἑτέρως, οὐ μόνον εἰς τὰ παρόνθ’ ὁρῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ πρὸ τούτων λογιζόμενος. Steinbock 2013: 144 notes that Dem. 6.9-10 are very similar to Prologue 16. 683 684 Demosthenes 6.9. ὃ καὶ μέγιστόν ἐστι καθ’ ὑμῶν ἐγκώμιον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι· Mader 2004: 61. Demosthenes 6.11. εὑρίσκει γάρ, οἶμαι, καὶ ἀκούει τοὺς μὲν ὑμετέρους προγόνους, ἐξὸν αὐτοῖς τῶν λοιπῶν ἄρχειν Ἑλλήνων ὥστ’ αὐτοὺς ὑπακούειν βασιλεῖ, οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἀνασχομένους τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ἡνίκ’ ἦλθεν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ τούτων πρόγονος περὶ τούτων κῆρυξ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν χώραν ἐκλιπεῖν προελομένους καὶ παθεῖν ὁτιοῦν ὑπομείναντας, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πράξαντας ταῦθ’ ἃ πάντες ἀεὶ γλίχονται λέγειν, ἀξίως δ’ οὐδεὶς εἰπεῖν δεδύνηται, διόπερ κἀγὼ παραλείψω, δικαίως (ἔστι γὰρ μείζω τἀκείνων ἔργα ἢ ὡς τῷ λόγῳ τις ἂν εἴποι), One could also compare Isocrates’ Plataicus 14.57 where the Plataeans use a similar argument that their ancestors alone of the other Greeks aided Athens when they abandoned their land. 685 202 Holding up their ancestral past, Demosthenes engages in what Gehrke defines as ‘intentional history’ using ‘the interdependence between the Athenians’ historical experience and their resultant-self-image’ to define Athenian identity. 686 In addition, by asserting that words cannot recount the deeds of the Athenians in a worthy manner, Demosthenes’ assertion draws a parallel with the epitaphic topos that valorised the Athenians’ actions in the Persian Wars as beyond the scope of the orators’ ability with words.687 The naming of Alexander is also important to note here; unlike Lysias, Isocrates, and Demosthenes himself later in On the Crown, the Second Philippic makes the point of naming the messenger as Ἀλέξανδρος, and asserting his Macedonian decent. As Steinbock notes, in the context of this speech, by emphasising that Philip’s ancestor was closely associated with Xerxes, Demosthenes ‘provided another suggestive argument for his analogy between the current situation and the past.’688 The episode Demosthenes alludes to is also narrated by Herodotus, including an account of the Athenian rebuke to Alexander in 479: We ourselves are already well aware that the forces of the Mede are many times our own…Nevertheless, we shall defend ourselves however we can in our devotion to freedom. So do not attempt to seduce us into an agreement with the barbarian, since we shall not be persuaded. Report back to Mardonios that the Athenians say: “As long as the sun continues on the same course as it now travels, we shall never come to an agreement with Xerxes. As for you, Alexandros, in the future, do not appear before Gehrke 2003:22. Steinbock 2013: 20 n 83 states that ‘Gehrke’s “intentional history” coincides in many ways with [his] concept of social memory…intentional history would then be a history in a group’s own understanding’ of their identity. 686 Steinbock 2013: 50 observes that the epitaphioi logoi we have access to ‘usually begin with a short captatio benevolentiae expressing the speaker’s nearly impossible task to do justice to the deeds of the fallen.’ Such examples can be seen at Lysias 2.1. Demosthenes 60.1. Thucydides 2.35.2. 687 688 Steinbock 2013: 145. 203 the Athenians with speeches such as this one, nor pretend to be doing us a favour while encouraging us to commit deeds that violate all tradition.” 689 Like Demosthenes, Herodotus also emphasises the Athenians’ disappointment that others could have considered that they would act contrary to their disposition, ‘namely, that there is no amount of gold anywhere on earth so great, nor any country that surpasses others so much in beauty and fertility, that we would accept it as a reward for medizing and enslaving Hellas’.690 Moreover, in their rejection of Alexander’s attempts at persuasion, the Athenians also demonstrate their awareness of deceptive flattery. We can infer the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric against the attempt to ‘deceive’ the Greeks into acting against their traditions, as Alexander’s persuasion had devious connotations of sophistry, suggesting a lack of commitment to the dēmos that is expected of a proxenos.691 This, when teamed with the rhetoric of conspiracy, develops into an attempt to persuade the polis to act against its own interests, which translates directly into Demosthenes’ ongoing complaint against current rhētors.692 Furthermore, in choosing to recount this specific episode, Demosthenes relies on the collective historical consciousness of the dēmos to identify with this memory and imbue his persuasion with the atavistic nuances of the Persian Wars. 693 Indeed, noting the frequency of the Athenians’ rejection of Alexander in Athenian public discourse (Lysias 2.33; Isocrates Panegyricus 4.94-96; Demosthenes 18.202-4; Lycurgus Against Leocrates 71), Steinbock deduces that ‘the rejection of the Persian offer was an essential part of the commemorated history of the Persian Wars and was thus quite familiar to Demosthenes’ audience.’ 694 We 689 Herodotus 8.143.1-3. 690 Herodotus 8.144.1. Hesk 2000: 216 notes that accusations of sophistry were ‘perceived as lacking an ideal priority of commitment to the dēmos.’ 691 692 In particular On the Peace. 693 MacDowell 2009: 330 notes Demosthenes compares the threat of Philip to ‘the king of Persia long ago.’ 694 Steinbock 2013: 144. See too Nouhaud 1982: 190-3. 204 can presume, then, that his contemporary audience were aware that their ancestral counterparts were not seduced by flattery, but were affronted at the very notion of shirking their duty out of apathy or personal gain. Those Athenians, moreover, would not tolerate to be ruled, but if the current Assembly chooses cooperation with Philip, they accept Macedonian hegemony under the guise of peace. Through these ancestral paradigms, Demosthenes subtly invites comparison between the current Assembly and their glorified ancestors, while asserting that peace with Philip is fundamentally opposed to Athens’ ancestral reputation, a reputation which has been formative in defining Athenian identity itself. 695 Indeed, while there has been a ‘chronological confusion’ with regard to remembering whether this encounter took place before or after the battle of Salamis, the message was a simple one: ‘what counted was the Athenians’ resolve not to succumb to the barbarian invader and their willingness to sacrifice their city for the sake of Greek liberty.’ 696As Hartog notes, the description of the non-Greeks through Herodotus’ mirror is also ‘held up to the Greeks themselves’, and in the same manner Demosthenes’ representations of others and their own past selves functions as a mirror to not only define the Athenians, but to prescribe their past attitudes to resolve their current deficiencies. 697 Moreover, Demosthenes holds up this epoch-defining moment in their history to define all the protagonists of this current conflict by their past actions. Having noted the rejection of Alexander’s shameful proposal, Demosthenes remarks asserted Athenian integrity: Mader 2004: 62 notes that ‘ancestral paradigms have always had a powerful appeal to tradition-conscious Greeks and are regularly invoked by Demosthenes as points of moral and political reference.’ 695 696 Steinbock 2013: 145. While Nouhaud 1982: 191 argues that placing the episode before Salamis (and thus before the destruction of Athens) adds a greater sense of sacrifice, Steinbock argues the difference in choronological order is not necessarily a manipulation but a product how shared community memories are formed; memories are simplified as historical circumstances fade, and such events become more symbolic than purely historical. Steinbock 2013:145. 697 Hartog 1988: xxiii. 205 Whereas the Thebans’ ancestors campaigned with the foreigner (barbarous), and the Argives did not resist. He knows, therefore, that each of these cities will be content with their private advantage and will not look to the common good of Greece. 698 The theme of Thebes’ medizing was ‘deeply rooted in Athenian historical consciousness,’ as Isocrates’ Plataicus also indicates, ‘what orator could be skilled enough to denounce the crimes committed by the Thebans?’ who ‘in the past betrayed the whole of Greece.’ 699 The Panegyricus equally recalls how traditionally their ancestors ‘condemned many to death for medizing’, thus any notions of negotiating peace with Philip, friend of Thebes, in this context would be tantamount to treason. 700 Demosthenes uses the memory of the Persian Wars and Thebes medizing to add an aspect of historical determinism to their current conflict. Philip, who has already been described as demonstrating hybris and pleonexia, is further assimilated to the aggressive expansionist persona of Xerxes. 701 Thebes is still the Anti-Athens, where ‘they fall short on the very criteria on which the Athenians are extolled…[a move which] brings out the quasi-panegyric function of the symmetrical opposition.’702 In contrast, Demosthenes asserts that Philip’s expectations of Athens are that: Demosthenes 6.11-12. τοὺς δὲ Θηβαίων καὶ Ἀργείων προγόνους τοὺς μὲν συστρατεύσαντας τῷ βαρβάρῳ (Joined the Barbarian), τοὺς δ᾿ οὐκ ἐναντιωθέντας. οἶδεν οὖν ἀμφοτέρους ἰδίᾳ τὸ λυσιτελοῦν ἀγαπήσοντας, οὐχ ὅ τι συνοίσει κοινῇ τοῖς Ἕλλησι σκεψομένους. 698 Steinbock 2013: 101 notes how during the fourth century the knoweldge ‘that Thebes sided with Xerxes during his invasion was deeply rooted in Athenian historical consciousness. Even more than one hundred years after the Persian Wars, Athenian orators such as Isocrates, Demosthenes and Apollodorus alluded to Theban medizing quite frequently. In all of these fourth-century allusions, Thebes’ medism was presented as an undisputed historical fact.’ Cf. Demosthenes 14.33-34 where he argues that they will not medize out of shame but will attempt to redeem themselves (Steinbock 2013: 142); Isocrates Plataicus 14.4; 14.30. 699 700 Isocrates Panegyricus 4.157. Steinbock 2013: 143 notes assimilation of ὔβρις and πλεονεξία with the Persian Kings in Lysias’ funeral oration 2.21; 39, Herodotus 7.8; 7.16 and Aeschylus’ Persae 807-8; 816-22. 701 702 Mader 2004: 60. 206 He reckons that if he were to choose you, he could be choosing friends on the principle of justice, but if he were to side with them, he would have accomplices in his own greed.703 Thus, despite the corruption Demosthenes rebuked in the proemium, the reference to their ancestral reputation serves as a reminder for the current Athenians to remember what is expected of them, given their national character (see 6.8-11 above). As Steinbock notes, ‘Demosthenes’ description of Athens’ ἠθος reflects the fundamental principles of Athenian ideology and self-image which resulted to a large extent from the heroic experiences of the Persian Wars as seen and perpetuated in the funeral speeches.’ 704 As such, I argue that Demosthenes’ persuasion rests on reminding the Athenians of this self-image, preserved in their cultural memory, and that by reflecting self-critically the Athenians can rectify their attitude towards both their deliberation and their foreign policies. Moreover, while Mader argues that this idealistic presentation of Athens is ‘from Demosthenes’ perspective only a nostalgic ideal’, I rather view Demosthenes as presenting this as a present-day necessity, particularly if you consider Steinbock’s point that ‘the act of remembering is a dynamic mental process that takes place in the present.’ 705 I propose that Demosthenes engages with the retrospective knowledge of the past to assert his own authority to assess Athens’ current state of affairs, using what Schacter defines as hindsight bias: the ‘tendency to see an outcome as inevitable in retrospect.’ 706 Similar to the idea of consistency bias where we ‘reconstruct the past to make it consistent with what we know in the present’, hindsight bias is pronounced when ‘after-the-fact’ explanations are used to Demosthenes 6.12. ἡγεῖτ’ οὖν, εἰ μὲν ὑμᾶς ἕλοιτο, φίλους ἐπὶ τοῖς δικαίοις αἱρήσεσθαι, εἰ δ’ ἐκείνοις προσθεῖτο, συνεργοὺς ἕξειν τῆς αὑτοῦ πλεονεξίας. Steinbock 2013: 31 considers this section (6.7-12) as an example of how ‘people in leadership positions often utilise the symbolic capital derived form their community’s collective memory to garner support for particular policies.’ 703 704 Steinbock 2013: 144. 705 Mader 2004: 61. Steinbock 2013: 11. 706 Schacter 2001: 146. 207 ‘specify a deterministic cause of the outcome’. 707 Using the knowledge of the outcomes of the Persian Wars, Demosthenes arguably uses the reputations of those involved (substituting Macedonia for Persia) as a means to both define the present crisis with hindsight bias and forecast the outcome. 708 This outcome is determined, as in the pre-Peace speeches, not on Philip but on the Athenians themselves, particularly if we recall his remark in the Second Olynthiac: Are you so senseless, men of Athens, that you hope to improve our city’s situation by following the very same policies that led to its decline?709 Here too, by reminding the Athenians of the policies that led to their ancestral glory, Demosthenes uses the past to prescribe behaviour for the present. Moreover, it maintains that, then as now, the power to stop the rising presence of Macedonian influence in Greece lies with the Athenians and rests on the Assembly choosing to act on the situation and on their own political agency. Following this logic, if the Athenians heed Demosthenes and choose to act in their own interests, they can emulate their ancestors and halt the new Persia. If not, then Xerxes’ vision will become realised by Philip. From this perspective, Demosthenes’ reference to their ancestral past is not a nostalgic fantasy, but a means to present an informed appraisal of the current political situation, an alternative to the populist rhetoric of corrupted rhētors and the Assembly’s own misplaced priorities. Furthermore, in addition to giving authority to his arguments, Demosthenes’ reference to their ancestral reputation also reminds the Athenians of the qualities they are expected to 707 Schacter 2001: 146. Here I am applying Schacter 2001: 146 ideas on ‘hindsight bias’ to Demosthenes. This is also in agreement with my arguments on using the past to apply determinism on the present. 708 Demosthenes 2.26. εἶθ’ οὕτως ἀγνωμόνως ἔχετ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὥστε δι’ ὧν ἐκ χρηστῶν φαῦλα τὰ πράγματα τῆς πόλεως γέγονεν, διὰ τούτων ἐλπίζετε τῶν αὐτῶν πράξεων ἐκ φαύλων αὐτὰ χρηστὰ γενήσεσθαι; This is also a continuation of his points in the First Olynthiac 1.14-15, ‘My purpose is to make you understand…the harm done by our continual neglect of affairs…we refuse to apply ourselves robustly to any situation, how can matters be expected to end? …our homeland may be at risk.’ 709 208 emulate to be worthy of their inheritance – something they were annually reminded of in the epitaphioi logoi.710 As Steinbock notes with reference to Lysias 2: In the eyes of the Athenians, Athens’ role as champion of the Greeks [προστάτης τῶν Ἑλλήνων] involved not only the defence of Greece against barbarian invaders but also the protection of the weak against the unjust oppression of overbearing Greek Powers.711 As discussed in Chapter Two, Demosthenes recurrently appealed to the dēmos to be ‘worthy’ of the city, and the Olynthiacs were all delivered in direct response to the neglect of this role: the progressive loss of their possessions in the North Aegean and their failure to protect their fellow Greeks. In a post-Peace-of-Philocrates world, such an awareness of their failure to safeguard both these possessions and their former allies would arguably have not been lost on Demosthenes’ Athenians. Thus, by calling the Assembly to ‘recognise their ideal selves in the reflections of ‘Philip’’ 712 Demosthenes continues his method from the pre-Peace speeches of juxtaposing praise of the idealised Athens with criticism of their current apathy. Argument The remainder of the speech focuses on asserting that Philip’s aims are opposed to Greek autonomy, because such autonomy directly opposes his nature as a tyrant. Demosthenes refutes any argument that might be raised in Philip’s defence, affirming that Philip is not the champion of the oppressed but rather represents the antithesis of freedom and selfdetermination: “But, by Zeus,” someone might say, pretending to know all about the matter, “he acted at that time not out of greed or for the reason that you allege but because the 710 Plato Menexenus 247b-c ‘Disregard our advice – play the coward – and you will not be welcome at all.’ 711 Steinbock 2013: 54 on Lysias 2.47 712 Mader 2004: 63. 209 Theban’s claim was more just than yours.” But this is the one claim that he cannot now make. How could he, who is ordering the Spartans to leave Messenia alone, claim that he previously handed over Orchomenus and Coroneia to the Thebans on the grounds that their claim was just?713 Contrasting this ‘truth’ to those that offer false hopes in Philip’s promises, Demosthenes asserts that Philip’s promises are delusions to achieve his own insatiable ends: But he is not intending to help the Messenians and Argives against the Spartans – he is actually sending them mercenaries and money and is expected in person with a large army. He is destroying the Spartans, the existing enemies of the Thebans, while at the same time rescuing the Phocians, whom he previously ruined? Who could believe that?714 Like his assertion in the Olynthiacs that disillusionment came all too late for the Chalcidic cities, Demosthenes’ purpose is to shatter any illusions that Philip’s intentions are anything other than Macedonian expansion, and inevitably are directed against Athens itself: But from his present conduct it is clear that he did those things deliberately; and from his every action, if one looks at them correctly, it is evident that he is directing all his efforts against our city. 715 This last point in particular reinforces his earlier assertion that Philip’s intentions can only be read through his actions, not his words: Demosthenes 6.13. ἀλλὰ νὴ Δί’, εἴποι τις ἂν ὡς πάντα ταῦτ’ εἰδώς, οὐ πλεονεξίας ἕνεκ’ οὐδ’ ὧν ἐγὼ κατηγορῶ τότε ταῦτ’ ἔπραξεν, ἀλλὰ τῷ δικαιότερα τοὺς Θηβαίους ἢ ὑμᾶς ἀξιοῦν. ἀλλὰ τοῦτον καὶ μόνον πάντων τῶν λόγων οὐκ ἔνεστιν αὐτῷ νῦν εἰπεῖν· ὁ γὰρ Μεσσήνην Λακεδαιμονίους ἀφιέναι κελεύων, πῶς ἂν Ὀρχομενὸν καὶ Κορώνειαν τότε Θηβαίοις παραδοὺς τῷ δίκαια νομίζειν ταῦτ’ εἶναι πεποιηκέναι σκήψαιτο; 713 Demosthenes 6.15. τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις δὲ καὶ τοῖς Ἀργείοις ἐπὶ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους συλλαμβάνειν οὐ μέλλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ ξένους εἰσπέμπει καὶ χρήματ’ ἀποστέλλει καὶ δύναμιν μεγάλην ἔχων αὐτός ἐστι προσδόκιμος. τοὺς μὲν ὄντας ἐχθροὺς Θηβαίων Λακεδαιμονίους ἀναιρεῖ, οὓς δ’ ἀπώλεσεν αὐτὸς πρότερον Φωκέας νῦν σῴζει; καὶ τίς ἂν ταῦτα πιστεύσειεν; Trevett 2011: 107 notes Philip did not campaign in person for either city. 714 Demosthenes 6.16. ἀλλ’ ἀφ’ ὧν νῦν ποιεῖ, κἀκεῖν’ ἐκ προαιρέσεως δῆλός ἐστι ποιήσας, ἐκ πάντων δ’, ἄν τις ὀρθῶς θεωρῇ, πάνθ’ ἃ πραγματεύεται κατὰ τῆς πόλεως συντάττων. 715 210 And this is, now at least, in a sense inevitable. Think about it: he wishes to rule and regards you as his only rival in this. He has been acting unjustly for a long time now and is himself fully conscious of doing so, since his secure control of everything else depends on his keeping hold of your possessions. He thinks that if he were to abandon Amphipolis and Potidaea, he would not even be safe at home. 716 This reminder of their lost possessions, especially Amphipolis, seeks to provoke the Athenians to action by reminding them of what their apathy and the Peace has already cost. 717 Consequently, any promises Philip makes to Athens (or hopes offered by individuals within) ought to be treated with the same contempt. Demosthenes presents this as natural and logical, which is further emphasised by using Philip’s lens: He is therefore deliberately plotting against you and knows that you are aware of this. He believes you are intelligent, and that you justifiably hate him, and is spurred on by the expectation that he will suffer some reverse at your hands, if you seize the opportunity to do so, unless he anticipates you by acting first. 718 To act contrary to this is un-Athenian, which has been Demosthenes’ complaint since the First Philippic that the whole crisis has originated from an internal crisis within Athens itself. As noted above, the criticism is that they have not employed their intelligence on the matter: they have squandered many opportunities, and have shamefully been pre-empted by Philip on most occasions.719 Demosthenes 6.17. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐξ ἀνάγκης τρόπον τιν’ αὐτῷ νῦν γε δὴ συμβαίνει. λογίζεσθε γάρ. ἄρχειν βούλεται, τούτου δ’ ἀνταγωνιστὰς μόνους ὑπείληφεν ὑμᾶς. ἀδικεῖ πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον, καὶ τοῦτ’ αὐτὸς ἄριστα σύνοιδεν αὑτῷ· οἷς γὰρ οὖσιν ὑμετέροις ἔχει, τούτοις πάντα τἄλλ’ ἀσφαλῶς κέκτηται· εἰ γὰρ Ἀμφίπολιν καὶ Ποτείδαιαν προεῖτο, οὐδ’ ἂν οἴκοι μένειν βεβαίως ἡγεῖται. 716 Usher 1999: 233 also remarks that ‘this deliberately idealised view of Athenian patriotism makes political reality, when it is introduced, all the more stark and shocking.’ 717 Demosthenes 6.18. ἀμφότερ’ οὖν οἶδε, καὶ αὑτὸν ὑμῖν ἐπιβουλεύοντα καὶ ὑμᾶς αἰσθανομένους· εὖ φρονεῖν δ’ ὑμᾶς ὑπολαμβάνων, δικαίως αὑτὸν μισεῖν νομίζει, καὶ παρώξυνται, πείσεσθαί τι προσδοκῶν, ἂν καιρὸν λάβητε, ἂν μὴ φθάσῃ ποιήσας πρότερος. 718 This is a continuation of Demosthenes’ comparison in the First Philippic 4.40 between Philip, who anticipates and acts, and the Assembly who reacted like a barbarian who does not know how to box: just reacting and never seizing the initiative. 719 211 For these reason, he is alert; he stands against you; he courts certain people – the Thebans and those of the Peloponnesians who agree with them – who he thinks will be satisfied with the present situation because of their greed, and will foresee none of the consequences because of their stupidity. And yet to even moderately thoughtful men there are clear signs to be seen. 720 ‘Philip’ credits the Athenians with intelligence they do not deserve, as Demosthenes’ comment on the naïve stupidity of the Thebans is directed at the Assembly. This theme of indirect criticism permeates the Second Philippic, and the rest of the speech centres on Demosthenes recounting his embassy to the Messenians, to indirectly advise the Assembly on the consequences of ignoring his advice: I had occasion to talk about these indications to the Messenians and Argives, but they are perhaps better related to you. “How much irritation, Messenians”, I said, “do you suppose the Olynthians felt when they heard anyone say anything against Philip at the time when he had ceded to them Anthemous, a place to which all previous Macedonian kings had laid claim, and was giving them Potidaea and driving out the Athenian settlers from there, and had incurred our hatred while giving them the land to enjoy? So you suppose that they expected to suffer such things, or would have believed anyone who told them that they would?721 Hindsight enables Demosthenes to exploit emotively the dramatic irony of Olynthus: the naivety of the Olynthians is compounded by the anxiety of foreboding anticipation that the Demosthenes 6.19. διὰ ταῦτ’ ἐγρήγορεν, ἐφέστηκεν, ἐπὶ τῇ πόλει θεραπεύει τινάς, Θηβαίους καὶ Πελοποννησίων τοὺς ταὐτὰ βουλομένους τούτοις, οὓς διὰ μὲν πλεονεξίαν τὰ παρόντ’ ἀγαπήσειν οἴεται, διὰ δὲ σκαιότητα τρόπων τῶν μετὰ ταῦτ’ οὐδὲν προόψεσθαι. καίτοι σωφρονοῦσί γε καὶ μετρίως ἐναργῆ παραδείγματ’ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν. 720 Demosthenes 6.19-20. ἃ καὶ πρὸς Μεσσηνίους καὶ πρὸς Ἀργείους ἔμοιγ’ εἰπεῖν συνέβη, βέλτιον δ’ ἴσως καὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐστιν εἰρῆσθαι.πῶς γὰρ οἴεσθ’,’ ἔφην, ‘ὦ ἄνδρες Μεσσήνιοι, δυσχερῶς ἀκούειν Ὀλυνθίους, εἴ τίς τι λέγοι κατὰ Φιλίππου κατ’ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους, ὅτ’ Ἀνθεμοῦντα μὲν αὐτοῖς ἀφίει, ἧς πάντες οἱ πρότερον Μακεδονίας βασιλεῖς ἀντεποιοῦντο, Ποτείδαιαν δ’ ἐδίδου τοὺς Ἀθηναίων ἀποίκους ἐκβάλλων, καὶ τὴν μὲν ἔχθραν τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐτὸς ἀνῄρητο, τὴν χώραν δ’ ἐκείνοις ἐδεδώκει καρποῦσθαι; ἆρα προσδοκᾶν αὐτοὺς τοιαῦτα πείσεσθαι, ἢ λέγοντος ἄν τινος πιστεῦσαι οἴεσθε; 721 212 Messenians too, are being deceived by Macedonian pretences. This anxiety is intensified by the realisation that it is the Athenians, not the Messenians, who are walking blindly into Philip’s trap. Demosthenes continues: Despite all of this, I said, “after enjoying other people’s land for a short time, they have now been deprived by him for a long time of their own land, and have been shamefully exiled, and have been not only defeated but also betrayed by each other and sold. Becoming too closely associated with tyrants is dangerous for constitutionally governed states. 722 Via advising the Messenians, Demosthenes returns to his affirmation in the Olynthiacs on the polar oppositions of tyranny and democracy, which fits the binary opposition that has developed over the speeches between not only Athens and Macedonia, but also between himself and Philip’s supporters within Athens. 723 The losses Olynthus suffered by becoming too close to a tyrant, resonate with Demosthenes’ own warnings in the First Philippic and the Olynthiacs of Athenian losses and the inevitable situation they would find themselves in if they refused to shake off their apathy. Thus, despite how Demosthenes’ warning addresses the Messenians, recalling: ‘you, I said, watch Philip dispensing gifts and promises, yet if you are prudent, you should pray that you do not find yourselves being tricked and deceived by him’, it is in fact the Athenians who are perilously close to following the same destructive path. 724 Moreover, by ascribing the fall of Olynthus to a ‘lack of foresight and refusal even to hear a warning voice, Demosthenes subtly asserts the need for the kind of advice he himself offered (first to the Demosthenes 6.21. ἀλλ’ ὅμως,’ ἔφην ἐγώ, ‘μικρὸν χρόνον τὴν ἀλλοτρίαν καρπωσάμενοι πολὺν τῆς αὑτῶν ὑπ’ ἐκείνου στέρονται, αἰσχρῶς ἐκπεσόντες, οὐ κρατηθέντες μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ προδοθέντες ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων καὶ πραθέντες· οὐ γὰρ ἀσφαλεῖς ταῖς πολιτείαις αἱ πρὸς τοὺς τυράννους αὗται λίαν ὁμιλίαι. 722 723 Demosthenes 1.6. Demosthenes 6.23. ὑμεῖς δ’, ἔφην ἐγώ, διδόντα μὲν καὶ ὑπισχνούμενον θεωρεῖτε Φίλιππον, ἐξηπατηκότα δ’ ἤδη καὶ παρακεκρουμένον ἀπεύχεσθε, εἰ σωφρονεῖτε δή, ἰδεῖν. I have adapted Trevett’s translation here to be one sentence as in the original Greek. 724 213 Messenians, now at Athens)’.725 In noting that the Messenians ignored his advice, it perpetuates a ‘cycle of folly’, which serves as a warning to ‘Demosthenes’ present audience, not to put themselves at risk by listening to orators who put the pleasure of the moment above future advantage.’ 726 As in the previous speeches, Demosthenes implores the Assembly to recognise the internal corruption, and instead trust in his didactic parrhēsia. Still self-citing his address to the Messenians, Demosthenes recalls his warning that: There is one safeguard with which all right-thinking people are naturally endowed, and which is a benefit and a source of salvation for everybody, but particularly for democracies dealing with tyrants. What is this? Mistrust. Guard it; hold onto it, if you keep it, you will avoid disaster. 727 In repeating his advice to the (now defeated) Messenians, Demosthenes provides a living example of the consequences of ignoring his active. Furthermore, by self-citing his Messenian address, Demosthenes indirectly calls the Athenians to recognise that tyranny and democracy are diametrically opposed and cannot exist in peace: What do you seek?” I said. “Freedom? Then do you not see that Philip’s very titles are inimical to this? Every king and tyrant is an enemy of freedom and an opponent of the law. You should be on your guard,” I said, “lest, in seeking to escape war, you find yourselves saddled with a master. 728 725 Mader 2004: 64. 726 Mader 2004: 65. Demosthenes 6.24. ἓν δέ τι κοινὸν ἡ φύσις τῶν εὖ φρονούντων ἐν αὑτῇ κέκτηται φυλακτήριον, ὃ πᾶσι μέν ἐστ’ ἀγαθὸν καὶ σωτήριον, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς πλήθεσι πρὸς τοὺς τυράννους. τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; ἀπιστία. ταύτην φυλάττετε, ταύτης ἀντέχεσθε· ἂν ταύτην σῴζητε, οὐδὲν μὴ δεινὸν πάθητε. 727 Demosthenes 6.25. τί ζητεῖτ’;’ ἔφην. ‘ἐλευθερίαν; εἶτ’ οὐχ ὁρᾶτε Φίλιππον ἀλλοτριωτάτας ταύτῃ καὶ τὰς προσηγορίας ἔχοντα; βασιλεὺς γὰρ καὶ τύραννος ἅπας ἐχθρὸς ἐλευθερίᾳ καὶ νόμοις ἐναντίος. οὐ φυλάξεσθ’ ὅπως,’ ἔφην, ‘μὴ πολέμου ζητοῦντες ἀπαλλαγῆναι δεσπότην εὕρητε;’ Again, this evokes his remark in the First Olynthiac 1.6. 728 214 In this regard, Demosthenes also evokes Solon’s rejection of tyranny as the antithesis of ‘the rule of laws which apply equally to all member of the community.’ 729 In reminding the ‘Messenians’ how the respect for nomos differentiated the Greeks from the barbarians (then, Persians, now Macedonians), Demosthenes likewise reminds the Athenians to not forget the irreconcilable ends of tyranny and democracy. Moreover, that the Messenians ignored Demosthenes and chose to ‘act against what they know to be their own interests’, was ‘not strange’ and to be expected of other Greeks. 730 The Athenians, however, have no such excuse: But you, who are intelligent and listen to us speakers telling you how you are being plotted against and ensnared, if you do not act promptly, will find, I think, that without realising it, you have submitted to everything – so much stronger are immediate gratification and idleness than any consideration of future benefit.731 Thus, having been co-judge and observer of Demosthenes’ critical assessment of the Thebans, Argives, Messenians and Olynthians, the Assembly cannot avoid assessing (indeed, confronting) their own behaviour. At the root of it all is the need to address the corruption within the deliberative decision making process, evoking his plea from the beginning of the speech (and echoing On the Peace) that: If we examine how to correct the present situation, and to prevent matters going even further without our noticing them, we must change our previous manner of Leopold 1981: 228 notes that Solon’s apology for not becoming a tyrant (32ff West) was based on his view that tyranny was lawless and was dedicated to the pursuit of power at the expense of the community. See too Herodotus 7.104 on Demaratos telling Xerxes that the Greeks (Spartans) are inspired to fight because their respect of nomoi. 729 Demosthenes 6.27. ‘Now, it is not strange that the Messenians and some of the other Peloponnesians are acting against what they know to be in their interest.’ καὶ οὐ τοῦτ’ ἔστ’ ἄτοπον, εἰ Μεσσήνιοι καὶ Πελοποννησίων τινὲς παρ’ ἃ τῷ λογισμῷ βέλτισθ’ ὁρῶσί τι πράξουσιν 730 Demosthenes 6.27. ἀλλ’ ὑμεῖς οἱ καὶ συνιέντες αὐτοὶ καὶ τῶν λεγόντων ἀκούοντες ἡμῶν, ὡς ἐπιβουλεύεσθε, ὡς περιστοιχίζεσθε, ἐκ τοῦ μηδὲν ἤδη ποιῆσαι λήσεθ’, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, πάνθ’ ὑπομείναντες· οὕτως ἡ παραυτίχ’ ἡδονὴ καὶ ῥᾳστώνη μεῖζον ἰσχύει τοῦ ποθ’ ὕστερον συνοίσειν μέλλοντος. This also evokes the image from the First Philippic 4.9 that Athens is being hunted and surrounded with nets p. 42. 731 215 deliberation, and all of us, speakers and audience, must choose those policies that are best and will save us, instead of those that are easiest and most agreeable. 732 For Demosthenes, since the First Philippic, it is precisely this internal corruption of the deliberative process, their idleness and apathy, that has caused their external problems. As has become increasingly apparently, Demosthenes’ battle has not necessarily been with Philip – but with the Athenian dēmos itself, and that advising the Assembly becomes particularly difficult when they are determined to ignore reason, and consistently undermine the values which defined their identity as the inheritors of the Athenian past. Epilogue To this end, the speech concludes in a prescriptive tone towards resolving the issues within Athens. Demosthenes states in no uncertain terms that Attica would not be in danger if the Peace had not been passed: If you had not been deceived then, there would be no danger to our city, since surely Philip would never be able to attack Attica either with a fleet, by defeating you at sea, or with an army, by marching through Thermopylae and Phocis, but either he would be acting justly and keeping quiet, upholding the peace, or he would immediately find himself in a war similar to the one which led him at the time to desire peace. 733 As he stated in the proemium, the Assembly must dispense with endless deliberations, and instead invoke their anger – not at Philip – but against ‘those men who conveyed the promises, on the strength of which you were persuaded to make the peace,’ for as Demosthenes 6.5. εἰ δ’ ὅπως τὰ παρόντ’ ἐπανορθωθήσεται δεῖ σκοπεῖν καὶ μὴ προελθόντ’ ἔτι πορρωτέρω λήσει πάνθ’ ἡμᾶς, μηδ’ ἐπιστήσεται μέγεθος δυνάμεως πρὸς ἣν οὐδ’ ἀντᾶραι δυνησόμεθα, οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος ὅσπερ πρότερον τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς λέγουσιν ἅπασι καὶ τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ὑμῖν τὰ βέλτιστα καὶ τὰ σώσοντα τῶν ῥᾴστων καὶ τῶν ἡδίστων προαιρετέον. 732 Demosthenes 6.36. εἰ γὰρ μὴ παρεκρούσθητε τόθ’ ὑμεῖς, οὐδὲν ἂν ἦν τῇ πόλει πρᾶγμα· οὔτε γὰρ ναυσὶ δήπου κρατήσας εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἦλθεν ἄν ποτε στόλῳ Φίλιππος, οὔτε πεζῇ βαδίζων ὑπὲρ τὰς Πύλας καὶ Φωκέας, ἀλλ’ ἢ τὰ δίκαι’ ἂν ἐποίει καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην ἄγων ἡσυχίαν εἶχεν, ἢ παραχρῆμ’ ἂν ἦν ἐν ὁμοίῳ πολέμῳ δι’ ὃν τότε τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπεθύμησεν. 733 216 Demosthenes had feared, ‘what was said then was quite contrary to these actions of his.’ 734 These men have essentially granted Philip the gateway into Central Greece, and this must be read with Demosthenes’ assertion in On the Peace that it would have been better for Athens had the peace never been made, and Demosthenes focuses on this bad advice as he closes the speech: And again, there are those who should be summoned. Who? Those who spoke on the occasion of making the peace when I, on my return from the later embassy relating to the oaths, saw that the city was being deceived by false hopes and warned and protested and tried to prevent the loss of Thermopylae and of the Phocians. 735 And as he stated in On the Peace, Demosthenes again makes reference to the promises made, particularly that Philip would ‘give you Euboea and Oropus in return for Amphipolis,’ that proved hollow.736 Demosthenes aims to take the Assembly out of its blissfully ignorant zone and confront these harsh realities, that they are being deceived by these men, who as Athenians are treacherous, and more deserving of anger than Philip himself. 737 By insinuating the presence of internal traitors, Demosthenes develops the rhetoric of conspiracy and of conspirators manipulating the apathetic attitude of the Assembly. 738 It is because of this manipulation that, aware of their losses, the Assembly chooses to listen to these men: Demosthenes 6.28 τοὺς ἐνεγκόντας τὰς ὑποσχέσεις, ἐφ’ αἷς ἐπείσθητε ποιήσασθαι τὴν εἰρήνην, καλεῖν· Demosthenes 6.29. ἀλλ’ ἦν πολὺ τούτων ἀφεστηκότα τὰ τότε λεγόμενα. It is important to acknowledge that Demosthenes originally supported Philocrates’ motion, however, for the purpose of this thesis I am focusing on Demosthenes’ presentation of himself to the Assembly. 734 Demosthenes 6.29. καὶ πάλιν γ’ ἑτέρους καλεῖν. τίνας; τοὺς ὅτ’ ἐγὼ γεγονυίας ἤδη τῆς εἰρήνης ἀπὸ τῆς ὑστέρας ἥκων πρεσβείας τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς ὅρκους, αἰσθόμενος φενακιζομένην τὴν πόλιν, προὔλεγον καὶ διεμαρτυρόμην καὶ οὐκ εἴων προέσθαι Πύλας οὐδὲ Φωκέας, 735 736 Demosthenes 6.30. Εὔβοιαν δὲ καὶ τὸν Ὠρωπὸν ἀντ’ Ἀμφιπόλεως ὑμῖν ἀποδώσει· cf. 5.10. Demosthenes also develops this political conflict into personal animosity ‘they said that I drink water, and so am naturally an intractable and disagreeable fellow, whereas Philip would answer your prayers.’ 6.30. λέγοντας ὡς ἐγὼ μὲν ὕδωρ πίνων εἰκότως δύστροπος καὶ δύσκολός εἰμί τις ἄνθρωπος, Φίλιππος δ’, ἅπερ εὔξαισθ’ ἂν ὑμεῖς. Trevett 2011: 111 observes that Demosthenes 19.46 tells us this remark was made by Philocrates. 737 738 See earlier references to Roisman 2006. 217 I know you recall all these claims being made from the speaker’s platform, although you are not good at remembering those who injure you. 739 This remark still stings with the personal injustice felt throughout On the Peace, and is but a further example of Demosthenes’ repeated complaint that the Athenians do not recognise actions that damage the polis, and that they are quickly beguiled to forgive. By drawing attention to the bēma, Demosthenes reminds the Athenians of their responsibilities to heed the best (not the most flattering) advice, and that public deliberation is civic duty in practice. Consequently, the repetitive nature of their behaviour shows not only a failure to learn from all their mistakes, which the Olynthiacs increasingly tried to address, but also that this failure to recognise the situation and the intentions behind advice is central to their problems. Only Philip and his puppets gain from the Assembly’s short memory and ignorance, despite the immediate gratification that the dēmos feels in their pointless rhetoric. Moreover, their ignorance has future repercussions: And, most shameful of all, you voted on the basis of these hopes that this same peace should apply to him and our descendants too, so completely were you led on.740 The damage and shame is compounded by the insinuation that the Athenians have sold out themselves out, and future generations, on false hopes, leaving an inheritance of impending subjugation and disaster, as opposed to the inheritance left to them by their ancestors.741 This confirms, once again, that Demosthenes’ focus in the speech is on the un-Athenian behaviour of the Assembly. Their ignorance appears so complete that they will refuse to listen until the truth is before their eyes: Demosthenes 6.30. ταῦτα γὰρ ἅπαντ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος ἐνταῦθα μνημονεύετ’ οἶδ’ ὅτι ῥηθέντα, καίπερ ὄντες οὐ δεινοὶ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας μεμνῆσθαι. This refers back to 6.27. 739 Demosthenes 6.31. καὶ τὸ πάντων αἴσχιστον, καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις πρὸς τὰς ἐλπίδας τὴν αὐτὴν εἰρήνην εἶναι ταύτην ἐψηφίσασθε· οὕτω τελέως ὑπήχθητε. 740 This again can be read with Plato’s Menexenus 247b-c ‘Disregard our advice – play the coward – and you will not be welcome at all.’ 741 218 When you can no longer ignore what is happening, and when you no longer hear that these activities are directed against you from me or from someone else, but all see it for yourselves and know it for a fact, then I think you will be angry and resentful. 742 Demosthenes’ consistent refrain since 351 has been to ask the Athenians: when will you do your duty? When will you stop ignoring what is happening? Will you deny reality until war comes here to Attica? When will you do that which is right over that which is easy? When will you recognise those aiding you and those harming you? In addition, whilst bribery and enemies within were merely hinted at in the First Philippic, the Second Philippic concludes with no uncertainty that bribery and corruption has enabled this situation, and yet still the Assembly cannot recognise those acting out of bribery and those who are loyal Athenians: I am afraid that, since the ambassadors are silent about those matters for which they know they were bribed, your anger may be directed against those of us who are trying to repair some of the damage caused by their actions. 743 And as with the previous speeches, Demosthenes mitigates this criticism with hope, which lies in shaking off their apathy and reclaiming their traditional intelligence. Whilst he asserts that he fears trouble ‘is already all too close at hand’, if they listen then they can redeem themselves and the situation: While the trouble is still in the future and is only gathering, and we are still listening to each other, I want each of you – even though you know the answer perfectly well – nevertheless to remind yourselves who it was that persuaded you to abandon the Demosthenes 6.33. ὅταν οὖν μηκέθ’ ὑμῖν ἀμελεῖν ἐξουσία γίγνηται τῶν συμβαινόντων, μηδ’ ἀκούηθ’ ὅτι ταῦτ’ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἐστιν ἐμοῦ μηδὲ τοῦ δεῖνος, ἀλλ’ αὐτοὶ πάντες ὁρᾶτε καὶ εὖ εἰδῆτε, ὀργίλους καὶ τραχεῖς ὑμᾶς ἔσεσθαι νομίζω. 742 Demosthenes 6.34. φοβοῦμαι δὴ μή, τῶν πρέσβεων σεσιωπηκότων ἐφ’ οἷς αὑτοῖς συνίσασι δεδωροδοκηκότες, τοῖς ἐπανορθοῦν τι πειρωμένοις τῶν διὰ τούτους ἀπολωλότων τῇ παρ’ ὑμῶν ὀργῇ περιπεσεῖν συμβῇ· 743 219 Phocians and Thermopylae, the possession of which gives Philip control of the roads to Attica and the Peloponnese. 744 This is key, because as already discussed above, Philip would not have been in a position to threaten Attica had he not been granted the gateway into Greece by the Peace. Thus, this apparent ‘external’ crisis is actually one that has been created by the crisis within Athens itself. Moreover, by attributing culpability to the rhētors’ sustained deception regarding the Peace, Demosthenes continues his method of denying Philip credit for his achievements, and by asserting that this is a self-inflicted problem. Demosthenes asserts that this deception, has caused you to be deliberating not about your rights or your overseas interest but about the inhabitants of our land and about a war against Attica, which will hurt each of you, when it arrives, but was started on that day.745 Ominously, it is also a war that Demosthenes forewarned would come to Attica in the Olynthiacs, if they did not seize the kairos of Olynthus, further demonstrating the damage caused by the Assembly’s inability to recognise and follow good advice. Usher considers this a development in Demosthenes’ rhetoric against Philip: ‘thus the speech is directed at two enemies, not one…a foretaste of Demosthenes’ personal crusade against ‘Philippizers.’ 746 However, I believe that these two enemies have always been present; as this thesis has demonstrated, Demosthenes’ speeches have all been directed against the corruption within Athens, and not merely others as ‘Philippizers’, because their transgressions surpass just helping Philip. Furthermore, I argue that Demosthenes’ complaints have consistently been directed against an apathetic Assembly that indulges in empty, Demosthenes 6.35. ἕως οὖν ἔτι μέλλει καὶ συνίσταται τὰ πράγματα καὶ κατακούομεν ἀλλήλων, ἕκαστον ὑμῶν καίπερ ἀκριβῶς εἰδόθ’ ὅμως ἐπαναμνῆσαι βούλομαι, τίς ὁ Φωκέας πείσας καὶ Πύλας προέσθαι, ὧν καταστὰς ἐκεῖνος κύριος τῆς ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀττικὴν ὁδοῦ καὶ τῆς εἰς Πελοπόννησον κύριος γέγονεν, 744 Demosthenes 6.35. καὶ πεποίηχ’ ὑμῖν μὴ περὶ τῶν δικαίων μηδ’ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἔξω πραγμάτων εἶναι τὴν βουλήν, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τὴν Ἀττικὴν πολέμου, ὃς λυπήσει μὲν ἕκαστον, ἐπειδὰν παρῇ, γέγονεν δ’ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. 745 746 Usher 1999:233. 220 flattering rhetoric, and against those that manipulate this to their own ends. Philippizers, in my opinion, are thus the upgraded version of the original self-serving rhētors criticised in the Pre-Peace speeches. Indeed, as Demosthenes concludes the speech, he states unequivocally that it is the corruption within the Assembly that is responsible for their current misfortunes: If you had not been deceived then, there would be no danger to our city, since surely Philip would never have been able to attack Attica either with a fleet, by defeating you at sea, or with an army, by marching through Thermopylae and Phocis. 747 The focus, therefore, is not an anti-Macedonian rhetoric, but the need to challenge the corrupted attitudes within the Assembly. Moreover, in having evoked their ancestral history, Demosthenes has not only dramatized ‘the crisis the Athenians preferred to deny’, but has presented the Assembly with the only acceptable response, remembering Herodotus’ assertion that the Athenians ‘chose that Hellas should survive in freedom’. 748 To summarise, Demosthenes asserts that the Athenians should be intelligent enough to recognise Philip’s actions and intentions for what they really are, and live up to their own reputation. Just as in the Olynthiacs, Demosthenes holds their idealised past up as an exemplum, to make the Assembly to reflect upon itself and recognise the juxtaposition between its past reputation and their current practices, to ‘push the Athenian audience from denial towards realism and self-awareness.’749 This ideology, however, is not just an unachievable nostalgic ideal, but within Athens’ potential if they shake of their apathy and take the necessary steps in preventing the decline of their fortunes. Demosthenes does not just Demosthenes 9.36. εἰ γὰρ μὴ παρεκρούσθητε τόθ’ ὑμεῖς, οὐδὲν ἂν ἦν τῇ πόλει πρᾶγμα· οὔτε γὰρ ναυσὶ δήπου κρατήσας εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἦλθεν ἄν ποτε στόλῳ Φίλιππος, οὔτε πεζῇ βαδίζων ὑπὲρ τὰς Πύλας καὶ Φωκέας, 747 748 Mader 2004: 67. Herodotus 7.139.5. The fact that the Athenians could also kill with impunity anyone who sought to overthrow the dēmos is attested to the decree of Eucrates, IG II3 320, and the stele found at the Athenian Agora (Early III c. BC foundations) (Ag. I 6524), depicts a man being crowned by the personification of dēmos. (Lambert AIO). Mader 2004: 57. By ideological virtues I also include isēgoria and the respect for parrhēsia in their decisionmaking. 749 221 recount the past in his historical allusions, but actively promotes the virtues which were ‘an integral part of the negotiation and manifestation of the Athenians’ shared image of the past.’750 Demosthenes presents the logical hope that if the Athenians emulate the attitudes of the ancestors, they can overcome Philip in the same manner they did the Persians, but only if they act in a manner worthy of their ancestral past. Demosthenes, again, makes the task of challenging Philip necessary and manageable: even though Philip is now an undeniable threat like Xerxes, he also takes on the Great King’s flaws and weaknesses, and can be challenged if the Athenians act in a manner worthy of the city. To continue the pretence that the peace exists, and that they can ignore his expansion, would be to compromise their very identity as Athenians and the reputation inherited from their ancestors, the men of Marathon. Demosthenes aims to motivate the Assembly to change its damaging practices advocated by apathy, greed and immediate gratification, by reflecting self-critically on their own behaviour and recognise good advice from rhetorical flattery, and reject those men who have sold out the city to Philip. Steinbock 2013: 99. Steinbock argues that with regard to historical allusions the orator ‘is neither a mere mouthpiece of one particular tradition nor a propagandist manipulator of the ignorant masses. Instead…he participated and operated within a complex net of remembrances and beliefs, comprising a variety of different memory communities and carriers of social memory.’ 750 222 CHAPTER 4.2 ON THE CHERSONESE ‘The struggle will be for our very existence’ 751 Date and Historical Context On the Chersonese is dated to Spring 341, following Philip’s campaign in Thrace. 752 After 343 and following the Second Philippic, Philip’s expansion became more aggressive; he invaded Epirus and insulted the Athenians by offering them the island of Halonnesus, touching a raw nerve on Athenian lost possessions. 753 In the speeches On Halonnesus and On the Crown, Demosthenes (and Hegesippus) attest to Philip bribing Antiphon to burn the Piraeus in 343, just one example of a general decline in relations between Athens and Philip.754 The Chersonese was the Thracian peninsular of the Hellespont and was of crucial importance for the Athenians’ access to the Balkan region, particularly for their importation of grain.755 During the negotiations of the Peace of Philocrates, the Athenians had sought and 751 Demosthenes 8.61. 752 Dionysius Letter to Ammaeus 1.10. Worthington 2013: 216 citing Sealey 1955: 101-110. MacDowell 2009: 347. This concurs with Blass 1893: 368 who dates it to spring, stating that Philip was in the eleventh month of his Thracian campaign ‘Sie fällt nach Dionysios in das Jahr und zwar haben wir die zweite Hälfe des Jahres, genauer etwa März 341, anzunehmen, da Philipp zur Zeit im elften Monate in Thrakien zu Felde lag’. This was around the same time as the Third Philippic. 753 Worthington 2013: 210. As Plutarch Demosthenes 9.6. remarks, Demosthenes replied scathingly that the Athenians were not to take, but take back their possession from Philip.’ 754 Worthington 2013: 212-3 observes Aeschines successfully defended Antiphon, but Demosthenes went to the Aeropagus, who found Antiphon guilty. In BNJ FGrH 115 F 224 Athenaeus recounts Theopompus’ criticism of the Macedonian companions that they ‘lived in a profligate manner very akin to that of pirates’, which Shrimpton 1991: 155 views as a ‘scarcely disguised denunciation of Macedonian piracy against Athens.’ See too Buckler 2000: 140-43. 755 Trevett 2011: 129. Gabriel 2010: 190 notes how the Athenians settled the peninsula in the sixth century BCE and founded twelve cities there, and despite it changing hands, by 357 it was again under Athenian control. Sears 2013: i ‘Thrace was vitally important for Athens thanks to its natural resources and access to strategic waterways, which were essential to a maritime empire’. Moreno 2007: 144 argues the history of the Black Sea as a source for grain from Athens has ‘long suffered from overemphasis in literary evidence.’ 223 failed to secure Cersebleptes of Thrace as part of the original agreement. 756 In 342, Philip resumed his Thracian campaign and deposed Cersebleptes, installed garrisons, a tithe tax, and a strategos of Thrace.757 Philip’s power was now unprecedented, ‘the Macedonian kingdom was now more than double its size at his accession in 359’, a disturbing prospect for the Athenians, who were likewise alarmed at his involvement in Euboea. 758 In response the Athenians strengthened their ‘hold on the Chersonese by sending further settlers.’ 759 The direct context of this speech is the debate following a letter of complaint from Philip to the Assembly about Diopeithes, the Athenian general sent with the cleruchs to the Chersonese in 343/2. Philip’s allies Cardia, Crobyle and Tiristasis accused Diopeithes of attacking them and of aggressive piracy, which they claimed breached the Peace of Philocrates.760 In the First Philippic, Demosthenes criticised the Assembly for not financially supporting its generals, warning that it forced them to find provisions by alternative means. Diopeithes was no exception, and he found ‘pay for his mercenaries by demanding “benevolences” (eunoiai) from merchant ships, piratical raids by sea, the ravaging of Thracian land, and the holding of prisoners to ransom.’ 761 756 Following the departure of the Athenian embassy Philip immediately campaigned to Thrace, defeating Cersebleptes at Heraion Oros who was then restored as a subject ally/ vassal. Cawkwell 1978: 44; Worthington 2013: 171. Diodorus 16.71.2; 17. 62.5 Hammond 1994: 122 notes Diodorus is the only perfunctory account of Philip’s War with Thrace. See Worthington 2013: 214-5; Badian 1983: 51-71. 757 758 Gabriel 2010: 187 who also notes that civil strife broke out in Euboea between pro-Macedonian and proAthenian factions. Worthington 2013: 215 notes that during his Thracian campaign Philip sent Hipponicus, Parmenion and Eurylochus to Euboea to help the pro-Macedonian group set up tyrants in Eretria, Porthmus and Oreus. See Cawkwell 1963: 202-3. 759 Hammond 1994: 127. Worthington 2013: 214 notes the Athenians sent Diopeithes with more cleruchs to retain their presence in that vital area. Gabriel 2010: 187 adds that Diopeithes tortured Philip’s envoy who had been sent to petition for relief of the captives, before demanding a ransom for him too. Worthington 2008: 126 states that from Philip’s perspective ‘at the very least Diopeithes ought to have been recalled to stand trial, for his acts were in clear breach of diplomatic protocol.’ 760 761 Philochorus FGrH 328 f 158, cited by Hammond 1994: 127. 224 Philip’s letter ‘demanded Diopeithes’ removal and ominously warned the people that he would protect the Cardians if the Athenians continued to condone Diopeithes’ actions.’ 762 This speech is Demosthenes’ reply to the Assembly, which rings with incredulous anger at the Assembly for the popular opinion to recall, punish, and replace Diopeithes who was only guilty of acting in Athenian interests without sufficient funding. 763 It is significantly longer than any of the previous speeches, which suggests it may have been subject to revision and extended to include what Demosthenes retrospectively wanted to say. 764 Due to the relentless criticism, this speech appears as an unremitting tirade, that only ends when Demosthenes has exhausted his complaints. Indeed, all the previous complaints at the Assembly’s internal corruption, their lack of priorities, the gap between their words and deeds, their delusion, their neglect and their apathy are all nuances of the one assertion that it is an internal crisis, which has undermined the polis from within and left it vulnerable to Philip. Demosthenes’ parrhēsia admonishes the Assembly for attacking their own general, instead of taking note of Philip’s actions in the last ten months, and how they should be debating on the best means to protect the places now at risk. Demosthenes is emphatic that: It would be shameful, by Zeus and all the gods, and unworthy of you and of what the city has and of your ancestor’s achievements, to sacrifice all the other Greeks into slavery for the sake of your own indolence, and I at any rate would rather die than advocate this course. 765 Demosthenes’ proposals are simple: they should oppose their enemies (internal and external), and not their defender. If they maintain that Philip’s actions have not breached the peace, 762 Worthington 2013: 216. Worthington 2008: 126 notes that the Assembly was also ‘misled’ by Hegesippus who argued Philip was ‘operating outside of Thrace and hence in an area to which he had no right.’ 763 764 MacDowell 2009: 347 suggests the text we have is a revision, and he links it to the Fourth Philippic. Demosthenes 8.49. αἰσχρὸν μὲν νὴ τὸν Δία καὶ πάντας θεοὺς καὶ ἀνάξιον ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων τῇ πόλει καὶ πεπραγμένων τοῖς προγόνοις, τῆς ἰδίας ἕνεκα ῥᾳθυμιας τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας Ἕλληνας εἰς δουλείαν προέσθαι, καὶ ἔγωγ᾽αὐτὸς μὲν τεθνάναι μᾶλλον ἂν ἢ ταῦτ᾽ εἰρηκέναι βουλοίμην· 765 225 then they hypocritically hold Diopeithes to a double standard. Their attitude towards Diopeithes is symptomatic of their attitudes in deliberation, and the crisis as a whole. The central aim of the speech, therefore, is to shame the Assembly into realising their counterproductive attitudes and recognise their real enemies, and do what he asked in the First Philippic: support their forces, act and do their duty. Analysis Demosthenes opens the speech with the proem topos of addressing the nature of oratory, returning to his complaint on the shortcomings of the Assembly: Every speaker, men of Athens, ought to speak neither out of enmity nor to curry favour but to declare what he thinks is the best policy, especially in view of the great public interest of matters you are discussing. 766 Demosthenes, however, asserts this appears to be the case: But since there are some who are being induced to speak either out of rivalry or from some other reason, you the majority, men of Athens must discount everything else, and vote and act in accordance with what you judge to be the interest of the city. 767 Demosthenes affirms the duty of the dēmos to recognise and act upon the best policy, and how currently their decisions are flawed because of rhētors who serve their own agendas and how individuals dominate the sovereignty of the dēmos.768 Thus, Demosthenes appeals to the Assembly to act in the manner expected of the Athenian dēmos: that the majority acts in the Demosthenes 8.1. ἔδει μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοὺς λέγοντας ἅπαντας μήτε πρὸς ἔχθραν ποιεῖσθαι λόγον μηδένα μήτε πρὸς χάριν, ἀλλ’ ὃ βέλτιστον ἕκαστος ἡγεῖτο, τοῦτ’ ἀποφαίνεσθαι, ἄλλως τε καὶ περὶ κοινῶν πραγμάτων καὶ μεγάλων ὑμῶν βουλευομένων· At 8.69 Demosthenes develop this into his definition of the good citizen. 766 Demosthenes 8.1. ἐπεὶ δ’ ἔνιοι τὰ μὲν φιλονικίᾳ, τὰ δ’ ᾑτινιδήποτ’ αἰτίᾳ προάγονται λέγειν, ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοὺς πολλοὺς δεῖ πάντα τἄλλ’ ἀφελόντας, ἃ τῇ πόλει νομίζετε συμφέρειν, ταῦτα καὶ ψηφίζεσθαι καὶ πράττειν. 768 Indeed I argue that the present crisis, for Demosthenes, is their failure to perform their civic duty. As Finley 1981: 32 notes, Athens’ success rested on ‘widespread political responsibility’ between rhētors and dēmos, cited in Yunis 1996: 27. 767 226 best interests of the polis not to the personal ends of individuals. This appeal in itself, however, highlights the reality that the majority do not listen responsibly Demosthenes states that their deliberation has focused on punishing the wrong person, indicative of their failure to understand the situation objectively. Recalling his complaint against the Assembly in On the Peace and the Second Philippic that ‘advisors’ have weakened Athens by their deception, Demosthenes asserts that the Assembly chooses to blame others rather than acknowledging their internal problems; thus, the immediate issue for Athens is not an offended Philip, but their own attitudes. Indeed, Demosthenes states that rather than express their fears at Philip, the Assembly has exhausted its complaints at Diopeithes: The trouble we face relates to events in the Chersonese and the campaign that Philip has been conducting for more than ten months in Thrace, but most of the speeches that have been made deal with what Diopeithes is doing and is going to do. Yet I think that you already have the power to investigate whatever accusations have been directed against any of these men – whom you can punish according to the laws whenever you want, either now or later – and there is absolutely no need for me or anyone else to speak at length about them. 769 Demosthenes criticises the Assembly’s habit of indulging debates on subjects they are comfortable with, and which allows them to consistently avoid dealing with the real issues at hand. Instead they should recognise and discuss the threat to their interests: But all the places that an established enemy of our city, who is in the Hellespontine region accompanied by a large military force, is trying to seize before we can stop Demosthenes 8.2. ἡ μὲν οὖν σπουδὴ περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερρονήσῳ πραγμάτων ἐστὶ καὶ τῆς στρατείας, ἣν ἑνδέκατον μῆνα τουτονὶ Φίλιππος ἐν Θρᾴκῃ ποιεῖται· τῶν δὲ λόγων οἱ πλεῖστοι περὶ ὧν Διοπείθης πράττει καὶ μέλλει ποιεῖν εἴρηνται. ἐγὼ δ’ ὅσα μέν τις αἰτιᾶταί τινα τούτων, οὓς κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐφ’ ὑμῖν ἐστιν, ὅταν βούλησθε, κολάζειν, κἂν ἤδη δοκῇ κἂν ἐπισχοῦσιν περὶ αὐτῶν σκοπεῖν ἐγχωρεῖν ἡγοῦμαι, καὶ οὐ πάνυ δεῖ περὶ τούτων οὔτ’ ἔμ’ οὔτ’ ἄλλον οὐδέν’ ἰσχυρίζεσθαι· 769 227 him, and which, if we are too late, we will no longer be able to save – about these I think it is profitable for us to deliberate and make our preparations as soon as possible and not run away from them as a result of these irrelevant and rancorous accusations.770 Demosthenes asserts that the accusations against Diopeithes are a distraction from confronting the reality of their situation, and only further aids Philip to seize more areas of Athenian interest. His comment ‘if we are too late’ is also reminiscent of his urgent appeals to seize the kairos and act in the Olynthiacs, and the First Philippic. This echoing of the past reminds the Athenians of his previous advice, the consequences they have suffered by ignoring him, and to avoid repeating these mistakes. Indeed, in light of the actions of Philip in Thrace and towards Cersebleptes, Demosthenes is angered at the accusations that he is a warmonger: I am amazed by many of the things that are regularly said to you, men of Athens, but I was astonished most of all at what I recently heard someone say in the Council, that any advisor must advise you either to wage war openly or keep the peace. 771 As Demosthenes already demonstrated in the Second Philippic, Philip has broken the Peace, and that rather than acknowledging this certain rhētors look to attack Demosthenes and continue to deceive the Assembly with the farce of Peace, allowing Philip to act unchecked: The fact is, if Philip keeps quiet and neither possesses anything of ours in breach of the peace nor organises everybody against us there is no further need for speeches: all Demosthenes 8.3. ὅσα δ’ ἐχθρὸς ὑπάρχων τῇ πόλει καὶ δυνάμει πολλῇ περὶ Ἑλλήσποντον ὢν πειρᾶται προλαβεῖν, κἂν ἅπαξ ὑστερήσωμεν, οὐκέθ’ ἕξομεν σῶσαι, περὶ τούτων δ’ οἴομαι τὴν ταχίστην συμφέρειν καὶ βεβουλεῦσθαι καὶ παρεσκευάσθαι, καὶ μὴ τοῖς περὶ τῶν ἄλλων θορύβοις καὶ ταῖς κατηγορίαις ἀπὸ τούτων ἀποδρᾶναι. 770 Demosthenes 8.4. πολλὰ δὲ θαυμάζων τῶν εἰωθότων λέγεσθαι παρ’ ὑμῖν, οὐδενὸς ἧττον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τεθαύμακα, ὃ καὶ πρώην τινὸς ἤκουσ’ εἰπόντος ἐν τῇ βουλῇ, ὡς ἄρα δεῖ τὸν συμβουλεύοντα ἢ πολεμεῖν ἁπλῶς ἢ τὴν εἰρήνην ἄγειν συμβουλεύειν. 771 228 we have to do is keep the peace, and on your side I see that you are quite ready to do so.772 Demosthenes presents how, in an ideal world where Philip is not agitating against Athens, of course the peace would be maintained, and Diopeithes too would not have had cause to raid or attack Cardia. 773 But this is not the case. Demosthenes’s irony builds upon previous evidence that Philip’s actions (such as his treatment of Phocis, and seizing of Thermopylae) are directed against Athenian interests, and to maintain the fallacy of the peace is tantamount to surrendering Athens and Greece. As such, On the Chersonese functions as a defence speech for Diopeithes, and Demosthenes continues to assert how internal corruption within the Assembly and their lack of action has enabled Philip’s expansion. The reference to ‘everybody against us’ reminds the Athenians of their vulnerable position following the Peace of Philocrates (attested to in On the Peace and the Second Philippic) that Philip can unite their enemies in a coalition if they break the Peace. To blame Diopeithes risks admitting as such, and maintaining the fallacy of the Peace is thus self-sabotaging, especially when it is Philip (for Demosthenes) who has broken the Peace. For Demosthenes, the sting in the tail is that the Athenians choose to cling to this comforting fallacy instead of accepting reality. 774 And so Demosthenes confronts the Assembly with his blunt parrhēsia: Demosthenes 8.5. †ἔστι δέ,† εἰ μὲν ἡσυχίαν Φίλιππος ἄγει καὶ μήτε τῶν ἡμετέρων ἔχει παρὰ τὴν εἰρήνην μηδὲν μήτε συσκευάζεται πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, οὐκέτι δεῖ λέγειν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς εἰρήνην ἀκτέον, καὶ τά γ’ ἀφ’ ὑμῶν ἕτοιμ’ ὑπάρχονθ’ ὁρῶ· 772 Demosthenes appears to evoke Pericles again at Thucydides 2.61 ‘If one has a free choice and can live undisturbed, it is sheer folly to go to war. But suppose the choice was forced upon one – submission and immediate slavery or danger with the hope of survival: then I prefer the man who stands up to danger than the one who runs away from it.’ 773 Demosthenes conveniently ignores how he successfully persuaded the Assembly to reject Philip’s invitation to join him on a mission against the pirates of the Aegean, prior to his campaign against Epirus in 343 Worthington 2013: 211. Cawkwell 1963: 200 notes that ‘Demosthenes has so much to say on [the breaches of the Peace of Philocrates] and on which there is so little satisfactory evidence. In every speech which he delivered after 346 he referred, in greater or less detail, to breaches…and this instance on Philip’s ἀδικία may mislead us’ if you are using Demosthenes as an historical source (which this thesis is not). Hammond 1994: 128 likewise notes the Athenians were arguable provoking Philip when their ally Thasos permitted pirates to use their harbour, which was in breach of the Peace. 774 229 It is evident that from the start, before the departure of Diopeithes and the cleruchs whom they now accuse of having caused war, Philip has illegally seized many of our possessions, about which you complain in these decrees that remain in force, and continues to seize the possessions of Greeks and foreigners alike, and is mobilising against us, what do they mean by saying that we must either wage war or remain at peace?775 Demosthenes highlights their absurdity and affirms they should be protecting Diopeithes who was acting in Athens’ interests, rather than condemning him to appease Philip and his supporters. Indeed, nothing has changed since the First Philippic, and through their refusal to accept unpleasant truths and change, Philip is now in an undisputed position of power. Quite simply: We have no choice in the matter: all that is left for us is to take the most just and necessary course of action, which these men are happy to pass over. 776 Demosthenes’ criticism also includes the sinister element that some rhētors pass over these realities, and do so because they work for Philip. Demosthenes’ persuasion rests on his assertion that there is only one honourable course of action for the Athenians now: What is this action? To oppose the man who has started war against us – unless indeed, by Zeus, they claim that so long as Philip keeps away from Attica and Piraeus, he is neither wronging the city nor waging war on it! 777 Demosthenes 8.6. φαίνεται δ’ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ Φίλιππος, πρὶν Διοπείθην ἐκπλεῦσαι καὶ τοὺς κληρούχους, οὓς νῦν αἰτιῶνται πεποιηκέναι τὸν πόλεμον, πολλὰ μὲν τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀδίκως εἰληφώς, ὑπὲρ ὧν ψηφίσμαθ’ ὑμέτερ’ ἐγκαλοῦντα κύρια ταυτί, πάντα δὲ τὸν χρόνον συνεχῶς τὰ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων λαμβάνων καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς συσκευαζόμενος, τί τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὡς πολεμεῖν ἢ ἄγειν εἰρήνην δεῖ; Demosthenes reaffirms this at 8.39. 775 Demosthenes 8.7. οὐ γὰρ αἵρεσίς ἐστιν ἡμῖν τοῦ πράγματος, ἀλλ’ ὑπολείπεται τὸ δικαιότατον καὶ ἀναγκαιότατον τῶν ἔργων, ὃ ὑπερβαίνουσιν ἑκόντες οὗτοι. 776 Demosthenes 8.7. τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; ἀμύνεσθαι τὸν πρότερον πολεμοῦνθ’ ἡμῖν. πλὴν εἰ τοῦτο λέγουσι νὴ Δί’, ὡς, ἂν ἀπέχηται τῆς Ἀττικῆς καὶ τοῦ Πειραιῶς Φίλιππος, οὔτ’ ἀδικεῖ τὴν πόλιν οὔτε ποιεῖ πόλεμον. This will eventually build into Demosthenes’ defence in On the Crown that his proposals were the only honourable option, as discussed in Yunis 2007 on the burden of the Athenian past. 777 230 Demosthenes presents it is as ridiculous to not acknowledge Philip’s actions in Thrace and Euboea as aggressive, as Athens’ logical course of action is to actively defend itself against aggressors. Thus, anyone who advocates peace with Philip is deceiving the polis. It also asserts that Athenian interests are beyond Attica, and to not recognise Philip’s actions as breaches of the Peace epitomises the Assembly’s attitude of neglect and apathy which has resulted in the erosion of their influence in Northern Greece. 778 Demosthenes asserts that the Athenians face the same situation now in the Chersonese as they did in the First Philippic and Olynthiacs, and that their duty is to support Diopeithes and recognise Philip’s actions as the true breach of the peace: But if they [other orators] define justice in these terms and consider this to be peace, you can presumably all see that what they are saying is impious, intolerable and dangerous to you.779 It is important to observe that these classical topoi of invective (impiety, intolerableness and danger) are all directed at the rhētors: it is the enemies within that Demosthenes asserts as most dangerous here, not Philip. Demosthenes’ priority is to confront these rhētors and expose the practices which enable them to deceive and manipulate the dēmos with no personal repercussions. Demosthenes presents this as all the more incredulous when one considers the double standards between Philip (and his collaborators) and Diopeithes: Moreover, their statements are logically inconsistent with the allegations that they direct against Diopeithes. Why on earth should we give Philip license to do whatever Which had a detrimental effect upon Athens’ access to resources in the region, in particular upon access to Timber. 778 Demosthenes 8.8. εἰ δ’ἐκ τούτων τὰ δίκαια τίθενται καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην ταύτην ὁρίζονται, ὅτι μὲν δήπουθεν οὔθ’ ὅσι’ οὔτ’ ἀνεκτὰ λέγουσιν οὔθ’ ὑμῖν ἀσφαλῆ, δῆλόν ἐστιν ἅπασιν. 779 231 he wants so long as he keeps away from Attica, but not permit Diopeithes even to help the Thracians without our claiming that he is waging war? 780 Demosthenes does not deny the aggression of Diopeithes, but rather defends his actions (again evoking a forensic speech) as firmly in Athenian interests. Indeed, if blame is going to be assigned, it should be on the Assembly for failing to provide their generals with the necessary resources to perform their duty. 781 By encouraging the punishment of Diopeithes, the Assembly undermines Athenian security: Observe how they [the rhētors] are simply directing the city towards the same behaviour that caused the present disaster. 782 Demosthenes makes this even clearer by repeating the same complaints from the First Philippic that Philip acts whilst the Athenians merely react: For you know, I suppose, that the most important way in which Philip has got control of everything is by being the first to take action. He has a standing army always with him and knows in advance what he wishes to do, and strikes suddenly against whomever he chooses; whereas we, whenever we hear that something is happening, are thrown into confusion and only then start to make our preparations. 783 Demosthenes 8.8. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ’ ἐναντία συμβαίνει ταῖς κατηγορίαις ἃς Διοπείθους κατηγοροῦσι καὶ αὐτὰ ταῦτα λέγειν αὐτούς. τί γὰρ δήποτε τῷ μὲν Φιλίππῳ πάντα τἄλλα ποιεῖν ἐξουσίαν δώσομεν, ἂν τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἀπέχηται, τῷ Διοπείθει δ’ οὐδὲ βοηθεῖν τοῖς Θρᾳξὶν ἐξέσται, ἢ πόλεμον ποιεῖν αὐτὸν φήσομεν; 780 781 Demosthenes will emphasise this at 8.24-6. Compare to Demosthenes 4.35-6 and his argument that their attitude towards their generals, and the lack of funding, contributed significantly to their problems. Demosthenes 8.10. σκοπεῖθ’ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο ποιοῦσιν ἢ καθιστᾶσι τὴν πόλιν εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον δι’ οὗ τὰ [παρόντα] πράγμαθ’ ἅπαντ’ ἀπολώλεκεν. Cf. 1.14-15, 2.26, 2.28-9. 782 Demosthenes 8.11. ἴστε γὰρ δήπου τοῦθ’ ὅτι οὐδενὶ τῶν πάντων πλέον κεκράτηκε Φίλιππος, ἢ τῷ πρότερος πρὸς τοῖς πράγμασι γίγνεσθαι. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἔχων δύναμιν συνεστηκυῖαν ἀεὶ περὶ αὑτὸν καὶ προειδὼς ἃ βούλεται πρᾶξαι, ἐξαίφνης ἐφ’ οὓς ἂν αὐτῷ δόξῃ πάρεστιν· ἡμεῖς δ’ ἐπειδὰν πυθώμεθά τι γιγνόμενον, τηνικαῦτα θορυβούμεθα καὶ παρασκευαζόμεθα. This point is particularly reminiscent of Demosthenes’ claims in the First Philippic at 4.37 and 4.40 discussed p. 63 that the Athenians’ attitude was like a barbarian trying to box, never pre-empting, never anticipating, but always one step behind. 783 232 It also returns to the uncomfortable role reversal of Philip and Athens. Now, like then, the Athenians are too late and continue to shame themselves. The problems of 351 have still not been resolved: The result, it seems to me, is that he gets possession of any place he is attacking with great ease, whereas we are too late, and all our expenditure is in vain, and we make a show of our hostility and of our desire to hinder him, but in acting too late we succeed only in incurring shame. 784 As Trevett notes, ‘the Athenians look foolish in the eyes of the other Greeks’, and as I argued in the First Philippic and Olynthiacs, Demosthenes urged the Athenians to redeem their reputation in front of the wider Greek community. 785 This involved action, and as discussed in the Second Philippic, the gap between their words and actions insinuated that they were Athenians in name, but not in practice. Demosthenes returns to emphasising this gap by comparing the Athenian decrees to Macedonian action: Please realise, men of Athens, that even now the rest is just words and pretexts, but that Philip’s actions and preparations have this [designs against Athens] as their aim – that while you remain at home and our city has no force abroad, he can make all his arrangements completely unhindered. 786 The Assembly has enabled the situation to deteriorate by using just words and, in contrast, Philip’s actions (which speak truer than his words) are more effective than Athenian actions or words. Philip’s deception and actions have effectively deceived Athens, who have paralysed themselves by their inability to move from logos to ergon. Demosthenes’ Demosthenes 8.12. εἶτ’, οἶμαι, συμβαίνει τῷ μὲν ἐφ’ ἃν ἔλθῃ, ταῦτ’ ἔχειν κατὰ πολλὴν ἡσυχίαν, ἡμῖν δ’ ὑστερίζειν, καὶ ὅσ’ ἂν δαπανήσωμεν, ἅπαντα μάτην ἀνηλωκέναι, καὶ τὴν μὲν ἔχθραν καὶ τὸ βούλεσθαι κωλύειν ἐνδεδεῖχθαι, ὑστερίζοντας δὲ τῶν ἔργων αἰσχύνην προσοφλισκάνειν. 784 785 Trevett 2011: 13. Cf. Demosthenes 4.45 and how their allies ‘died of shame.’ Demosthenes 8.13. μὴ τοίνυν ἀγνοεῖτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅτι καὶ τὰ νῦν τἄλλα μέν ἐστι λόγοι ταῦτα καὶ προφάσεις, πράττεται δὲ καὶ κατασκευάζεται τοῦτο, ὅπως ὑμῶν μὲν οἴκοι μενόντων, ἔξω δὲ μηδεμιᾶς οὔσης τῇ πόλει δυνάμεως, μετὰ πλείστης ἡσυχίας ἅπανθ’ ὅσα βούλεται Φίλιππος διοικήσεται. 786 233 complaint is that, given their reputation for intelligence (as noted by ‘Philip’ in Second Philippic), the Athenians should know better. Indeed, there is a dissonance between their words and their actions: But in our speeches we praise those who speak worthily of the city, whereas in our actions we join with their opponents.787 Not only does this evoke his request in the Second Olynthiac that they march out ‘in a manner worthy of our city…since all speech, if it is not accompanied by action, seems vain and empty’, but asserts that Athens is increasingly destabilised at its core by consistently undermining itself; they say one thing, but do another.788 To stress this illogical approach, Demosthenes calls the Assembly to, ‘first see what is going on at present’ (θεωρεῖτε γὰρ τὸ παρὸν πρῶτον, ὃ γίγνεται789), and gives an account of the current situation via an eyewitness account: Philip is currently spending his time with a large force in Thrace and is summoning many reinforcements from Macedonia and Thessaly, according to eyewitnesses. If he waits for the Etesian winds, marches against Byzantium and lays siege to it, do you suppose that the Byzantines will continue with the same folly that they show now and will decide neither to call for your help nor to help themselves?...if we are unable to put to sea from here, and there is no help at hand there, nothing will prevent their destruction.790 Demosthenes 8.22. ἐν μὲν τοῖς λόγοις τοὺς τῆς πόλεως λέγοντας ἄξι’ ἐπαινοῦμεν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἐναντιουμένοις τούτοις συναγωνιζόμεθα. 787 788 Demosthenes 2.11. This evokes his earlier statement at 3.14 that judging by their decrees Philip should have been punished a long time ago. 789 Demosthenes 8.13. Demosthenes 8.14-15. νυνὶ δύναμιν μεγάλην ἐκεῖνος ἔχων ἐν Θρᾴκῃ διατρίβει, καὶ μεταπέμπεται πολλήν, ὥς φασιν οἱ παρόντες, ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας καὶ Θετταλίας. ἐὰν οὖν περιμείνας τοὺς ἐτησίας ἐπὶ Βυζάντιον ἐλθὼν πολιορκῇ, πρῶτον μὲν οἴεσθε τοὺς Βυζαντίους μενεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνοίας τῆς αὐτῆς ὥσπερ νῦν, καὶ οὔτε παρακαλεῖν ὑμᾶς οὔτε βοηθεῖν αὑτοῖς ἀξιώσειν; ... οὐκοῦν ἡμῶν μὲν μὴ δυναμένων ἐνθένδ’ ἀναπλεῦσαι, ἐκεῖ δὲ μηδεμιᾶς ὑπαρχούσης ἑτοίμου βοηθείας, οὐδὲν αὐτοὺς ἀπολωλέναι κωλύσει. 790 234 Thus, in their enthusiasm to call Diopeithes to account, they have neglected to note ‘what is going on at present’, and how Philip’s position in Thrace threatens both the Chersonese and ultimately Byzantium, which despite its own ‘evil spirit,’ ‘must nevertheless be saved, since it is in our city’s interest.’ 791 In particular, this is about Athens’ access to the Black Sea region, and how ‘Byzantium’s site on the Bosporus meant that whoever possessed it would be able to control the grain from the Black Sea on which Athens depended.’ 792 Macedonian control of the area would force the Athenians to look elsewhere for supplies in an evershrinking network of influence, an endeavour which previously led to the disastrous Sicilian Expedition in the need to find resources for timber, following the loss of Amphipolis. The Athenians, in turning a blind eye to Philip’s actions are repeating the same patterns of selfdestruction from both the Peloponnesian War, from the pre-Peace speeches and their loss of control over northern timber, and now their grain route in the Hellespont. To this end, Demosthenes argues that Diopeithes’ actions are necessary to defend and safeguard Athenian interests. To punish him, or to recall him, or to disband his force would leave their vital interests undefended.793 Indeed, disbanding Diopeithes’ force amounts to surrendering the Chersonese to Philip: Demosthenes 8.16. “But, by Zeus, those people are possessed by an evil spirit and are exceedingly foolish.” True indeed, but they must nevertheless be saved, since it is in our city’s interest.’ νὴ Δία, κακοδαιμονῶσι γὰρ ἅνθρωποι καὶ ὑπερβάλλουσιν ἀνοίᾳ. πάνυ γε, ἀλλ’ ὅμως αὐτοὺς δεῖ σῶς εἶναι· συμφέρει γὰρ τῇ πόλει. 791 792 Trevett 2011: 136. Usher 1999: 217-8 notes the danger Philip posed to the Athenian corn route provided Demosthenes with a ‘momentous theme’ in the First Philippic. Demosthenes 8.17 ‘If the army that has already been formed remains in existence, it will be able both to assist that place [The Chersonese] and to damage some of his interests. But if it is ever disbanded, what will we do if he attacks the Chersonese? “We will put Diopeithes on trial, by Zeus.” And how will that help? “We can provide a relief force ourselves from here.” What if we are prevented by the winds? “By Zeus, he will not attack.” But who will guarantee this?’ ἂν μὲν τοίνυν ᾖ τὸ συνεστηκὸς στράτευμα, καὶ τῇ χώρᾳ βοηθῆσαι δυνήσεται καὶ τῶν ἐκείνου τι κακῶς ποιῆσαι· εἰ δ’ ἅπαξ διαλυθήσεται, τί ποιήσομεν, ἂν ἐπὶ Χερρόνησον ἴῃ; ‘κρινοῦμεν Διοπείθη νὴ Δία.’ καὶ τί τὰ πράγματ’ ἔσται βελτίω; ‘ἀλλ’ ἐνθένδ’ ἂν βοηθήσαιμεν αὐτοί.’ ἂν δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν πνευμάτων μὴ δυνώμεθα; ‘ἀλλὰ μὰ Δί’ οὐχ ἥξει.’ καὶ τίς ἐγγυητής ἐστι τούτου; 793 235 Are you aware, men of Athens, and do you take account of the coming season, which some people think will force you to abandon the Hellespont and surrender it to Philip?794 In surrendering the Chersonese the Athenians also risk opening a path of destruction to Attica. As Demosthenes asserted in the Second Philippic, the Assembly had already been persuaded to give up the areas which controlled Thermopylae, giving Philip unhindered access to central Greece. Likewise here: What if he leaves Thrace and attacks neither the Chersonese nor Byzantium but (this too is something you should consider) advances against Chalcis and Megara, just as he recently did against Oreus: is it better to resist him here and allow war to enter Attica, or to cause difficulties for him over there? The latter, I think. 795 This comment, that they ought to resist there rather than let war come to Attica, is the same warning Demosthenes delivered throughout the Olynthiacs. It also asserts the immediate danger facing the Athenians, and that they ought not to be discussing punishing one of their own but defending their own interests. There is also the implication that by prosecuting Diopeithes they accept culpability for breaching the peace and thus are jeopardising their own safety.796 Demosthenes asserts that they all know this and should act accordingly: Since we all know this and base our deliberations on it, we must not, by Zeus, disparage or attempt to disband the force that Diopeithes is trying to organise for the Demosthenes 8.18. ἆρ’ ὁρᾶτε καὶ λογίζεσθ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ὥραν τοῦ ἔτους, εἰς ἣν ἔρημόν τινες οἴονται δεῖν τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ὑμῶν ποιῆσαι καὶ παραδοῦναι Φιλίππῳ; This reference to the Etesian winds also ties back to his complaint in the First Philippic that the Athenians do not anticipate things, while Philip uses things such as the winds to his advantage. 794 Demosthenes 8.18. τί δ’, ἂν ἀπελθὼν ἐκ Θρᾴκης καὶ μηδὲ προσελθὼν Χερρονήσῳ μηδὲ Βυζαντίῳ (καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα λογίζεσθε) ἐπὶ Χαλκίδα καὶ Μέγαρ’ ἥκῃ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ ἐπ’ Ὠρεὸν πρώην, πότερον κρεῖττον ἐνθάδ’ αὐτὸν ἀμύνεσθαι καὶ προσελθεῖν τὸν πόλεμον πρὸς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἐᾶσαι, ἢ κατασκευάζειν ἐκεῖ τιν’ ἀσχολίαν αὐτῷ; ἐγὼ μὲν οἴομαι τοῦτο. 795 796 Remembering that in On the Peace, Demosthenes asserted it would have been safer to have not made the peace in the first place, than to risk breaching it now. 236 city, but must prepare a further force ourselves, supplying him with money and in other respects joining the struggle as friends. 797 Thus, whereas previously Demosthenes urged the Assembly to send an Athenian force, funded and manned by Athenians, he now takes what was advocated in First Philippic and the Olynthiacs to an extreme. His incredulity is increased by the notion that the Athenians finally have a general who acts in the city’s interests, and yet they choose to renounce him, for indeed: If someone were to ask Philip, “Tell me, would you rather that these soldiers whom Diopeithes now commands, however poor they are,” (I do not dispute it) “succeed and be held in high regard by the Athenians and be increased in number, and that the city of Athens joins in the struggle, or that they be disbanded and destroyed, as a result of slanders and accusations that certain men have brought against them?” I think he would choose the latter option. 798 Rather than attacking Philip, Demosthenes focuses on how the city has been ruined by their own poor decision making, which has enabled Philip to exploit their weaknesses. The Athenians, more so than ever before, would be jeopardising their interests to Philip’s advantage: But aren’t some of us here doing the very things that Philip would pray to the gods that we do. And do you still ask how the affairs of our city have been totally ruined?799 Demosthenes 8.19. ταῦτα τοίνυν ἅπαντας εἰδότας καὶ λογιζομένους χρή, οὐ μὰ Δί’ οὐχ ἣν Διοπείθης πειρᾶται τῇ πόλει δύναμιν παρασκευάζειν, ταύτην βασκαίνειν καὶ διαλῦσαι πειρᾶσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἑτέραν αὐτοὺς προσπαρασκευάζειν καὶ συνευποροῦντας ἐκείνῳ χρημάτων καὶ τἄλλ’ οἰκείως συναγωνιζομένους. 797 Demosthenes 8.20. εἰ γάρ τις ἔροιτο Φίλιππον, ‘εἰπέ μοι, πότερ’ ἂν βούλοιο τούτους τοὺς στρατιώτας οὓς Διοπείθης νῦν ἔχει, τοὺς ὁποιουστινασοῦν (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀντιλέγω) εὐθενεῖν καὶ παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις εὐδοξεῖν καὶ πλείους γίγνεσθαι τῆς πόλεως συναγωνιζομένης, ἢ διαβαλλόντων τινῶν καὶ κατηγορούντων διασπασθῆναι καὶ διαφθαρῆναι;’ ταῦτ’ ἂν οἶμαι φήσειεν. 798 Demosthenes 8.20. εἶθ’ ἃ Φίλιππος ἂν εὔξαιτο τοῖς θεοῖς, ταῦθ’ ἡμῶν τινες ἐνθάδε πράττουσιν; εἶτ’ ἔτι ζητεῖτε πόθεν τὰ τῆς πόλεως ἀπόλωλεν ἅπαντα; 799 237 Blame, therefore, is directed squarely at the Assembly for their continued failure to recognise the intentions of speakers. The lack of awareness of their own culpability has been a consistent theme throughout the corpus, and their continued rejection of Demosthenes’ advice has not only exacerbated the situation, but intensified the need for the Assembly to reflect self-critically. To make the Athenians recognise this, Demosthenes shifts tactic in the speech, presenting a ‘candid appraisal’ of the situation, and how to address it: I wish to provide a candid appraisal of our city’s present predicament and to examine what we are currently doing to address it. We are not willing to raise taxes [eisphora], or to campaign in person, or to keep our hands off public funds [Theoric fund] nor do we provide Diopeithes with financial contributions, or approve of the provisions he makes for himself, but we disparage him and investigate the source of his funds and his intentions and the like. 800 The criticism is sharpened by the insinuation that, had they done this at the first time of asking, they would not be in their current predicament. Moreover, in listing his rejected suggestions, Demosthenes demonstrates the impossible task of advising an Assembly that refuses to do what is necessary, but moans when his ominous predictions come to fruition. 801 Instead the Assembly wastes time debating the best means to punish Diopeithes, whose actions were predetermined by the Assembly’s own neglect of its military provisions. In highlighting their illogical attitude to Diopeithes compared to Philip, Demosthenes observes how the Assembly has deluded itself with what Mader asserts is ‘speech–act logic’, where: Demosthenes 8.22. βούλομαι τοίνυν [ὑμᾶς] μετὰ παρρησίας ἐξετάσαι τὰ παρόντα πράγματα τῇ πόλει, καὶ σκέψασθαι τί ποιοῦμεν αὐτοὶ νῦν καὶ ὅπως χρώμεθ’ αὐτοῖς. ἡμεῖς οὔτε χρήματ’ εἰσφέρειν βουλόμεθα, οὔτ’ αὐτοὶ στρατεύεσθαι, οὔτε τῶν κοινῶν ἀπέχεσθαι δυνάμεθα, οὔτε τὰς συντάξεις Διοπείθει δίδομεν, οὔθ’ ὅσ’ ἂν αὐτὸς αὑτῷ πορίσηται ἐπαινοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ βασκαίνομεν καὶ σκοποῦμεν πόθεν, καὶ τί μέλλει ποιεῖν, καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαυτί. 800 801 Meaning that if they refused to use the Theoric fund, or fund their expeditions at all, their generals will be forced to seek their funds by less than desirable means. 238 Prosecuting Diopeithes at home palpably substitutes for prosecuting the war abroad; to declare him guilty symmetrically reaffirms the fiction that Philip is not really at war and that intervention in the north is therefore unnecessary. 802 Consequently, in ‘one stroke and by perfectly consistent internal logic they purge misgivings, justify continued indifference (ῥᾳθυμία), and perpetuate feel-good [attitudes] through the illusion of meaningful action.’ 803 Accordingly their continued debate over Diopeithes ‘is parodied by Demosthenes as a psychological escape hatch and a displacement of pressing policy issues…[which] perpetuates the spiral of make-believe’, which as I have argued throughout this thesis, has been Demosthenes’ intention to reveal and reverse. 804 In light of this, his complaint at empty rhetoric has more serious ramifications. Previously Demosthenes’ complaint was that speeches without action were worthless, their lack of action creating their deteriorating situation. Now, with the realisation that they deliberately debate to avoid action, Demosthenes has nothing to say if his words will never be heeded and translated into action: You are accustomed on each occasion to ask the speaker, “What are we to do?” but I want to ask you “What are we to say?” For if you will not raise taxes, or campaign in person, or keep away from public money, or provide allowances, or let him provide for himself, and refuse to take care of your own affairs, I have nothing to say. 805 This paralysis is obscured by their continued debate, which hoodwinks the Assembly into believing that they are dealing with the situation, strengthening Demosthenes’ presentation of 802 Mader 2006: 379. This is emphasised further at 8.33. 803 Mader 2006: 379. 804 Mader 2006:379. Demosthenes 8.23. ὑμεῖς μὲν τοίνυν εἰώθαθ’ ἑκάστοτε τὸν παριόντ’ ἐρωτᾶν, τί οὖν χρὴ ποιεῖν; ἐγὼ δ’ ὑμᾶς ἐρωτῆσαι βούλομαι, τί οὖν χρὴ λέγειν; εἰ γὰρ μήτ’ εἰσοίσετε, μήτ’ αὐτοὶ στρατεύσεσθε, μήτε τῶν κοινῶν ἀφέξεσθε, μήτε τὰς συντάξεις δώσετε, μήθ’ ὅσ’ ἂν αὐτὸς αὑτῷ πορίσηται ἐάσετε, μήτε τὰ ὑμέτερ’ αὐτῶν πράττειν ἐθελήσετε, οὐκ ἔχω τί λέγω. 805 239 their speech-act delusion.806 For Demosthenes, the Assembly’s attitude towards speech has corrupted the function of deliberation into a method to avoid action, and displaces their anxieties onto an issue they are more comfortable with (prosecuting Diopeithes). While this is not a reflection of historical reality, Demosthenes portrays the Assembly as self-delusional, and that their internal deliberations maintain an illusion that they are acting on the external situation. As such, Demosthenes’ complaint is not directed against Philip, but at the apparent obliviousness to their self-deception and the deception of other rhētors: They wish to turn the anger that you reasonably feel if you suffer any reverse in the war against those who are giving you the best advice, in order that you may put them on trial rather than resisting Philip, and that they themselves may act as the accusers of these men, rather than pay the penalty for their own actions. 807 Thus, Demosthenes emphasises his impossible position: You already give so much freedom to those who wish to blame and slander that you listen to them accusing someone in advance for things that they say he is going to say – what can anyone say to you?808 The Assembly is presented as being beyond advice, and as such it is this crisis that Demosthenes prioritises as fundamental, and it is this internal crisis – in my opinion – that the speeches address as a means to deal with the issue of Macedonian interference in Greece. Invoking his civic parrhēsia – Demosthenes directs his speech at highlighting the dangers of such attitudes: ‘Some of you need to be told what the consequence of this can be. I will speak Whilst Ober 1996: 151 argues from Austinian speech-act theory that speech in fourth-century Athens was ‘not only descriptive, but also performative’, I believe the speech-act logic within this speech demonstrates a corruption of this performative aspect. 806 Demosthenes 8.57. ὅτι τὴν ὀργὴν ἣν εἰκός ἐστι γενέσθαι παρ’ ὑμῶν, ἄν τι λυπῆσθε τῷ πολέμῳ, εἰς τοὺς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν λέγοντας τὰ βέλτιστα τρέψαι βούλονται, ἵνα τούτους κρίνητε, μὴ Φίλιππον ἀμύνησθε, καὶ κατηγορῶσιν αὐτοί, μὴ δίκην δῶσιν ὧν ποιοῦσι νῦν. 807 Demosthenes 8.23. οἱ γὰρ ἤδη τοσαύτην ἐξουσίαν τοῖς αἰτιᾶσθαι καὶ διαβάλλειν βουλομένοις διδόντες, ὥστε καὶ περὶ ὧν φασι μέλλειν αὐτὸν ποιεῖν, καὶ περὶ τούτων προκατηγορούντων ἀκροᾶσθαι, —τί ἄν τις λέγοι; 808 240 candidly; I can do nothing else’.809 Unequivocally, it is only by addressing the corruption of rhetorical deliberation – not inciting hatred of Philip – that the situation can be resolved. Having presented this damning reflection to the Assembly, Demosthenes returns to his arguments in the First Philippic to explain the consequences of not financially supporting their generals: All your generals who have ever set sail – and if I am wrong, I condemn myself to suffer any punishment at all – take money from the Chians and the Erythraeans and anyone else they can (I mean those who live in Asia) ... Now too it is quite clear that all these cities will give Diopeithes money, since he has an army. How else do you suppose that one who has received nothing from you, and has no other source of funds with which to pay wages, can supply his troops? From the sky? No: he lives off what he collects and begs and borrows. 810 It is their lack of provision that has caused any of the ‘wrong doing’, and places culpability for Diopeithes’ actions on the Assembly itself. This emphasises the pointlessness of attacking Diopeithes as it is an admission of their own guilt, neglect, and shame. Moreover, by taking these actions, the Assembly announces to the Panhellenic community that they will scapegoat their own generals rather than face Philip (or indeed are pro-Philip and are betraying the polis itself). Those who accuse him before you are simply announcing to everyone that they should not give him anything, on the ground that he will be punished for what he is going to do, though he has not done or achieved anything. This is the meaning of their Demosthenes 8.24. ὅ τι τοίνυν δύναται ταῦτα ποιεῖν, ἐνίους μαθεῖν ὑμῶν δεῖ. λέξω δὲ μετὰ παρρησίας· καὶ γὰρ οὐδ’ ἂν ἄλλως δυναίμην. 809 Demosthenes 8.24 and 26. πάντες ὅσοι πώποτ’ ἐκπεπλεύκασι παρ’ ὑμῶν στρατηγοί (ἢ ’γὼ πάσχειν ὁτιοῦν τιμῶμαι) καὶ παρὰ Χίων καὶ παρ’ Ἐρυθραίων καὶ παρ’ ὧν ἂν ἕκαστοι δύνωνται, τούτων τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν οἰκούντων λέγω, χρήματα λαμβάνουσιν ... καὶ δὴ καὶ νῦν τῷ Διοπείθει στράτευμ’ ἔχοντι σαφῶς ἐστι τοῦτο δῆλον ὅτι δώσουσι χρήματα πάντες οὗτοι· πόθεν γὰρ οἴεσθ’ ἄλλοθεν τὸν μήτε λαβόντα παρ’ ὑμῶν μηδὲν μήτ’ αὐτὸν ἔχονθ’ ὁπόθεν μισθοδοτήσει, στρατιώτας τρέφειν; ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα, ἀλλ’ ἀφ’ ὧν ἀγείρει καὶ προσαιτεῖ καὶ δανείζεται, ἀπὸ τούτων διάγει. 810 241 statements that “he is planning a siege” or “he is sacrificing the Greeks.” Do any of these men care for the Greeks who live in Asia? If they do, they obviously care more for other people than they do for their own country! 811 For Demosthenes, the sad reality is that the Athenians are more comfortable attacking within their own courts than fighting their real enemies. The reason for this is as follows – and by the gods, please allow me to speak freely for your benefit! Some public speakers have prepared you to be fearsome and severe in your Assembly meetings, but lax and contemptible in your preparations for war. If you are told that the man who is responsible is one whom you know you can arrest from among your own number, you agree and are willing to do so; but if you are told that he is one whom you can punish only after you have defeated him in war, you do not know what to do, I think, and your bewilderment makes you angry. 812 Their attitude towards Diopeithes epitomises these misguided priorities and the corruption of the Assembly; they would rather find a scapegoat than comprehend that their version of reality is a fallacy: And yet, terrible though it is, that some of these men are behaving like this, this is not the really terrible thing. Rather, you who sit here are already so disposed that if someone were to come forward and say that it is Diopeithes who is responsible for all Demosthenes 8.27. οὐδὲν οὖν ἄλλο ποιοῦσιν οἱ κατηγοροῦντες ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ προλέγουσιν ἅπασι μηδ’ ὁτιοῦν ἐκείνῳ διδόναι, ὡς καὶ τοῦ μελλῆσαι δώσοντι δίκην, μή τι ποιήσαντί γ’ ἢ καταπραξαμένῳ. τοῦτ’ εἰσὶν οἱ λόγοι· ‘μέλλει πολιορκεῖν,’ ‘τοὺςἝλληνας ἐκδίδωσιν.’ μέλει γάρ τινι τούτων τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν οἰκούντων Ἑλλήνων; ἀμείνους μέντἂν εἶεν τῶν ἄλλων ἢ τῆς πατρίδος κήδεσθαι. 811 Demosthenes 8.32. αἴτιον δὲ τούτων (καί μοι πρὸς θεῶν, ὅταν εἵνεκα τοῦ βελτίστου λέγω, ἔστω παρρησία)· παρεσκευάκασιν ὑμᾶς τῶν πολιτευομένων ἔνιοι ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις φοβεροὺς καὶ χαλεπούς, ἐν δὲ ταῖς παρασκευαῖς ταῖς τοῦ πολέμου ῥᾳθύμους καὶ εὐκαταφρονήτους. ἂν μὲν οὖν τὸν αἴτιον εἴπῃ τις ὃν ἴσθ’ ὅτι λήψεσθε παρ’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, φατὲ καὶ βούλεσθε· ἂν δὲ τοιοῦτον λέγῃ τις, ὃν κρατήσαντας τοῖς ὅπλοις, ἄλλως δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν κολάσαι, οὐκ ἔχετ’, οἶμαι, τί ποιήσετε, ἐξελεγχόμενοι δ’ ἄχθεσθε. Roisman 2004: 265 discusses this passage as but one example of the challenges for speakers, and how speaking in public with the thorubos ‘could be an intimidating experience that called upon a man to overcome the fear of addressing an active audience’, noting too Isocrates 5.81; 12.9-10; Letters 8.7 and Plato Republic 492b-c; 493 a-d. See also Too 1995: 75-98. 812 242 our troubles, or Chares, or Aristophon or whichever citizen one might care to mention, you immediately agree and cry out that he is speaking the truth.813 This contrasts to the actual truth, which they do not want to hear: But if someone should come forward and tell the truth, that “you are deluded, Athenians: it is Philip who is responsible for all these evil circumstances, since if he were keeping quiet, our city would be in no trouble,” you are unable to refute this claim, but you seem to be distressed, as if you think that something of yours is being destroyed.814 And what are being destroyed or lost (ἀπολλύνται τι) are the very illusions they use to protect their fallacies, as Sandys has well remarked: “they not only lose an illusion [i.e., that Philip is not at war] which is an excuse for inaction; but are also deprived of a convenient scape-goat [i.e. in the person of the much maligned Diopeithes]”.’815 Demosthenes’ purpose again is to assert that this is a self-inflicted crisis, a result of the exact attitudes they display here, in their refusal to act on the situation to the extreme of attacking their own general for acting in Athens’ interests. This is the level of twisted delusion the Assembly’s perception of reality has reached. The Assembly is no longer rational, and refuses to learn the consequences of choosing the easy option which Demosthenes has warned of since the First Philippic. Moreover, this is completely at odds with the ideals of an Athenian Assembly: Contrary to your present practice, men of Athens, the public speakers should all have trained you to be mild and considerate in the Assembly, since it is there that you Demosthenes 8.30. καὶ τὸ μὲν τούτων τινὰς εἶναι τοιούτους, δεινὸν ὂν οὐ δεινόν ἐστιν· ἀλλ’ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθήμενοι οὕτως ἤδη διάκεισθε, ὥστ’, ἂν μέν τις εἴπῃ παρελθὼν ὅτι Διοπείθης ἐστὶ τῶν κακῶν πάντων αἴτιος, ἢ Χάρης ἢ Ἀριστοφῶν ἢ ὃν ἂν τῶν πολιτῶν εἴπῃ τις, εὐθέως φατὲ καὶ θορυβεῖθ’ ὡς ὀρθῶς λέγει· 813 Demosthenes 8.31. ἂν δὲ παρελθὼν λέγῃ τις τἀληθῆ, ὅτι ‘ληρεῖτ’, Ἀθηναῖοι· πάντων τῶν κακῶν καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων τούτων Φίλιππός ἐστ’ αἴτιος· εἰ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἦγεν ἡσυχίαν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἦν πρᾶγμα τῇ πόλει,’ ὡς μὲν οὐκ ἀληθῆ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν οὐκ ἔχετ’ ἀντιλέγειν, ἄχθεσθαι δέ μοι δοκεῖτε καὶ ὥσπερ ἀπολλύναι τι νομίζειν. 815 Sandys 1900: 162, cited by Mader 2006: 378. 814 243 discuss your rights and those of your allies, but to show yourselves fearsome and severe in your preparations for war, since there the struggle is against your enemies and rivals.816 This is the cause of all their problems and, as in the previous speeches, Demosthenes aims to confront the Assembly to ‘change their attitude, instead of making things easy for Philip and disheartening their allies by their perversity.’ 817 Demosthenes makes it clear that they cannot function effectively, when they are at odds with the definition of Athenian identity. Thus, Demosthenes confronts the corruption of the deliberative process, by both the rhētors and the dēmos: Instead, acting as demagogues towards you and currying favour with you to an excessive degree they have made it so that in meetings of the Assembly, you are spoiled and easily flattered, listening to everything with an ear to your own pleasure, but your public affairs have come to the point that you are in deadly danger. 818 That is, aside from the opportunities that they have squandered ‘through indolence’ over the years to avoid this danger. Using the example of their failure at Euboea, Demosthenes rhetorically manipulates a Panhellenic voice to rebuke the Assembly: Come now, by Zeus, if the Greeks were to ask you to give an account of the opportunities you have squandered due to your indolence, and they were to ask of you “Athenians, do you not send us ambassadors on every occasion, and say that we must guard ourselves against the fellow, and the like?” – and we must agree and admit that this is what we do – “Then, you most useless of people, when that man had been Demosthenes 8.33. ἐχρῆν γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοὐναντίον ἢ νῦν ἅπαντας τοὺς πολιτευομένους ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πράους καὶ φιλανθρώπους ὑμᾶς ἐθίζειν εἶναι (πρὸς γὰρ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους ἐν ταύταις ἐστὶ τὰ δίκαια), ἐν δὲ ταῖς παρασκευαῖς ταῖς τοῦ πολέμου φοβεροὺς καὶ χαλεποὺς ἐπιδεικνύναι· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ τοὺς ἀντιπάλους ἐκεῖνός ἐσθ’ ἁγών. 816 817 Pearson 1976: 146. Demosthenes 8.34. νῦν δὲ δημαγωγοῦντες ὑμᾶς καὶ χαριζόμενοι καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν οὕτω διατεθήκασιν, ὥστ’ ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τρυφᾶν καὶ κολακεύεσθαι πάντα πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἀκούοντας, ἐν δὲ τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς γιγνομένοις περὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἤδη κινδυνεύειν. 818 244 absent for ten months and was prevented by disease and winter and wars from returning home, you failed to liberate Euboea or recover any of your own possessions.819 Indeed, they are a far cry from their ancestors in their superlative uselessness, as once more they have failed to recover their possessions despite the lessons of the recent past. In complete antithesis to the actions of their ancestors attested to in the Second Philippic, Demosthenes asserts that they have shamefully permitted Philip’s actions: You have evidently given way before him and have made it clear that you will not stir yourselves one whit more, even if he dies ten times over. 820 Demosthenes’ rhetoric rings with indignant humiliation at how they have subjected themselves on the Panhellenic stage and asserts that their actions (or lack of them) speak louder than any excuses they can make, and has tarnished their projected ideals and reputation. From this damning assessment, Demosthenes moves to assert the role of the dutiful adviser, reminding the audience that the core purpose of the speech is to confront the attitudes of the Assembly: There are some men who think that they confute a speaker when they ask him, “So, what must we do?” To them I give this most just and truthful answer: you must stop behaving as you do.821 Demosthenes 8.34-6. φέρε γὰρ πρὸς Διός, εἰ λόγον ὑμᾶς ἀπαιτήσειαν οἱ Ἕλληνες ὧν νυνὶ παρείκατε καιρῶν διὰ ῥᾳθυμίαν, καὶ ἔροινθ’ ὑμᾶς, ‘ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πέμπεθ’ ὡς ἡμᾶς ἑκάστοτε πρέσβεις, καὶ λέγεθ’ ὡς ἐπιβουλεύει Φίλιππος ἡμῖν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Ἕλλησι, καὶ ὡς φυλάττεσθαι δεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαυτί;’ ἀνάγκη φάσκειν καὶ ὁμολογεῖν· ποιοῦμεν γὰρ ταῦτα. ‘εἶτ’, ὦ πάντων ἀνθρώπων φαυλότατοι, δέκα μῆνας ἀπογενομένου τἀνθρώπου καὶ νόσῳ καὶ χειμῶνι καὶ πολέμοις ἀποληφθέντος ὥστε μὴ ἂν δύνασθαι ἐπανελθεῖν οἴκαδε, οὔτε τὴν Εὔβοιαν ἠλευθερώσατε, οὔτε τῶν ὑμετέρων αὐτῶν οὐδὲν ἐκομίσασθε. This is in reference to when Philip was ill. This failure again repeats the same complaints in the First Philippic and the Olynthiacs that they neglected their possessions and consistently failed to seize their kairos, particularly the recovery of Amphipolis at 4.12. 819 Demosthenes 8.37. ἀφέστατε δῆλον ὅτι αὐτῷ, καὶ φανερὸν πεποιήκατε ὅτι οὐδ’ ἂν δεκάκις ἀποθάνῃ, οὐδὲν μᾶλλον κινήσεσθε. 820 Demosthenes 8.38. εἰσὶ τοίνυν τινὲς οἳ τότ’ ἐξελέγχειν τὸν παριόντ’ οἴονται, ἐπειδὰν ἐρωτήσωσι ‘τί οὖν χρὴ ποιεῖν;’ οἷς ἐγὼ μὲν τὸ δικαιότατον καὶ ἀληθέστατον τοῦτ’ ἀποκρινοῦμαι, ταῦτα μὴ ποιεῖν ἃ νυνὶ ποιεῖτε. 821 245 From this point, the speech takes on a didactic tone, where Demosthenes states that he will methodically approach their issues: ‘But I will also address each point in detail and hope that they may be eager to act as they are to ask questions.’ 822 Not even attempting to disguise his derisive sarcasm, Demosthenes criticises those who are quick to hypocritically ask for action – those who are content to substitute actions with speech-act logic, which gives an illusion of competency – yet have no intention to move to act, as they refuse to see the action necessary, or indeed that they have no intention to act as they are Philip’s agent. 823 To this end, Demosthenes proposes a course of action: First, men of Athens, you must fully acknowledge that Philip is at war with our city and has broken the peace – and please stop accusing each other about this – and is malignly hostile to the entire city down to its very foundation. 824 Demosthenes reinforces his argument from the Second Philippic that they must stop this delusion. Moreover, this reference to their foundation and their democracy and autochthonous roots builds upon his most recent argument in the Second Philippic (but present in the Olynthiacs) that Philip as a monarch/tyrant is in opposition to, and cannot coexist peacefully, with any democratic constitution. 825 Recognising this is key to curbing the indecisiveness within the Assembly, and he calls on them to know this as fact, and act accordingly. By adding that both Philip’s animosity, and this advice, are directed at all Athenians, ‘including those who most think that they are doing him a favour,’ Demosthenes Demosthenes 8.38. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἀκριβῶς ἐρῶ. καὶ ὅπως, ὥσπερ ἐρωτῶσι προθύμως, οὕτω καὶ ποιεῖν ἐθελήσουσιν. 822 Parallels can again be drawn to Thucydides’ Mytilenean debate at 3.38.4 when Cleon argues that ‘you have become regular speech-goers, and as for action, you merely listen to accounts of it. 823 Demosthenes 8.39. πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτο παρ’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς βεβαίως γνῶναι, ὅτι τῇ πόλει Φίλιππος πολεμεῖ καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην λέλυκεν (καὶ παύσασθε περὶ τούτου κατηγοροῦντες ἀλλήλων) καὶ κακόνους μέν ἐστι καὶ ἐχθρὸς ὅλῃ τῇ πόλει καὶ τῷ τῆς πόλεως ἐδάφει. 824 825 See Demosthenes 6.23-5. 246 reaffirms the fundamental issue of internal traitors working for Philip and the damage they cause for the entire polis.826 To emphasise this, Demosthenes returns to his device of narrating past events as moral lessons, using the fate of the Olynthian traitors who had been working for Philip within: And if they do not believe me, let them consider the Olynthians Euthycrates and Lasthenes, who seemed to be on terms of intimacy with him, but who, after they betrayed their city, suffered a worse fate than anyone.827 Presented with these traitors, Demosthenes reminds the Assembly that Philip uses these internal enemies because it is Athens’ very constitution – that the ancestors had fought so hard to uphold and defend – that is a tyrant’s greatest opposition: ‘but it is against our constitution that he is most at war, and towards its overthrow his plots and policies are directed.’828 That is, because traitors manipulating the Assembly within Athens undermine the qualities of democracy, the power of the many advised by the best speakers in keeping with the ideals of isēgoria and isōnomia. Their democracy is both their greatest defence and strength and thus it is logical for Philip to target the Athenians: And in a sense it is reasonable for him to do so. For he is well aware that even if he gets control of everything else, he will be unable to possess anything securely, so long as you are a democracy.829 Demosthenes 8.40 ‘And, I should add, to all its inhabitants, including those who most thing that the are doing him a favour.’ προσθήσω δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῇ πόλει πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, καὶ τοῖς μάλιστ’ οἰομένοις αὐτῷ χαρίζεσθαι. 826 Demosthenes 8.40. (εἰ δὲ μή, σκεψάσθων Εὐθυκράτη καὶ Λασθένη τοὺς Ὀλυνθίους, οἳ δοκοῦντες οἰκειότατ’ αὐτῷ διακεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ τὴν πόλιν προὔδοσαν, πάντων κάκιστ’ ἀπολώλασιν). 827 Demosthenes 8.40. οὐδενὶ μέντοι μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ πολιτείᾳ πολεμεῖ οὐδ’ ἐπιβουλεύει, καὶ σκοπεῖ μᾶλλον οὐδὲ ἓν τῶν πάντων, ἢ πῶς ταύτην καταλύσει 828 Demosthenes 8.41. οἶδεν γὰρ ἀκριβῶς ὅτι οὐδ’ ἂν πάντων τῶν ἄλλων γένηται κύριος, οὐδὲν ἔστ’ αὐτῷ βεβαίως ἔχειν, ἕως ἂν ὑμεῖς δημοκρατῆσθε. 829 247 Moreover, their nature as a democracy leaves them as the last hope and refuge for those Greeks who wish to hold on to ideals of freedom, returning to Demosthenes’ assertion in the Olynthiacs and Second Philippic that it is their duty as Athenians to protect the rest of the Greeks. Indeed, Demosthenes is calling them to do that which they avoided in 348/9, namely their duty: You are not yourselves well suited to acquire or possess an empire. Rather, you are good at preventing another from taking places, and at recovering them from one who has got hold of them, and at generally obstructing those who wish to rule, and at liberating people.830 In evoking their role as protector, Demosthenes not only uses the memory of the Persian Wars to apply nuances of Persian tyranny onto Macedonian expansion (as in the Second Philippic), but makes this scenario fundamentally Athenian, and that it is Athens’ duty to act in every possible way against those who threaten the Greeks. 831 As such, Demosthenes asserts that they understand the nature of the conflict: First, you must understand that he is an inveterate enemy of our constitution. If you are not fully convinced of this, you will not be willing to treat the situation seriously. Second, you must recognise clearly that all his policies and machinations are directed against our city, and that whenever anyone resists him, he does so on our behalf. 832 Demosthenes 8.42. ἐστὲ γὰρ ὑμεῖς οὐκ αὐτοὶ πλεονεκτῆσαι καὶ κατασχεῖν ἀρχὴν εὖ πεφυκότες, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον λαβεῖν κωλῦσαι καὶ ἔχοντ’ ἀφελέσθαι δεινοί, καὶ ὅλως ἐνοχλῆσαι τοῖς ἄρχειν βουλομένοις καὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἐξελέσθαι ἕτοιμοι. 830 831 All of this is an optimistic view of the Delian League and Second Naval Confederacy, and also conveniently ignores the revolts of the Social War which caused many of their recent economic problems. Demosthenes is selective in his memories, which is an inevitable element of cultural memory, but a conscious decision on Demosthenes’ part. This is also a part of the same mental logic that shifted from the fifth century Imperialist Delian League to the ‘willing alliances’ of Second Athenian Confederacy in justifying their imperial endeavours. Demosthenes 8.43. πρῶτον μὲν δὴ τοῦτο δεῖ, ἐχθρὸν ὑπειληφέναι τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας ἀδιάλλακτον ἐκεῖνον· εἰ γὰρ μὴ τοῦτο πεισθήσεσθε ταῖς ψυχαῖς, οὐκ ἐθελήσεθ’ ὑπὲρ τῶν πραγμάτων σπουδάζειν· δεύτερον δ’ εἰδέναι σαφῶς ὅτι πάνθ’ ὅσα πραγματεύεται καὶ κατασκευάζεται νῦν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν πόλιν παρασκευάζεται, καὶ ὅπου τις ἐκεῖνον ἀμύνεται, ἐνταῦθ’ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀμύνεται. 832 248 Diopeithes, therefore, is the hero not the villain, and it is imperative that the Assembly understands this. Demosthenes has transformed Diopeithes from a rogue general into the defender of what is left of the Greek world. Diopeithes’ force, in contrast to Philip’s aggressive intentions, is there to protect and safeguard Athens, and Greece. To recall or disband it is tantamount to abandoning not only their own interests but the freedom of Greece itself. Moreover, his use of Persian War rhetoric, presents the forbidding alternative reality had the Athenians acted like now in previous wars and not maintained Greek liberty. 833 The Athenians thus have a moral obligation to act, and accordingly, it is imperative that Demosthenes shatters the fallacies that permits the Assembly to attack Diopeithes and protect Philip, which leaves them vulnerable to attack. Demosthenes asserts that there is only one way to view Philip’s activities in Thrace – that they are driven towards seizing Athenian possessions: For there is no one so naïve as to suppose that Philip has a positive desire for the evils of Thrace…or that seizing these places is the reason why he endures toil and winters and the utmost dangers, or to suppose that he has no desire for Athens’ harbours and docks and triremes and silver works and vast revenues, but will allow you to keep these, and is spending the winter in the pit for the sake of millet and wheat in the rain pits of Thrace. On the contrary, all his activities in Thrace and elsewhere are directed towards getting control of our possessions.834 833 The consistency of this argument goes back as early as On the Freedom of the Rhodians where Demosthenes asserted the Athens ought to undertake action and be ‘the champions of freedom for all.’ Demosthenes 15.30. Demosthenes 8.44-5. οὐ γὰρ οὕτω γ’ εὐήθης οὐδεὶς ὃς ὑπολαμβάνει τὸν Φίλιππον τῶν μὲν ἐν Θρᾴκῃ κακῶν … τούτων μὲν ἐπιθυμεῖν καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ταῦτα λαβεῖν καὶ πόνους καὶ χειμῶνας καὶ τοὺς ἐσχάτους κινδύνους ὑπομένειν, τῶν δ’ Ἀθηναίων λιμένων καὶ νεωρίων καὶ τριήρων καὶ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἀργυρείων καὶ τοσούτων προσόδων οὐκ ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ὑμᾶς ἐάσειν ἔχειν, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν μελινῶν καὶ τῶν ὀλυρῶν τῶν ἐν τοῖς Θρᾳκίοις σιροῖς ἐν τῷ βαράθρῳ χειμάζειν. οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖν’ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τούτων γενέσθαι κύριος καὶ τἄλλα πάντα πραγματεύεται. 834 249 The loss of possessions was already a sore topic for Demosthenes, as attested to in the First Philippic and the Olynthiacs. Further allusions to the First Philippic can be seen in his call to shake off their negligent attitude and raise their taxes: What then should sensible people do? They should understand and acknowledge the situation, and put aside this excessive and incurable negligence of ours, and should raise taxes and require our allies to do so too, and their policies and actions should be directed towards ensuring that this army that has been raised remains together, in order that, just as Philip has a force prepared to mistreat and enslave all of Greece, so you may have a force ready to save and provide assistance to everybody. 835 Demosthenes once more calls the Athenians to action; the same actions he has been calling for since the First Philippic – to shake off their apathy, act in a manner worthy of the city and reclaim their Athenian reputation. Demosthenes calls for the Assembly to enthusiastically support Diopeithes instead of making him a scapegoat as a means to avoid facing the reality of the situation in the Chersonese. 836 Moreover, they have a moral obligation to recognise this and to act effectively. They also need to act efficiently and professionally, since: For you can never achieve anything that you need to by sending relief forces. Instead, we must equip a force, and provide supplies for it and financial officers and public clerks, and take measures to ensure that the money is very closely guarded. Once we have done this, we should hold these men responsible for the money, and the general responsible for his actions. If you take these measures, and are truly willing to pursue this policy, you will either force Philip to keep the peace as he should and to remain Demosthenes 8.46. τί οὖν εὖ φρονούντων ἀνθρώπων ἐστίν; εἰδότας ταῦτα καὶἐγνωκότας τὴν μὲν ὑπερβάλλουσαν καὶ ἀνήκεστον ταύτην ῥᾳθυμίαν ἀποθέσθαι, χρήματα δ’ εἰσφέρειν καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους ἀξιοῦν, καὶ ὅπως τὸ συνεστηκὸς τοῦτο συμμενεῖ στράτευμ’ ὁρᾶν καὶ πράττειν, ἵν’ ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος ἕτοιμον ἔχει δύναμιν τὴν ἀδικήσουσαν καὶ καταδουλωσομένην ἅπαντας τοὺς Ἕλληνας, οὕτω τὴν σώσουσαν ὑμεῖς καὶ βοηθήσουσαν ἅπασιν ἕτοιμον ἔχητε. 835 836 Again, action against Diopeithes is a form of speech-act logic, which substitutes external military action with an in-house prosecution. 250 in his own territory – which would be the most beneficial outcome – or you will be waging war against him on an equal footing. 837 This is the same observation Demosthenes made in the First Philippic, that their military endeavours would have more success if they were regulated with the same competence and care as their flawlessly planned Dionysia or Panathenaea. As in 351, Demosthenes calls the Assembly to shake off their apathy and take the hard but right course of action: If anyone thinks that these plans involve great expense and much toil and trouble, he is absolutely right; but if he reckons what will happen to the city if it refuses to take these measures, he will find that it is in our interest for us to do our duty with enthusiasm.838 Moreover, if the prospect of hardships to come was not motivation enough, the shame alone should inspire the Athenians to action. Demosthenes warns that Assembly that their shame will be all the worse if they do nothing to prevent their own destruction, but rather happily embrace the prospect of subjugation by their ignorant apathy, and misdirected blame: It would be shameful, by Zeus and all the gods, and unworthy of you and of what the city has and of your ancestors’ achievements, to sacrifice all the other Greeks into slavery for the sake of your own indolence, and I at any rate would rather die than advocate this course. 839 Demosthenes 8.47. οὐ γὰρ ἔστι βοηθείαις χρωμένους οὐδέποτ’ οὐδὲν τῶν δεόντων πρᾶξαι, ἀλλὰ κατασκευάσαντας δεῖ δύναμιν, καὶ τροφὴν ταύτῃ πορίσαντας καὶ ταμίας καὶ δημοσίους, καὶ ὅπως ἔνι τὴν τῶν χρημάτων φυλακὴν ἀκριβεστάτην γενέσθαι, οὕτω ποιήσαντας, τὸν μὲν τῶν χρημάτων λόγον παρὰ τούτων λαμβάνειν, τὸν δὲ τῶν ἔργων παρὰ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ. κἂν οὕτω ποιήσητε καὶ ταῦτ’ ἐθελήσηθ’ ὡς ἀληθῶς, ἄγειν εἰρήνην δικαίαν καὶ μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ Φίλιππον ἀναγκάσετε, οὗ μεῖζον οὐδὲν ἂν γένοιτ’ ἀγαθόν, ἢ πολεμήσετ’ ἐξ ἴσου. 837 Demosthenes 8.48. Εἰ δέ τῳ δοκεῖ ταῦτα καὶ δαπάνης μεγάλης καὶ πόνων πολλῶν καὶ πραγματείας εἶναι, καὶ μάλ’ ὀρθῶς δοκεῖ· ἀλλ’ ἐὰν λογίσηται τὰ τῇ πόλει μετὰ ταῦτα γενησόμενα, ἂν ταῦτα μὴ ’θέλῃ, εὑρήσει λυσιτελοῦν τὸ ἑκόντας ποιεῖν τὰ δέοντα. 838 Demosthenes 8.49. αἰσχρὸν μὲν νὴ τὸν Δία καὶ πάντας θεοὺς καὶ ἀνάξιον ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων τῇ πόλει καὶ πεπραγμένων τοῖς προγόνοις, τῆς ἰδίας ἕνεκα ῥᾳθυμίας τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας Ἕλληνας εἰς δουλείαν προέσθαι, καὶ ἔγωγ᾽ αὐτὸς μὲν τεθνάναι μᾶλλον ἂν ἢ ταῦτ᾽ εἰρηκέναι βουλοίμην. Demosthenes may have been referring back to this point when he remarks in his funeral oration over Chaeronea that they died ‘preferring to die nobly than live and see Greece suffer misfortune.’ 60.1. Demosthenes also appears similar to Pericles at Thucydides 1.144 on the 839 251 This is damning and the most forceful of his denunciations yet. Demosthenes also affirms his own position here not only as a patriot, but as someone who would rather die than shame himself in betraying his polis. Indeed, Demosthenes implies that to prosecute Diopeithes and appease Philip would be to sacrifice the ideals of freedom fundamental to Athenian ideology, and would amount to renouncing their very identity as Athenians. 840 Moreover, what Demosthenes has been warning of since the First Philippic has not only come to pass, confirming his worst expectations, but it has deteriorated beyond the conceivable. The Athenians by their lack of action have become the antithesis of themselves. It is with scathing contempt that Demosthenes rounds off this formidable statement: Nevertheless, if someone else speaks and persuades you otherwise, so be it: do not resist, throw everything away. 841 This, despite its irony, nevertheless reminds the audience that Demosthenes respects the values of the Assembly and isēgoria. He will not corrupt the sanctity of these conventions, but he will not silently witness the corruption he has warned of since the First Philippic, that enables men to persuade the Assembly to embrace its own doom under the fallacy of peaceful security. It also reminds the Athenians that they have the power to decide their own fate, and stresses the importance of making them understand both the reality of the situation, and their own counter-productive practices. As Roisman remarks on the general criticism of the thorubos and the battle between speaker and audience: glory won by the ancestors, ‘we must live up to the standard they set: we must resist our enemies in any and every way.’ 840 As attested to in the Second Philippic pp.203-4, and the connection to Herodotus 8.143-144. 841 Demosthenes 8.49. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ’ εἴ τις ἄλλος λέγει καὶ ὑμᾶς πείθει, ἔστω, μὴ ἀμύνεσθε, ἅπαντα πρόεσθε. 252 Behind these unflattering depictions of the people stood an acknowledgement of the power of the crowd to intimidate a speaker or to move him to seek popular approval at the expense of advocating sound, but unpopular, policy. 842 It is precisely this intimidation that Demosthenes has refused to bend to, and consistently argued against. Demosthenes’ criticism is all to the end of making the Athenians acknowledge these hard truths and the need to act: But if no one takes that view, but on the contrary we all already know that the more places we allow him to control, the more dangerous and the stronger an enemy we will have, where can we retreat to? Why do we delay? When, men of Athens, will we be willing to do our duty?843 Both Worthington and MacDowell argue that Demosthenes transforms his political argument into the moral obligation of Athens’ Panhellenic duty. 844 This thesis, however, has argued that Demosthenes has been asserting this moral obligation in the majority of the speeches. In particular, I believe this clearly evokes the Olynthiacs where Demosthenes asserted that honourable men would not permit Philip to ‘enslave Greek cities for want of subsistence money’, and likewise repeatedly asked what the Athenians would endure before they would do their duty.845 In this manner, Demosthenes creates a claustrophobic atmosphere where the Athenians have nowhere to retreat to, and no prospect of hope if they do not proactively defend themselves. The Athenians have gone from a position where they could punish Philip in Macedonia, to keeping him from Chalcidice, from Central Greece, from Attica, to Roisman 2004: 265. Roisman’s ‘unflattering depictions’ refer to Plato Republic 6.492c; Xenophon Memorabilia 3.7.1, 5. 842 Demosthenes 8.50. εἰ δὲ μηδενὶ τοῦτο δοκεῖ, τοὐναντίον δὲ πρόϊσμεν ἅπαντες, ὅτι ὅσῳ ἂν πλειόνων ἐάσωμεν ἐκεῖνον γενέσθαι κύριον, τοσούτῳ χαλεπωτέρῳ καὶ ἰσχυροτέρῳ χρησόμεθ’ ἐχθρῷ, ποῖ ἀναδυόμεθα; ἢ τί μέλλομεν; ἢ πότ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν ἐθελήσομεν; 843 844 Worthington 2013: 217; MacDowell 2009: 348. 845 Demosthenes 3.20. 253 defending Attica, to retreating from Attica itself. This is all the more shameful as they have thus far been compelled into these realities: But if we are speaking of the compulsion placed on a free man, that has already arrived, and indeed has long passed us by; and we can only pray never to suffer that of a slave. How do they differ? For a free man, the greatest compulsion is a sense of shame at what is happening – I do not think that anyone could imagine any greater compulsion than that – but for a slave it consists of blows and outrages to the body. May that never happen to us! Indeed, one should not even talk about it.846 Again, Demosthenes states that the power to decide this lies with the Assembly. His own purpose has been to show them who they are and what they ought to be, where the speech serves as a mirror reflecting the polarisations on which the Athenians define themselves, and how at odds they currently are. They are acting like willing slaves, and by giving voice to the unbearable notion of a subjugated Athens, Demosthenes aims to provoke them to action as ‘the desire to avoid humiliation was an important motivating factor in the “shame culture” of ancient Greece…the prospect of the Athenians suffering enslavement is so terrible that it should not even be spoken.’ 847 Thus, in uttering this unspeakable horror, Demosthenes affirms that they should not distract themselves from the real problems at hand by prosecuting Diopeithes. Indeed, they should reinforce him as quickly as possible. But this is hindered by the Assembly’s hostility towards Demosthenes’ parrhēsia, which is exploited by ‘Philippizers’ who capitalise on the Assembly’s appetite for flattery and reassuring rhetoric. 848 Enforcing his view with paralipsis, Demosthenes 8.51. ἀλλ’ ἣν μὲν ἄν τις ἐλευθέρων ἀνθρώπων ἀνάγκην εἴποι, οὐ μόνον ἤδη πάρεστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάλαι παρελήλυθε, τὴν δὲ τῶν δούλων ἀπεύχεσθαι δήπου μὴ γενέσθαι δεῖ. διαφέρει δὲ τί; ὅτι ἐστὶν ἐλευθέρῳ μὲν ἀνθρώπῳ μεγίστη ἀνάγκη ἡ ὑπὲρ τῶν γιγνομένων αἰσχύνη, καὶ μείζω ταύτης οὐκ οἶδ’ ἥντιν’ ἂν εἴποιμεν· δούλῳ δὲ πληγαὶ καὶ ὁ τοῦ σώματος αἰκισμός, ἃ μήτε γένοιτο οὔτε λέγειν ἄξιον. 846 847 Trevett 2011: 144. 848 Worthington 2013: 217. 254 Demosthenes emphasises one simple truth, that these men consistently stop the Athenians taking action that would affect Philip’s expansionist plans: I would gladly tell you about all the rest and show how certain men are ruining you by their policies, but I shall pass over other matters and say only this: that whenever any matter relating to Philip arises, someone immediately stands up and says how fine it is to keep the peace, and how difficult it is to maintain a large military force, and that certain people wish to plunder public funds, and other remarks of this kind, and as a result, they put you off and give him the time to act as he wishes. 849 Thus, the arguments to punish Diopeithes are to Philip’s advantage, and aim to keep the Assembly inactive. By listening to these rhētors, Demosthenes asserts that, in consequence, you are idle and do nothing at the right time – and I fear that you may later come to realise how much this has cost you – whilst they secure favours from Philip and payment for their services. 850 If they continue to permit this manipulation, then they maintain a façade of peace that has not only exacerbated this self-inflicted crisis, but condemns the Athenians and the Greeks as a whole to Macedonian hegemony. For Demosthenes, because of this manipulation, and their preference for an easy life, the Assembly is incapable of realising the cost of their attitude, asserting that, ‘the real difficulty, you should realise, is not what we may have to spend to ensure our safety, but what we will suffer if we do not take these actions. 851 Demosthenes 8.52. πάντα τοίνυν τἄλλ’ εἰπὼν ἂν ἡδέως, καὶ δείξας ὃν τρόπον ὑμᾶς ἔνιοι καταπολιτεύονται, τὰ μὲν ἄλλ’ ἐάσω· ἀλλ’ ἐπειδάν τι τῶν πρὸς Φίλιππον ἐμπέσῃ, εὐθὺς ἀναστάς τις λέγει τὸ τὴν εἰρήνην ἄγειν ὡς ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ τρέφειν δύναμιν μεγάλην ὡς χαλεπόν, καὶ ‘διαρπάζειν τινὲς τὰ χρήματα βούλονται,’ καὶ τοιούτους λόγους, ἐξ ὧν ἀναβάλλουσι μὲν ὑμᾶς, ἡσυχίαν δὲ ποιοῦσιν ἐκείνῳ πράττειν ὅ τι βούλεται. 849 Demosthenes 8.53. ἐκ δὲ τούτων περιγίγνεται, ὑμῖν μὲν ἡ σχολὴ καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἤδη ποιεῖν, ἃ δέδοιχ’ ὅπως μήποθ’ ἡγήσεσθ’ ἐπὶ πολλῷ γεγενῆσθαι, τούτοις δ’ αἱ χάριτες καὶ ὁ μισθὸς ὁ τούτων. This again evokes the arguments from Demosthenes 2.26 on idlers. 850 Demosthenes 8.54. νομίζειν δ’ εἶναι χαλεπὰ οὐχ ὅσ’ ἂν εἰς σωτηρίαν δαπανῶμεν, ἀλλ’ ἃ πεισόμεθα, ἂν ταῦτα μὴ’θέλωμεν ποιεῖν· 851 255 To this end, Demosthenes continues that they ought to protect their funds by guarding it, rather than shirking what needs to be done, stating, in short, that ‘refusing to do your duty’ is a poor excuse to save money. 852 Demosthenes directly attacks their habit of shirking their duty when it involves uncomfortable effort, which is why attacking Diopeithes is an attractive prospect because he is the easy target, and an outlet for their action. Demosthenes also evokes his previous arguments on the prioritisation of the Theoric fund for enjoyable institutions such as the Dionysia, over their external expeditions, and the laughingstock they are making of themselves as they advance Philip’s expansion at their own cost: Because you have despised these advantages and allowed them to be carried off, Philip is wealthy and powerful and an object of fear to all, Greeks and foreigners, whereas you are abandoned and brought low, glorying in abundant goods for sale in the marketplace, but a laughing stock when it comes to making appropriate preparations.853 Consequently, Demosthenes asserts that the real difficulty facing Athens is their own attitude, and their refusal to reflect on their own culpability. In their refusal to spend money, so as to prioritise their comforts, they have compromised their own safety and gradually permitted the loss of their own possessions and the freedom of the Greeks. Demosthenes’ parrhēsia takes on a ringing rebuke at the Assembly’s ridiculous priorities: I am also angry, men of Athens, that some of you are distressed at the prospect of public money being seized, when you have the power to guard it and to punish those Demosthenes 8.54. ‘and you should prevent the money being stolen by announcing the establishment of a guard to ensure its safety, not by refusing to do your duty.’ καὶ τὸ ‘διαρπασθήσεται τὰ χρήματα’ τῷ φυλακὴν εἰπεῖν δι’ ἧς σωθήσεται κωλύειν, οὐχὶ τῷ τοῦ συμφέροντος ἀφεστάναι. 852 Demosthenes 8.67. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τούτων ὀλιγώρως ἔχειν καὶ ἐᾶν ταῦτα φέρεσθαι ὁ μὲν εὐδαίμων καὶ μέγας καὶ φοβερὸς πᾶσιν Ἕλλησι καὶ βαρβάροις, ὑμεῖς δ’ ἔρημοι καὶ ταπεινοί, τῇ τῶν ὠνίων ἀφθονίᾳ λαμπροί, τῇ δ’ ὧν προσῆκε παρασκευῇ καταγέλαστοι. Compare to 4.25 and 4.35-37 where Demosthenes states they are a laughing stock, and like clay men sold in the Agora p. 55; 59. 853 256 who break the law, but are not distressed that Philip is seizing all of Greece city by city as he is doing, and moreover, his actions are directed against you. 854 This provides further confirmation of my argument that Demosthenes’ criticisms are not directed against Philip, but are against the Assembly and their refusal to see their own detrimental behaviour. Indeed, Philip’s actions are as expected of a tyrant, whereas the Assembly is at complete odds with their reputation. 855 Demosthenes’ stance has not altered since the First Philippic in the necessity to make the Assembly reflect on both their current behaviour, and what their identity demands they should do. By urging them to do their inherited duty, Demosthenes is simply asking them to be Athenian, to see the situation for what it really is and defend their own interests, noting, like Pericles, that self-interest cannot be separated from the polis, but true prosperity comes via the prosperity of the polis itself.856 Building on his assertion of anger, Demosthenes directly confronts the bribery within the Assembly; in a leading list of rhetorical questions, he wonders what could possibly cause the Athenians to be not be alarmed at Philip’s actions in Thrace, but instead accuse men such as himself and Diopeithes who defend Athens’ interests: What possible reason is there, men of Athens, why none of these men will admit that Philip is at war, when he is so openly campaigning and acting illegally, but they Demosthenes 8.55. καίτοι ἔγωγ’ ἀγανακτῶ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, εἰ τὰ μὲν χρήματα λυπεῖ τινὰς ὑμῶν εἰ διαρπασθήσεται, ἃ καὶ φυλάττειν καὶ κολάζειν τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ἐφ’ ὑμῖν ἐστι, τὴν δ’ Ἑλλάδα πᾶσαν οὑτωσὶ Φίλιππος ἐφεξῆς ἁρπάζων οὐ λυπεῖ, καὶ ταῦτ’ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἁρπάζων. Demosthenes could possibly also be evoking Solon again, and his criticism of the aristocratic leaders, ‘It is the citizens themselves who by their foolishness and subservience to money are willing to destroy a great city, and the mind of the people’s leaders is unjust; they are certain to suffer much pain as a result of their great arrogance. For they do not know how to restrain excess or to conduct in an orderly and peaceful manner the festivities of the banquet that are at hand ... they grow wealthy, yielding to unjust deeds’ (Solon, fr. 4 W, trans. Gerber 1999), as cited by Balot 2013: 183. 854 Again, to reiterate, I am presenting Demosthenes’ argument, not factual reality of whether Philip was a tyrant or if his actions were aggressive or predictable. 855 On Thucydides 2.60, whilst Ober 1998:89 states Pericles ‘staunchly reasserts the priority of unified public interests of the state over the diverse private interests of each individual Athenian’ Christ 2006: 30n47 asserts that ‘he does so by appealing to individual self-interest.’ 856 257 accuse those of us who are advising you to stand firm and not abandon these places of planning to go to war?857 When Demosthenes hypophorically answers his own question (“Let me explain” ἐγὼ διδάξω), he clarifies this as a deliberate displacement of anger: They wish to turn the anger that you reasonably feel if you suffer any reverse in the war against those who are giving you the best advice, in order that you may put them on trial rather than resisting Philip, and that they themselves may act as the accusers of these men, rather than pay the penalty for their own actions. 858 Demosthenes is clearly engaging with the rhetoric of conspiracy by insinuating that the conspirators within Athens are deflecting blame as a means to present themselves as the upholders of order and peace, whilst being the instigators of Athens’ ruin. Moreover, in revealing this deception, systematic bribery, and the Assembly’s own vices, Demosthenes’ argument fits Roisman’s definition of the rhetoric of conspiracy as: by offering an alternative to chaos and an explanation for a perceived injustice, conspiracy scenarios help both individuals and groups to reaffirm their value systems, identify the danger or the culprit, and thus offer hope of stopping the wrong or punishing the wrongdoers. 859 I contend that this is particularly apt for Demosthenes’ purpose to change the attitude of the Assembly. Demosthenes also presents the mundus perversus of the Assembly from the First Philippic, where logic has become back-to-front, since defending yourself and your interests Demosthenes 8.56. Τί ποτ’ οὖν ἐστι τὸ αἴτιον, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸ τὸν μὲν οὕτω φανερῶς στρατεύοντα, ἀδικοῦντα, πόλεις καταλαμβάνοντα, μηδένα τούτων πώποτ’ εἰπεῖν ὡς πόλεμον ποιεῖ, τοὺς δὲ μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν μηδὲ προΐεσθαι ταῦτα συμβουλεύοντας, τούτους τὸν πόλεμον ποιήσειν αἰτιᾶσθαι; 857 Demosthenes 8.57. ὅτι τὴν ὀργὴν ἣν εἰκός ἐστι γενέσθαι παρ’ ὑμῶν, ἄν τι λυπῆσθε τῷ πολέμῳ, εἰς τοὺς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν λέγοντας τὰ βέλτιστα τρέψαι βούλονται, ἵνα τούτους κρίνητε, μὴ Φίλιππον ἀμύνησθε, καὶ κατηγορῶσιν αὐτοί, μὴ δίκην δῶσιν ὧν ποιοῦσι νῦν. 858 859 Roisman 2006: 7. 258 is represented as provocative and warmongering, particularly when Demosthenes asserts categorically that: I know for certain that, without any Athenian having yet made a proposal of war, Philip holds many of our possessions and has now sent help to Cardia. If we are willing to pretend that he is not waging war on us, he would be an utter fool to refute us.860 The men working for Philip are hiding in plain sight, while men such as Demosthenes are maligned, which emphasises again how the Assembly has created a hostile environment for the good citizen who attempts to give unwelcome, but true, advice. Demosthenes is arguably referring to his own consistently ignored, yet sincere and trustworthy, advice and in asserting the beneficial quality of his own advice he differentiates himself from those rhētors that engage in harmful rhetoric. Demosthenes also uses the past to vindicate his points, presenting a sense of inevitability as he did in the Second Philippic: But when he marches against us, what shall we say then? He will deny that he is at war, as he did to the people of Oreus when his soldiers were in their territory, as he did before that to the Pheraeas even as he attacked their walls, and as he did at the outset to the Olynthians, until he was in their territory with an army! At that point shall we say that those who are telling you to defend yourselves are warmongers? The only remaining option is slavery – nothing else is possible if we do not defend ourselves and are not allowed to live at peace. 861 Demosthenes 8.58. ἐγὼ δ’ οἶδ’ ἀκριβῶς ὅτι οὐ γράψαντος Ἀθηναίων οὐδενός πω πόλεμον, καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ Φίλιππος ἔχει τῶν τῆς πόλεως καὶ νῦν εἰς Καρδίαν πέπομφε βοήθειαν. εἰ μέντοι βουλόμεθ’ ἡμεῖς μὴ προσποιεῖσθαι πολεμεῖν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν, ἀνοητότατος πάντων ἂν εἴη τῶν ὄντων ἀνθρώπων, εἰ τοῦτ’ ἐξελέγχοι. 860 Demosthenes 8.69. ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὰν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς ἴῃ, τί φήσομεν; ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ οὐ πολεμεῖν, ὥσπερ οὐδ’ Ὠρείταις, τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὄντων ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ, οὐδὲ Φεραίοις πρότερον, πρὸς τὰ τείχη προσβάλλων αὐτῶν, οὐδ’ Ὀλυνθίοις ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἕως ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ τὸ στράτευμα παρῆν ἔχων. ἢ καὶ τότε τοὺς ἀμύνεσθαι κελεύοντας πόλεμον ποιεῖν φήσομεν; οὐκοῦν ὑπόλοιπον δουλεύειν· οὐ γὰρ ἄλλο γ’ οὐδέν ἐστι μεταξὺ τοῦ μήτ’ ἀμύνεσθαι μήτ’ ἄγειν ἡσυχίαν ἐᾶσθαι. 861 259 Demosthenes presents this as a polarised scenario, success or failure, freedom or slavery, truth or deception, Demosthenes or the enemies within. Indeed, it is not Philip that brings Athens’ destruction, but the Assembly itself if it continues in the same attitude. The fate of Athens ultimately lies with the Assembly, as it did in the First Philippic, if they choose to shake off their apathy and act. To remind them of what is expected of them, Demosthenes again returns to their wider reputation: Indeed, you do not face the same danger as others do, since Philip’s aim is not to subject your city but to destroy it utterly. He is well aware that you will not willingly be slaves, nor, if you are willing, would you know how to do so, since you are accustomed to rule, but you will be able to cause more trouble for him, if you take the opportunity to do so, than any other people can. 862 As in the Second Philippic, where Demosthenes used Philip’s voice to describe the Athenians, here too he utilises Philip’s external perspective to remind the Assembly of the standards to which they are held. Just as Thucydides’ Archidamus viewed the Athenians as having ‘too much pride to become the slaves of their own land, or to shrink back from warfare as though they were inexperienced in it’, as far as Athens’ current adversaries are concerned, Athenians are not willing to be slaves. 863 The implication here, however, is that Demosthenes views the Assembly as willingly subjugating themselves to Philip’s wishes. Moreover, it suggests that their behaviour is consequently in direct conflict with their past reputation and heritage – an image of Athens that is (apparently) respected by even their enemies. Therefore, to act contrary to Demosthenes’ advice arguably compromises this heritage, and their identity as Athenians. I Demosthenes 8.60. καὶ μὴν οὐχ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἴσων ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔσθ’ ὁ κίνδυνος· οὐ γὰρ ὑφ’ αὑτῷ τὴν πόλιν ποιήσασθαι βούλεται Φίλιππος, ἀλλ’ ὅλως ἀνελεῖν. οἶδεν γὰρ ἀκριβῶς ὅτι δουλεύειν μὲν ὑμεῖς οὔτ’ ἐθελήσετε, οὔτ’, ἂν ἐθελήσητε, ἐπιστήσεσθε (ἄρχειν γὰρ εἰώθατε), πράγματα δ’ αὐτῷ παρασχεῖν, ἂν καιρὸν λάβητε, πλείω τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων δυνήσεσθε. 862 863 Thucydides 1.81. 260 argue this correlates with Yunis’ arguments that the burden of the Athenian past is instrumental in defending Demosthenes’ policy in On the Crown, and that Demosthenes drives his rhetoric here by presenting resistance as the only honourable and Athenian course of action. This, however, is not solely about acting against Philip; fundamentally I argue that the burden of Athens’ past reputation confronts the Assembly with their own decisionmaking practices and the need to address the crisis within Athens itself. Consequently, the decision as to whether to heed Demosthenes or not has transformed into a fight for the very existence of Athens’ reputation as a democracy that champions the freedom of Hellas, both realistically and ideologically. In this intensely charged critical rhetoric, Demosthenes builds to the climax of the speech, which is reserved, not for Philip, but the enemies within Athens: And so you should recognise that the struggle will be for our very existence, and should hate and crucify to death those who have sold themselves to him. For it is impossible, impossible I say to defeat your enemies outside the city until you have punished your enemies in the city itself. 864 Noting the specific call for execution by apotumpanismos, which Todd states was reserved for slaves, traitors and foreigners, Demosthenes asserts that these traitors have revoked their Demosthenes 8.61. ὡς οὖν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐσχάτων ὄντος τοῦ ἀγῶνος, οὕτω προσήκει γιγνώσκειν, καὶ τοὺς πεπρακότας αὑτοὺς ἐκείνῳ μισεῖν κἀποτυμπανίσαι· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστι τῶν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως ἐχθρῶν κρατῆσαι, πρὶν ἂν τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πόλει κολάσητ’ ἐχθρούς. 864 Trevett translates ἀποτυμπανίσαι as cudgel but notes that Demosthenes ‘refers to a gruesome form of capital punishment....used against traitors and slaves.’ Todd 2000:42 notes that Demosthenes uses apotumpanismos in hypothetical instances in the late 340s, here, in On the False Embassy 19.137 ‘if only Philip had heard that those men had immediately been executed by apotumpanismos, and in the Third Philippic 9.61 wishing if only apotumpanismos had been the punishment for those who imprisoned the patriot Euphraeus. Apotumpanismos is a more severe form of execution compared to hemlock. As noted in Chapter 2.2, Demosthenes’ assertion that Philip was powerful by deception likewise condemned those that advocated his false promises to the dēmos, and for Demosthenes, are guilty of deceiving the polis. Cf. Demosthenes 20.135. This also supports the point made by Ober 1989: 166 that an orator who uses ‘the power of speech to deceive a mass audience into voting against its collective interests was obviously setting himself up as superior to the masses, a situation the dēmos must regard as anathema.’ 261 protection of their citizenship by their betrayal of the polis.865 Moreover, Demosthenes’ assertion that they must tackle these internal enemies, and the internal crisis undermining Athens, qualifies my core argument that Demosthenes’ speeches have consistently been addressing their internal crisis, of which Philip is a secondary product. The situation, since the First Philippic, has first and foremost been one of inner corruption and apathy that provided Philip with the vacuum to exploit and flourish in unchecked. Now, as then, if the Assembly refuses to change its attitudes, then they cannot hope to change their external circumstances. As such, Demosthenes offers the Assembly hope by reminding them that their reputation still precedes them, and that it is against their nature to be subject to anyone other than the sovereignty of the dēmos.866 The dutiful citizen would follow Demosthenes’ example and choose death over betraying their Athenian identity. 867 For it is this very identity that poses the greatest threat to Philip, and why he treats them with contempt and hybris: Why do you suppose that he is treating you with contempt – for this is exactly what I think he is doing? And why does he deceive others by doing them favours but threatens you outright?868 Hybris, as Trevett notes, was a serious offence under Athenian law, and is the behaviour typical of the powerfully rich towards the poor or the weak.869 By asserting these roles, 865 Todd 2000: 42. Todd observes that citizens did suffer apotumpanismos, but this was reserved for treason, and where ‘the person being executed is now marked as an outsider.’ Todd 2000:43 does make the point that the uses of apotumpanismos or hemlock, or apagoge are not always clear cut and categorical, as Theramenes and Phocion were both instances where hemlock was used for traitors. There does appear the pattern, however, that apotumpanismos for a citizen equated to treason. Hesk 2000: 53 notes the retrospective punishment of politicians for deceiving the polis has precedent in Xenophon Hellenica 1.7.35 and [Aristotle] Ath. Pol 43.5, suggesting ‘it was possible to make “preliminary complaints” (προβολαί) to the ecclēsia’ for deceiving the dēmos. For more on apotumpanismos see Forsdyke 2012b: 164 with n132. 866 On sovereignty of the dēmos see Ober 1989a: 299-304. 867 See too Herodotus 8.143.1-2 discussed in Chapter 4.1 pp. 203-5. Demosthenes 8.62. πόθεν οἴεσθε νῦν αὐτὸν ὑβρίζειν ὑμᾶς (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλ’ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ ποιεῖν ἢ τοῦτο) καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους εὖ ποιοῦντα, εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο, ἐξαπατᾶν, ὑμῖν δ’ ἀπειλεῖν ἤδη; 868 869 Trevett 2011: 147. 262 Demosthenes again evokes character tropes which presents Philip in the typical barbarian tyrant role, but Athens – currently the weaker party by its internal corruption – is now antithetically opposed to its own ideology. This image confronts the Assembly with the shocking reality of Athens if they continue to ignore Demosthenes’ advice. Demosthenes upholds the unflattering reality of the Assembly to once more provoke them to reflect and change. He again reminds them of what they have lost, including ‘how much you were tricked out of during the making of peace? Phocis, Thermopylae, the coast of Thrace, Doriscus, Serrium’, all of which Philip gets away with: Because only in your city are men allowed to speak on behalf of the enemy with impunity, and it is safe for a man who has received bribes to address you even though you have been deprived of what is yours. 870 Demosthenes goads them further by contrasting the treatment of Athens and the other Greeks, noting that the other cities would not have tolerated speeches in Philip’s favour had they not been bribed: It would not have been safe to plead Philip’s case in Olynthus, if the majority of Olynthians had not profited from the enjoyment of Potidaea. It would not have been safe to do so in Thessaly, if the majority of the Thessalians had not benefited from Philip expelling their tyrants and handing the Pylaea over to them. Nor was it safe to do so in Thebes, until he handed over Boeotia and destroyed Phocis. But at Athens, after Philip not only deprived you of Amphipolis and the territory of the Cardians but Demosthenes 8.64. ὅτι ἐν μόνῃ τῶν πασῶν πόλεων τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ ἄδει’ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν λέγειν δέδοται, καὶ λαβόντα χρήματ’ αὐτὸν ἀσφαλές ἐστι λέγειν παρ’ ὑμῖν, κἂν ἀφῃρημένοι τὰ ὑμέτερ’ αὐτῶν ἦτε. Cawkwell 1963: 201 notes that ‘the plain truth is that the capture of Serrium, Doriscus and the other forts was in no sense a breach of the Peace of Philocrates. Demosthenes is just not truthful. It is noteworthy that these allegations are not made in the Second Philippic of 344.’ 870 263 is also establishing Euboea as a fortress against you and is now advancing against Byzantium, it is safe to speak on his behalf. 871 This internal corruption is the reason as to why Athens’ fortunes have deteriorated, and it is this inversion of the Assembly that Demosthenes’ speeches have all attempted to address. These men, just as described previously in the Third Olynthiac, have profited at Athens’ expense: Indeed, some of those who do so were once poor but are now rapidly becoming rich, and were once without name or reputation, whereas you suffer the reverse process: you used to have a good reputation but now are disreputable; you were rich but now are in need. For I think that the wealth of a city consists of its allies, and the trust and goodwill that it inspires – all of which you now lack. 872 Thus, not only have Athenian fortunes dwindled in correlation to Philip’s ascendancy, but more concerningly, Athens is essentially morally bankrupt. Philip is no longer just the opportunist of the First Philippic who could be nullified simply by Athenian action; Demosthenes now presents it as a tragic turn that in their refusal to listen to his advice the situation has deteriorated to the point that Philip even has supporters within Athens defending his interests. Demosthenes provokes the Assembly by presenting the irony of their current deliberations over recalling Diopeithes, stating in no uncertain terms that if they act again in Philip’s interests they not only compound their shame, but in one movement they both condemn their polis and renounce their autonomy as free Athenians. Demosthenes 8.5-66. οὐκ ἦν ἀσφαλὲς λέγειν ἐν Ὀλύνθῳ τὰ Φιλίππου μὴ σὺν εὖ πεπονθότων τῶν πολλῶν Ὀλυνθίων τῷ Ποτείδαιαν καρποῦσθαι· οὐκ ἦν ἀσφαλὲς λέγειν ἐν Θετταλίᾳ τὰ Φιλίππου μὴ σὺν εὖ πεπονθότος τοῦ πλήθους τοῦ Θετταλῶν τῷ τοὺς τυράννους ἐκβαλεῖν Φίλιππον αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν Πυλαίαν ἀποδοῦναι· οὐκ ἦν ἐν Θήβαις ἀσφαλές, πρὶν τὴν Βοιωτίαν ἀπέδωκε καὶ τοὺς Φωκέας ἀνεῖλεν. ἀλλ’ Ἀθήνησιν, οὐ μόνον Ἀμφίπολιν καὶ τὴν Καρδιανῶν χώραν ἀπεστερηκότος Φιλίππου, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατασκευάζοντος ὑμῖν ἐπιτείχισμα τὴν Εὔβοιαν καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ Βυζάντιον παριόντος, ἀσφαλές ἐστι λέγειν ὑπὲρ Φιλίππου. 871 Demosthenes 8.66. καὶ γάρ τοι τούτων μὲν ἐκ πτωχῶν ἔνιοι ταχὺ πλούσιοι γίγνονται, καὶ ἐξ ἀνωνύμων καὶ ἀδόξων ἔνδοξοι καὶ γνώριμοι, ὑμεῖς δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐκ μὲν ἐνδόξων ἄδοξοι, ἐκ δ’ εὐπόρων ἄποροι· πόλεως γὰρ ἔγωγε πλοῦτον ἡγοῦμαι συμμάχους, πίστιν, εὔνοιαν, ὧν πάντων ἔσθ’ ὑμεῖς ἄποροι. See pp. 145-150 on Demosthenes 3.21-31 for comparison of fourth and fifth century Athens. 872 264 To this end (and to affirm his own persona), Demosthenes defines the good citizen as one who acts according to Athenian values. Returning to his remarks in the proemium and the detrimental effects of currying favour, Demosthenes asserts that: I am not arrogant or disgusting or shameless, and hope I may never become so, and I consider myself braver than the numerous men who participate so irresponsibly in public life. For, men of Athens, anyone who makes accusations, without regard to the city’s interests, does not do these things out of bravery, but can be rash with impunity, since his safety is guaranteed by the fact that in speaking and taking part in public life he curries your favour. 873 This double criticism directed at the rhētors and the Assembly, is contrasted with his own courageous position: But anyone who opposes your wishes for the sake of what is best, and who always speaks not to gain favour but to give the best advice. and who chooses a policy that owes more to change than to calculation, yet accepts responsibility for both of these – it is this man who is brave, and a useful citizen, not those who have destroyed our city’s greatest assets for the sake of short-lived popularity.874 Rather, the good citizen, as he has been demonstrating, embodies the values of the polis, and is almost a microcosm of the polis itself: Demosthenes 8.68-9. ἐγὼ δὲ θρασὺς μὲν καὶ βδελυρὸς καὶ ἀναιδὴς οὔτ’ εἰμὶ μήτε γενοίμην, ἀνδρειότερον μέντοι πολλῶν πάνυ τῶν ἰταμῶς πολιτευομένων αρ’ ὑμῖν ἐμαυτὸν ἡγοῦμαι. ὅστις μὲν γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, παριδὼν ἃ συνοίσει τῇ πόλει, κρίνει, δημεύει, δίδωσι, κατηγορεῖ, οὐδεμιᾷ ταῦτ’ ἀνδρείᾳ ποιεῖ, ἀλλ’ ἔχων ἐνέχυρον τῆς αὑτοῦ σωτηρίας τὸ πρὸς χάριν ὑμῖν λέγειν καὶ πολιτεύεσθαι, ἀσφαλῶς θρασύς ἐστιν· 873 Demosthenes 8.69-70. ὅστις δ’ ὑπὲρ τοῦ βελτίστου πολλὰ τοῖς ὑμετέροις ἐναντιοῦται βουλήμασι, καὶ μηδὲν λέγει πρὸς χάριν ἀλλὰ τὸ βέλτιστον ἀεί, καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν προαιρεῖται ἐν ᾗ πλειόνων ἡ τύχη κυρία γίγνεται ἢ οἱ λογισμοί, τούτων δ’ ἀμφοτέρων ἑαυτὸν ὑπεύθυνον ὑμῖν παρέχει, οὗτός ἐστ’ ἀνδρεῖος, καὶ χρήσιμός γε πολίτης ὁ τοιοῦτός ἐστιν, οὐχ οἱ τῆς παρ’ ἡμέραν χάριτος τὰ μέγιστα τῆς πόλεως ἀπολωλεκότες. I argue that this builds upon his own assertions in On the Peace where he contrasted his own advice to those who say whatever it takes to gain favour/ further themselves. Balot 2004: 247-8 singles out On the Chersonese to demonstrate how Athenian orators displayed courageous patriotism and sincerity by risking the dangers of free speech and parrhēsia. Balot 2004: 247 remarks on 8.68-70 that ‘in the course of defending himself, Demosthenes formulates civic courage as the ability to speak freely even against the dēmos’ inclinations.’ 874 265 Nor do I think that I could be acting as a good citizen if I were to devise policies that will make me the first among you, but you the last among all people. Rather, the city must prosper through the policies proposed by its good citizens, and everyone must advocate what is best, not what is easiest. 875 And in this sense Demosthenes utilises the Periclean model to affirm both his own position and his argument that they shake off their apathy and not take the easy option (which would be prosecuting Diopeithes) but do what is necessary, as Pericles asserted ‘be determined never to sacrifice the glory that is yours.’ 876 Demosthenes has presented himself as the archetypal good citizen, like Pericles, and asserted that honourable truth and unpopularity is preferable to shameful delusion: Instead, I would say that my conduct of public affairs has nothing in common with theirs; and that, although I perhaps could, as others can, make accusations and do favours and confiscate proper and do the other things that these men do, I have never yet taken up any of these positions, nor have I been motivated by profit or ambition, but I continue to say things which make me a lesser man in many of your eyes, but will make you greater, if you are persuaded by me. 877 Demosthenes does not remove himself from responsibility, but rather reminds the Assembly of its very purpose, and that the rejection of truth, through apathy and gratification, is the Demosthenes 8.72. οὐδ’ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ δικαίου τοῦτ’ εἶναι πολίτου, τοιαῦτα πολιτεύμαθ’ εὑρίσκειν ἐξ ὧν ἐγὼ μὲν πρῶτος ὑμῶν ἔσομαι εὐθέως, ὑμεῖς δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ὕστατοι· ἀλλὰ συναυξάνεσθαι δεῖ τὴν πόλιν τοῖς τῶν ἀγαθῶν πολιτῶν πολιτεύμασι, καὶ τὸ βέλτιστον ἀεί, μὴ τὸ ῥᾷστον ἅπαντας λέγειν· Compare 3.18 where Demosthenes argued one must choose what is right over what is pleasant if both is not an option. 875 Thucydides 2.61, Pericles also offers hope at 2.62, ‘Remember, too, that freedom, if we preserve our freedom by our own efforts, will easily restore us to our old positions; but to submit to the will of others means to lose even what we still have. You must not fall below the standard of your fathers.’ 876 Demosthenes 8.71. ἀλλ’ ὅτι τῶν τοιούτων πολιτευμάτων οὐδὲν πολιτεύομαι, ἀλλὰ δυνάμενος ἂν ἴσως, ὥσπερ καὶ ἕτεροι, καὶ κατηγορεῖν καὶ χαρίζεσθαι καὶ δημεύειν καὶ τἄλλ’ ἃ ποιοῦσιν οὗτοι ποιεῖν, οὐδ’ ἐφ’ ἓν τούτων πώποτ’ ἐμαυτὸν ἔταξα, οὐδὲ προήχθην οὔθ’ ὑπὸ κέρδους οὔθ’ ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας, ἀλλὰ διαμένω λέγων ἐξ ὧν ἐγὼ μὲν πολλῶν ἐλάττων εἰμὶ παρ’ ὑμῖν, ὑμεῖς δ’, εἰ πείσεσθέ μοι, μείζους ἂν εἴητε· One could draw a comparison to Pericles at Thucydides 2.60 ‘so far as you are concerned, if you are angry with me you are angry with one who has, I think, at least as much ability as anyone else to see what ought to be done and to explain what he sees, one who loves his city and who is above being influenced by money.’ 877 266 greatest threat facing Athens. Reminding us of his parrhēsia, Demosthenes uses his own ethōs to stress the sincerity of his own advice, which again suggests a Periclean image. 878 But he also reminds us that there is only so much he himself can do; for Demosthenes’ advice without the goodwill of the Assembly cannot solve their problems. 879 In this regard I argue that Demosthenes has gradually developed his deliberative oratory into a form of didactic. 880 He not only reproaches the Assembly and advises them to fix and heal the polis, but reminds them that democratic deliberation is a two-way process, as he goes on to state in his funeral oration for Chaeronea ‘But to be persuasive a person’s words require the goodwill of his audience.’881 For his own part Demosthenes confronts accusations that he produces ‘nothing but words, whereas what the city needs is deeds and action’ by reminding the Assembly that his precise role is to present words that motivate them to take action, ‘I think that the only action that is required of one who advises you is to say what is for the best.’ 882 To emphasise this Demosthenes returns to his method of past exempla, choosing the example of Timotheus the general who had secured possessions such as Potidaea, which the current Athenians have subsequently lost. Demosthenes uses the past to confront the current Mader 2007: 156 remarks that Thucydides’ comparison of ‘the high-minded Pericles and his self-serving demagogic successors (2.65.8–10) provides a schema regularly invoked by Demosthenes to mark off and defend his own distinctive style and ideals against crowd-pleasing populist rivals’. 878 Roisman 2004: 262 observes that, in his speeches against Aeschines, Demosthenes argues how ‘the power of speech is unlike all other powers (dunameis)…can be broken when the audience opposes it (Dem. 19.340; cf. 18.277; 60.14).’ I believe that Roisman’s argument can be applied to Demosthenes’ example of Timotheus, that ‘this democratic view of public speaking describes the power of speech as weaker than, and dependent on, the people’s power and their willingness to yield to it.’ Roisman 2004: 262. 879 880 See comments on Yunis 2007 in the Introduction p. 8. 881 Demosthenes 60.14. Indeed Demosthenes could be referring back to these deliberative speeches and remarking on the failure of the Assembly’s eunoia culminating in the defeat at Chaeronea. Demosthenes 8.73. ‘In the past I have heard it said that I always say what is best but that I produce nothing but words, whereas what the city needs is deeds and action. I shall tell you frankly my attitude towards these complaints: I think that the only actins that is required of one who advises you is to say what is for the best, and I think that I can easily show you that this is the case.’ ἤδη τοίνυν τινὸς ἤκουσα τοιοῦτόν τι λέγοντος, ὡς ἄρ’ ἐγὼ λέγω μὲν ἀεὶ τὰ βέλτιστα, ἔστιν δ’ οὐδὲν ἀλλ’ ἢ λόγοι τὰ παρ’ ἐμοῦ, δεῖ δ’ ἔργων τῇ πόλει καὶ πράξεώς τινος. ἐγὼ δ’ ὡς ἔχω περὶ τούτων, λέξω πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐκ ἀποκρύψομαι. οὐδ’ εἶναι νομίζω τοῦ συμβουλεύοντος ὑμῖν ἔργον οὐδὲν πλὴν εἰπεῖν τὰ βέλτιστα. καὶ τοῦθ’ ὅτι τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον ῥᾳδίως οἶμαι δείξειν. 882 267 Assembly with the memory that when their ancestors heeded advice and took effective action, sparing nothing in defence of their interests, their security was assured: You doubtless know that the famous Timotheus once made a speech before you saying that you should assist and go to the rescue of the Euboeans when the Thebans were trying to enslave them, and that he said something like this: “Tell me, when you have the Thebans on an island, are you deliberating about how to treat them and what to do? Will you not fill the sea, men of Athens, with triremes? Will you not leap to your feet and proceed to Piraeus? Will you not launch your ships?” Timotheus spoke these words, and you acted, but the success arose from these two things together: his words and your action. 883 The alternative scenario is evident in Demosthenes’ present predicament: If he had given the best possible advice, as he did, but you had remained idle and paid no attention, would any of the things that then benefitted the city have happened? They could not have. So too with what I say: you should seek action from yourselves, but the best advice from the man who steps up to speak. 884 Demosthenes asserts how oratory functions within the Assembly, and unequivocally instructs the Athenians on how they ought to act, and why they have fallen so far. There is a corruption in the Greek here: †τὰ δὲ βέλτιστ᾽ἐπιστήμῃ λέγειν†, however the overall sense of the passage is reasonably clear, following what Demosthenes has already been saying with Demosthenes 8.74-5. ἴστε γὰρ δήπου τοῦθ’ ὅτι Τιμόθεός ποτ’ ἐκεῖνος ἐν ὑμῖν ἐδημηγόρησεν ὡς δεῖ βοηθεῖν καὶ τοὺς Εὐβοέας σῴζειν, ὅτε Θηβαῖοι κατεδουλοῦντ’ αὐτούς, καὶ λέγων εἶπεν οὕτω πως· ‘εἰπέ μοι, βουλεύεσθε,’ ἔφη, ‘Θηβαίους ἔχοντες ἐν νήσῳ, τί χρήσεσθε καὶ τί δεῖ ποιεῖν; οὐκ ἐμπλήσετε τὴν θάλατταν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τριήρων; οὐκ ἀναστάντες ἤδη πορεύσεσθ’ εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ; οὐ καθέλξετε τὰς ναῦς;’ οὐκοῦν εἶπε μὲν ταῦθ’ ὁ Τιμόθεος, ἐποιήσατε δ’ ὑμεῖς· ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων τὸ πρᾶγμ’ ἐπράχθη. 883 Demosthenes 8.75. εἰ δ’ ὁ μὲν εἶπεν ὡς οἷόν τε [τὰ] ἄριστα, ὥσπερ εἶπεν, ὑμεῖς δ’ ἀπερρᾳθυμήσατε καὶ μηδὲν ὑπηκούσατε, ἆρ’ ἂν ἦν γεγονός τι τῶν τότε συμβάντων τῇ πόλει; οὐχ οἷόν τε. οὕτω τοίνυν καὶ περὶ ὧν ἂν ἐγὼ λέγω καὶ περὶ ὧν ἂν ὁ δεῖν’ εἴπῃ, τὰ μὲν ἔργα παρ’ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ζητεῖτε, †τὰ δὲ βέλτιστα ἐπιστήμῃ† λέγειν παρὰ τοῦ παριόντος. Vince’s Loeb translation gives, ‘for advice, the best that skill in speech can command.’ I read βέλτιστ᾽ἐπιστήμῃ as understanding/a professional full knowledge, roundly meaning the best well-informed advice from whoever is in the best position to advise. 884 268 regard to words being the domain of the speaker, but that the Assembly must qualify these words with action. Moreover, by recalling Isocrates’ complaint at his pupil Timotheus’ failure as a politician due to his ‘refusal to curry favour with the dēmos’, Demosthenes likewise associates his parrhēsia with Timotheus’ unswerving duty to telling the Assembly what they need (not what they want) to hear. 885 Thus, the power of the dēmos comes with the responsibility of recognising the intentions of the speaker and to be motivated to necessary action as an entire unit. For Demosthenes, the current Assembly in its desire to do as little as possible is so different from Timotheus’ Athens as to be unrecognisable, and the Assembly cannot understand this because they refuse to listen to Demosthenes’ parrhēsia. Their reaction towards Diopeithes is thus a testament to their inability to reflect self-critically. This again demonstrates the vicious cycle which undermines Athens from within. Demosthenes closes the speech with a set of proposals remarkably similar to his unsuccessful proposals from 351 to act, to fund, to support: I wish to summarise my proposals and then step down. I say that we must raise money, keep together our existing force, correcting any fault that is detected but not disbanding the whole because of any details that are open to criticism; we must send out ambassadors in every direction to instruct, warn, and act; and in addition we must punish those who are taking bribes in connection with public affairs and show our utter hatred of them, so that those who are moderate and upright may be seen, by themselves and others, to have given the right advice.886 885 Isocrates 18.169-70, Sinclair 1988: 46. Demosthenes 8.76. ἐν κεφαλαίῳ δ’ ἃ λέγω φράσας καταβῆναι βούλομαι. χρήματ’ εἰσφέρειν φημὶ δεῖν· τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν δύναμιν συνέχειν, ἐπανορθοῦντας εἴ τι δοκεῖ μὴ καλῶς ἔχειν, μὴ ὅσοις ἄν τις αἰτιάσηται τὸ ὅλον καταλύοντας· πρέσβεις ἐκπέμπειν πανταχοῖ τοὺς διδάξοντας, νουθετήσοντας, πράξοντας· παρὰ πάντα ταῦτα τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς πράγμασι δωροδοκοῦντας κολάζειν καὶ μισεῖν πανταχοῦ, ἵν’ οἱ μέτριοι καὶ δικαίους αὑτοὺς παρέχοντες εὖ βεβουλεῦσθαι δοκῶσι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ ἑαυτοῖς. 886 269 Demosthenes seeks to redeem their reputation both in the wider Greek world, and internally, and in this way seeks to safeguard the Assembly from the traitors within, but also enable good advice be both recognised and acted upon. Thus, in my opinion, the speech is not ‘Philippic’ in nature, but again prioritises addressing the detrimental attitude within the Assembly: ‘if you handle matters in this way and stop belittling everything, perhaps, perhaps even now our situation may improve.’ 887 Despite their lost possessions and their concessions to Philip, Demosthenes still presents the hope that the Assembly can turn this around, but this is reliant upon them recognising the reality of the situation and their own attitudes, and acknowledging his own parrhēsia that seeks to expose and expel their enemies, external and within, and to stop punishing those who act in their best interests. While Diopeithes is the subject of the debate, Demosthenes is arguably also referring to himself, and the vitriol we see in this speech against the internal corruption of the Assembly is far greater than anything we have seen directed against Philip.888 Indeed, events by 341 have transpired in such a way that Demosthenes’ advice can now utilise the power of hindsight, and present an authoritative inevitability on the consequences of ignoring his proposals: But if you remain in your seats, serious only about heckling or cheering, but shrinking back if anything needs to be done, I do not see how any speech will be able to save they city if you refuse to do your duty. 889 And it is in this sense that the Assembly appears detached from reality, as if they are viewing a comedy or tragedy at the theatre for their enjoyment but which does not require serious Demosthenes 8.77. ἂν οὕτω τοῖς πράγμασι χρῆσθε καὶ παύσησθ’ ὀλιγωροῦντες ἁπάντων, ἴσως ἄν, ἴσως καὶ νῦν ἔτι βελτίω γένοιτο. 887 As Usher 1999: 239 remarks ‘Diopeithes has become subordinate to defining and dramatizing Philip’s designs and undermining, and even terrorising, his alleged Athenian supporters, the ‘philippizers’.’ I disagree however when he argues that these internal enemies ‘are no longer the main target’ in the Third Philippic. 888 Demosthenes 8.77. εἰ μέντοι καθεδεῖσθε, ἄχρι τοῦ θορυβῆσαι καὶ ἐπαινέσαι σπουδάζοντες, ἐὰν δὲ δέῃ τι ποιεῖν ἀναδυόμενοι, οὐχ ὁρῶ λόγον ὅστις ἄνευ τοῦ ποιεῖν ὑμᾶς ἃ προσήκει δυνήσεται τὴν πόλιν σῶσαι. 889 270 consideration as it ultimately is not real. 890 Again, speech has been mutated into a spectacle, rather than a necessary process, and it is this corruption of logos, which paralyses the Assembly.891 The severity of this cannot be underestimated in a constitution where logos is the medium through which democracy functioned. As such a crisis of oratory – a crisis of the deliberative process – creates political instability and a series of subsequent crises – Macedonian expansion being a product of this original crisis. I argue that what Demosthenes confronts in the speech is not Philip per se but this internal crisis, this ἀρχή. I argue that for Demosthenes, it is this self-deception and arrogant delusion that poses the most dangerous threat to Athens, and has created a hostile environment for constructive deliberation. As Mader summarises, Demosthenes attempts to confront: Assemblymen flattered into ῥᾳθυμία by feel-good populist rhetoric (πρὸς ἡδονὴν λέγειν), swelling with self-importance, quick to evade responsibility and apportion blame, prone to denial and wishful thinking, intolerant of criticism and reluctant to hear out opposing speakers, their attention span strictly limited, attracted by the abusive agones of rival orators, and resembling sensation-hungry theatregoers rather than concerned citizens.892 Demosthenes contrasts this current image to Athenian ideology, which I view as a metaphorical mirror. It is only in recognising this that the Athenians can hope to resolve their current situation, because as Demosthenes states (and will go on to state in the Third Philippic): it is only through resolving their internal crisis that they can hope to address Philip and their external concerns. Accordingly, they must break this pattern of destructive behaviour, and support not attack Diopeithes. It is thus essential that they scrutinise See pp. 172-3 on the parallels between Demosthenes’ critcism of the dēmos and Cleon’s criticisms at Thucydides 3.38. 890 891 Again, see earlier complaint of Demosthenes at 5.3-4 and 5.7. 892 Mader 2007: 158. 271 themselves, accept culpability for their own neglectful attitudes, shake off their apathy and act in a manner that reflects, and is worthy of, their Athenian identity and ancestral past. This long speech, as much as it warns about Philip’s external threat, is fundamentally about Athens. For Demosthenes, something has gone very wrong at the core of Athenian politics that such an illogical state of events has come to pass. Subsequently, the only option is to shatter this fallacy which deceives the Assembly and force them to recognise the situation for what it really is, to recognise themselves for what they are, and change their damaging practices. Their greatest strength, and the only alternative to Macedonian subjugation, is to assume ownership of their ancestral ideology and be Athenian in both their attitude, their words and their actions. Demosthenes’ speech calls on them to see this reality through their nonsensical attitude towards Diopeithes. It is in his defence of Diopeithes that Demosthenes makes this a defining moment for the Assembly to decide and define its own identity, and choose between a path of self-destruction or redemption. 893 The speech was a success. Worthington 2008: 127 notes that ‘Although they did not beat his opponents to death, they did not recall Diopeithes, and did send a support force under Chares to the Chersonese.’ 893 272 CHAPTER 4.3 THE THIRD PHILIPPIC Date and Historical Context Following On the Chersonese and Hegesippus’ speech, the Assembly voted in favour of Demosthenes’ proposals and did not recall Diopeithes. 894 However, Athenian interests were still at risk in the Hellespont region, and the direct context of the Third Philippic is to address the worsening situation, as Philip had now deployed Macedonian troops in assistance of Cardia, and was attacking Byzantium. 895 If Philip’s expansion into Thrace engulfed the Hellespont and Byzantium, it ‘would eliminate all Athenian influence in the north Aegean, imperil the vital grain route of Athens.’ 896 Accordingly, the Third Philippic was delivered within a few months of On the Chersonese in 341, and shares many of the immediate concerns of the earlier speech which defended Diopeithes. 897 Trevett argues that, ‘a central purpose of this speech is to convince the Athenians that a state of undeclared war with Philip already exists.’898 As this thesis has demonstrated, Demosthenes has been stressing this since the Second Philippic. While this speech does contain the fiercest criticism of Philip in the corpus, it is not, in my opinion, the fiercest invective of the collection of speeches, which is reserved for the traitorous rhētors within Athens itself. While Macedonian expansion is unmistakably a threat to Athenian interests, Demosthenes seeks to address the problems within the Assembly that enabled the 894 Worthington 2013: 220. 895 Worthington 2013:220 notes that these troops were sent in May. As Buckler and Beck 2008: 239-40 remind us, however, Philip was well within his rights to defend his ally Cardia. Buckler and Beck 2008: 239. Gabriel 2010: 181-2 argues that ‘the Athenian willingness to check Philip’s moves in Ambracia with force, their rejection of his proposals on piracy and arbitration, and the brazen attempts by the anti-Macedonian faction in Athens to suborn Macedonian influence in the Peloponnese and elsewhere had finally convinced Philip that a rapprochement with Athens was now impossible.’ 896 897 Dionysius Letter to Ammaeus 1.10. dates the speech to 342/1, and scholarly consensus generally agrees with this date, which I put at 341. Worthington 2013:220; MacDowell 2009: 349 suggest summer 341; Usher 1999: 237 Sealey 1955: 101-110. 898 Trevett 2011: 153. 273 “Macedonian Question” to even occur. 899 I argue that this speech serves as a culmination of Demosthenes’ arguments since the First Philippic: that the crisis facing Athens is selfinflicted and a product of the internal corruption of the Assembly. Despite being ten years after the First Philippic, the speech is remarkably similar, at times almost verbatim, to his arguments in 351 demonstrating that his opinions on the Assembly, and Philip, have been consistent. Demosthenes builds upon his previous arguments that Athens needs to be seen by the Panhellenic community to be acting in its own, and Greece’s, interests. Moreover, he stresses the need to address the problem of Macedonian Realpolitik in the Aegean, where the balance of power has been unsettled by their own lack of action and Philip’s political and military presence (especially with his involvement with the Third Sacred War and his subsequent position on the Amphyctonic council). To achieve this, Demosthenes asserts it is paramount for the Athenians to recognise the corruption within the Assembly, to change their attitudes, and defend their interests in the Chersonese before they are lost to Philip. With regard to the transmission of the speech, we have two versions of the Third Philippic, which are generally compiled together. This occurs because the tenth-century manuscript ‘S’ has omissions which are preserved in other manuscripts, but appear as additions in S’s margins. 900 MacDowell refers to this as a ‘notorious textual problem’, as manuscript S is the oldest of the medieval manuscripts and is generally considered the most reliable.901 MacDowell suggests that these additional portions of text may have been removed by Demosthenes to make the speech shorter for delivery, and are not the later additions of In this I disagree with Usher 1999: 239 where he argues that attacking Philippizers is ‘no longer the main target’ in the Third Philippic as it was in On the Chersonese. 899 900 Pearson 1976: 150. To differentiate these versions, I have put the additional text in italics for the English transation, and enclosed the Greek within square brackets. It is important to note that I am not using the square brackets in the same way the Leiden conventions (to indicate restored text). Rather, I am following the practice in the Loeb edition (which uses the Teubner text). MacDowell 2009: 353. In my opinion this could be the product of a once prevailing attitude that ‘oldest is best’, and rather could be viewed from recentiores, non deteriores. Reynolds and Wilson 2013: 218-129. 901 274 another author.902 Even with the omissions the speech, like On the Chersonese, is remarkably long, and shifts and jumps between different arguments throughout. 903 As Pearson notes, the speech is of ‘special interest’ for the ‘skill with which the various arguments are manipulated.904 Demosthenes does not remain with one method of attack for long, but moves through various positions, ‘strengthening each one in turn as he comes to it…each emotional outburst is carefully motivated by descriptive passages which precede it.’ 905 Analysis Demosthenes opens the speech by acknowledging that the consensus of opinion considers Philip is a problem: Many speeches are made, men of Athens, at almost every meeting of the Assembly, about the wrongs that Philip has been doing, from the moment he concluded the Peace, not only against you but also against others, and I am sure that everyone would say – even if they do not act accordingly – that all our words and actions should have as their aim to put an end to his arrogance and make him pay the penalty. 906 Demosthenes does not need to stress the problem of Philip, as it is self-evident, but the discrepancy between the Assembly’s many speeches and their lack of action is a 902 MacDowell 2009: 353 903 The Assembly has a water clock (klepsydra) that timed the speech (See Hansen 1991: 200). It is due to these time restrictions that I believe these last two speeches in particular have been revised and augmented with either earlier drafted remarks that could not fit the time, or retrospective additions. Enos 2002: 82 notes how Isocrates Antidosis 320 is an example of the constraints of the water clock evolving into a rhetorical topos. Isocrates is a particularly interesting example because he circulated his speech in written form. 904 Pearson 1979: 155. 905 Pearson 1976: 155. Demosthenes 9.1. Πολλῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, λόγων γιγνομένων ὀλίγου δεῖν καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἐκκλησίαν περὶ ὧν Φίλιππος, ἀφ᾿ οὗ τὴν εἰρήνην ἐποιήσατο, οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀδικεῖ, καὶ πάντων οἶδ᾿ ὅτι φησάντων γ᾿ ἄν, εἰ καὶ μὴ ποιοῦσι τοῦτο, καὶ λέγειν δεῖν καὶ πράττειν ὅπως ἐκεῖνος παύσεται τῆς ὕβρεως καὶ δίκην δώσει, Edwards 1994: 41-2 considers the opening of the Third Philippic a ‘combination of Lysianic simplicity and Thucydidean complexity’, creating a balanced accessibility for the masses and the educated elite. Edwards also notes how Dionysius compared this to Thucydides’ style (Thucydides 53-4), and that compared to Demosthenes’ perfection, Isocrates and Plato both ‘highly accomplished practitioners of the middle style’ fell short (Demosthenes 15-16). 906 275 significant issue. He again addresses their illogical behaviour, and how they deliberate about the problem of Philip, and yet do not translate this into action. Thus Demosthenes, once again, establishes his core argument against the corruption within the Assembly: empty rhetoric, pointless speeches, and the damaging gap between their words and their actions. Demosthenes attributes their problems to their lack of action: But I see that all our advantages have been so undermined and thrown away that – I fear it is ill-omened to say, but it is true – if all the regular speakers wished to speak, and you wished to vote, in such a way as to make your situation as bad as possible, I do not think that things could be any worse than they are now. 907 Unequivocally, this is a self-inflicted crisis caused by their repeated failure to seize the kairos of each situation, and (of greater concern), their general attitude towards deliberation within the Assembly.908 In asserting that they could not have behaved in a more self-damaging manner if they had tried, we are immediately reminded of their attempt to prosecute Diopeithes in the previous speech. In particular, since On the Peace, the Second Philippic and On the Chersonese, Demosthenes has asserted that certain speakers are deliberately making the situation within Athens worse, to Philip’s advantage. The Assembly, instead of recognising this and punishing the manipulative traitors, allows them to act in Philip’s interests with impunity, demonstrating both the apathy of the Assembly, and the expert deception of these internal traitors. The point of the speech, therefore, is not to repeat the grievances already exhausted by their deliberations, but to move from the safety of speeches to taking necessary action – Demosthenes 9.1. εἰς τοῦθ᾿ ὑπηγμένα πάντα τὰ πράγματα καὶ προειμέν᾿ ὁρῶ, ὥστε—δέδοικα μὴ βλάσφημον μὲν εἰπεῖν, ἀληθὲς δ᾿ ᾖ—εἰ καὶ λέγειν ἅπαντες ἐβούλονθ᾿ οἱ παριόντες καὶ χειροτονεῖν ὑμεῖς ἐξ ὧν ὡς φαυλότατ᾿ ἔμελλε τὰ πράγμαθ᾿ ἕξειν, οὐκ ἂν ἡγοῦμαι δύνασθαι χεῖρον ἢ νῦν διατεθῆναι. 907 908 Kairos is stressed in both the First Philippic and Olynthiacs. Indeed the point of the Olynthiacs were the kairos moments, and in 4.43 Demosthenes argued how he was amazed that their original objective was to punish Philip but has becomes a situation of damage limitation. Demosthenes 9.1 likewise is about their desire to punish Philip which they have still yet to do. 276 essentially to bridge the gap between their logos and ergon, which has been Demosthenes’ request since the First Philippic. The Assembly still does not function as it ought to, and any hope of challenging Philip and improving their situation is undermined at the core of Athenian decision-making. Thus, to deal with Philip involves confronting their internal issues first.909 As Demosthenes suggested in On the Chersonese, the Assembly’s speech-act delusion means their deliberations rarely progress beyond debate, and whilst they deceive themselves into believing such discussions are dealing with the situation (or take the easy inhouse options such as prosecuting generals), their allies and enemies realise that their logos is empty.910 Consequently, the gap between logos and ergon is direct result this attitude and causes a deficiency in their effectiveness.911 It is this, not Philip, which is the root of the problem. The loss of possessions, the need to not break the peace, the threat to other Greek poleis, the destabilising of the balance of power, Philip’s increased presence and influence over other enemies of Athens, are all a result of the Assembly’s lack of action, and their refusal to see the situation for what it is. As Demosthenes will go on to state in his epitaphios: For the beginning of all virtue is wisdom – indeed it is – and the end is courage: with one a person understands what should be done; with the other he carries it out. 912 And it is precisely this lack of virtue, the absence of wisdom in their deliberations and the courage to act on their decisions that is at the root of the issues within Greece: as Demosthenes asserts at 9.36-39 the Greeks have lost the aspect of their spirit that enabled them to overcome adversaries, this being their incorruptibility. As such, I suggest Demosthenes’ rhetoric – rather than being ‘Philippic’ – prioritises addressing the corruption 909 As Demosthenes asserted in On the Chersonese 8.61. 910 Such anxieties are raised in Third Olynthiac 3.14 where Demosthenes asserts a decree with worthless without the will to execute it. Again, the parallel can be observed between Demosthenes and Thucydides’ Pericles on how, for the Athenians, speech and action go hand in hand (Thucydides 2.40) 911 Demosthenes 60.17. ἔστιν γάρ, ἔστιν ἁπάσης ἀρετῆς ἀρχὴ μὲν σύνεσις, πέρας δ’ ἀνδρεία· καὶ τῇ μὲν δοκιμάζεται τί πρακτέον ἐστί, τῇ δὲ σῴζεται. 912 277 within the Assembly: their failure to reflect upon their own culpability, and how ‘it is not possible to defeat our city’s enemies until you punish those in the city itself ... many disasters arise from a willingness to listen to such men.’ 913 The Problems of the Assembly One of the recurring reasons why the Athenians cannot rectify their situation, but instead exacerbate their problems, is the misuse of rhetoric and speakers acting out of vice and selfinterest: There are no doubt many reasons for this, and matters did not reach their present state from one or two causes only. But most of all, if you examine the matter closely, you will find that it is due to those men who choose to curry favour rather than to give the best advice – some of whom, men of Athens, cherish the things that give them a good reputation and power, and take no thought for the future.914 This is only possible by the indulgent nature of the Assembly, and their need for gratification through flattery. For Demosthenes, they have forgotten their duty and the purpose of deliberative oratory itself. The speakers know this, and capitalise upon it to their own ends, which are in Philip’s favour and to the cost of Athens. Demosthenes again engages with the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric to demonstrate both the ill-intentions of self-serving speakers who give bad advice, and the failure of the Assembly to recognise this. Demosthenes refers (we assume) to not only the attempted indictment of Diopeithes but the criticism he himself received as a warmonger: 913 Demosthenes 9.53-55. Demosthenes 9.2. πολλὰ μὲν οὖν ἴσως ἐστὶν αἴτια τούτων, καὶ οὐ παρ᾿ ἓν οὐδὲ δύ᾿ εἰς τοῦτο τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἀφῖκται, μάλιστα δ᾿, ἄνπερ ἐξετάζητ᾿ ὀρθῶς, εὑρήσετε διὰ τοὺς χαρίζεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ βέλτιστα λέγειν προαιρουμένους· ὧν τινες μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐν οἷς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν αὐτοὶ καὶ δύνανται, ταῦτα φυλάττοντες οὐδεμίαν περὶ τῶν μελλόντων πρόνοιαν ἔχουσιν. 914 278 others blame and slander those who participate in public life and do nothing other than cause the city to be preoccupied with punishing itself, whereas Philip is able to speak and act as he wishes.915 Demosthenes focuses on their current habits and how they have cultivated an environment where receiving effective advice and useful deliberation is impossible. The Assembly cannot recognise friend from foe, nor what is truly in their best interests. This criticism is a continuation of his arguments in On the Chersonese that, under the influence of these men, and through their own apathy, they have acted to Philip’s advantage and manifested a cycle of self-harm with regard to their possessions and interests. Consequently, ‘such policies are habitual to you and are the cause of your troubles.’ 916 The problem, therefore, is not Philip but themselves, and the solution to the crisis is to confront these unwelcome truths via Demosthenes’ parrhēsia and, in recognise these damaging habits, change: I ask you, men of Athens, not to be at all angry with me if I speak freely in telling the truth. Look at it like this: You believe so strongly that in other areas freedom of speech should be granted to all inhabitants of the city that you have allowed foreigners and slaves to share in it, and many slaves here can be seen saying whatever they like with greater freedom than is enjoyed by the citizens of some other states, but you have entirely banished freedom of speech when it comes to the giving of advice.917 Demosthenes 9.2. ἕτεροι δὲ τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς πράγμασιν ὄντας αἰτιώμενοι καὶ διαβάλλοντες οὐδὲν ἄλλο ποιοῦσιν ἢ ὅπως ἡ πόλις αὐτὴ παρ᾿ αὑτῆς δίκην λήψεται καὶ περὶ τοῦτ᾿ ἔσται, Φιλίππῳ δ᾿ ἐξέσται καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν ὅ τι βούλεται. 915 Demosthenes 9.3. αἰ δέ τοιαῦται πολιτεῖαι συνήθεις μέν εἰσιν ὐμῖν, αἴτιαι δέ τῶν κακῶν. Supporting Trevett’s choice of ‘policies’ as a translation for πολιτεῖαι, the LSJ notes that πολῑτ-εία can be translated as a ‘course of policy’, referencing both this passage at 9.3 (the plural πολιτεῖαι), and Demosthenes 18.87 and 18.263. 916 Demosthenes 9.3. ἀξιῶ δ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἄν τι τῶν ἀληθῶν μετὰ παρρησίας λέγω, μηδεμίαν μοι διὰ τοῦτο παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ὀργὴν γενέσθαι. σκοπεῖτε γὰρ ὡδί· ὑμεῖς τὴν παρρησίαν ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων οὕτω κοινὴν οἴεσθε δεῖν εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῇ πόλει, ὥστε καὶ τοῖς ξένοις καὶ τοῖς δούλοις αὐτῆς μεταδεδώκατε, καὶ πολλοὺς ἄν τις οἰκέτας ἴδοι παρ᾿ ἡμῖν μετὰ πλείονος ἐξουσίας ὅ τι βούλονται λέγοντας ἢ πολίτας ἐν ἐνίαις τῶν ἄλλων πόλεων, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ 917 279 What is cause for concern here is that the Assembly has expelled isēgoria and parrhēsia from the centre of Athenian democracy, when each were ‘central, and at times synonymous qualities of democratic ideology.’ 918 By denying these rights to well-intentioned good citizens, and by granting them to speakers who are self-serving – and worse – working to undermine the polis from within – Demosthenes’ Assembly not only demonstrates a major oversight, but acts in a manner fundamentally un-Athenian.919 In this regard, Demosthenes is not merely commenting on the corruption of logos in the Assembly, but claims the right of isēgoria and develops this into the right to be heard. Whilst Trevett and MacDowell state there was ‘no absolute free speech in Athens’, Roisman conversely argues that for parrhēsia, ‘Athenian democracy permitted citizens to use frank speech in the cause of benefiting the state, guiding the people to the right course of action, and educating them to become better citizens.’920 I believe Demosthenes clearly presents this battle with a belligerent audience, reminiscent of his earlier arguments on the Theoric fund being emblematic of their misguided priorities and un-Athenian behaviour. But Demosthenes may also be highlighting his own ethos; building on Balot’s argument that the risks of parrhēsia demanded civic courage within democratic oratory. I argue that Demosthenes has consistently used his frankness and συμβουλεύειν παντάπασιν ἐξεληλάκατε. Sandys notes that the ending παντάπασιν ἐξεληλάκατε is ‘purposefully brief’ to contrast the absence of free speech in the Assembly compared to ‘its general diffusion elsewhere’. Sandys 1913: 194. Similarly see Isocrates 8.14 complaint ὅτι δημοκρατίας οὔσης οὐκ ἔστι παρρησία. Wallace 2004: 221; Balot 2004: 233 on the interplay of parrhēsia and isēgoria. See earlier discussion in Chapter 2.3 Third Olynthiac pp. 135; 140-4. 918 We can compare Isocrates’ complaint in On the Peace 8.14 that freedom of speech opens the Assembly to abuse and, more worryingly, the polis does not recognise this happening: ‘I know it is dangerous to oppose your views and that even though we live in a democracy, there is still no freedom of speech (καὶ ὅτι δημοκρατίας οὔσης οὐκ ἔστι παρρησία,) except here in the Assembly for those who are foolish and do not care about you…what is most shocking is that you feel gratitude to them when they drag our faults out in front of the rest of Greece such as you never show to those who help you; instead you are hostile to those who rebuke or admonish you as you are to those who actively harm the city.’ 919 Trevett 2011: 156 notes there was no absolute free speech in Athens ‘and it is very unlikely that the foreigner and slaves had any legally defined rights in this area.’ See too MacDowell 2009: 126-9 on slander laws. Roisman 2004: 268, supported by Dover 1974: 23-4, discusses the constructive role of parrhēsia. 920 280 honesty in this rhetoric of courage ‘to strengthen the image … [he]…projected.’ 921 Demosthenes has used his parrhēsia to demonstrate his sincerity, and in his increased censure of the Assembly here Demosthenes paradigmatically attempts ‘to persuade the dēmos against its own inclinations, to do what is best for the city, instead of gratifying fleeting desires for pleasure.’ 922 Given the Athenians’ consistent failure to take the road of virtue, Demosthenes’ parrhēsia also weaves his method of praise (for himself) and shame (of the Assembly), as Balot notes, ‘through the mechanisms of shame, free-speaking democratic citizens characteristically produce a uniquely democratic form of military courage.’ 923 Throughout the speeches, and especially here, Demosthenes defends the value of isēgoria and the right to speak, but also maintains that not everyone should be heard and heeded. While there is a detrimental gap between their logos and their ergon, there is a necessary gap between the right to speak and the right to be heard. By continuing to listen to bad advice, rejecting good advisers and maintaining this self-deception, the Athenians act in direct contrast to their own intellectual reputation, which has been previously attested to by ‘Philip’ and the other Greeks in the Second Philippic and On the Chersonese.924 This hostile attitude towards truthful advice is a repeated grievance in Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches: he complains over and again that he cannot safely give advice, and even when he tries, they do not wish to listen. In this manner, he defends his own impossible position, having been made (allegedly) redundant by the attitude of the Assembly: Balot 2004: 235, ‘the orators used the rhetoric of courage to strengthen the image of themselves which they projected’. 921 922 Balot 2004: 238. Balot is speaking of orators in general, but I think this is particularly applicable here. 923 Balot 2004: 255. Balot is specifically referring to the funeral oration here (60.26). That is the constructed ‘Philip’, through the psychological use of his voice by Demosthenes, and the opinions he projects via social memory of Athens’ ancestral reputation. This also correlates to Demosthenes’ earlier assertion at 3.19 that it is the easiest thing to deceive oneself. This is also recognisable through social memory displayed in epitaphioi logoi, drama and historiography. 924 281 The result is that in meetings of the Assembly, you are spoiled and easily flattered, and listen to everything with an ear to your own pleasure925 but in your public policy and in the reality of the situation, you are already in deadly danger. If this is your disposition even now, there is nothing I can say to you.926 This self-indulgent nature of the Assembly is their greatest weakness, because it has devastatingly damaged the crucial relationship between the speaker and the audience that is paramount to Athenian democracy functioning effectively. The speaker can only offer advice, which is not enough without the goodwill of the Assembly. 927 Echoing his point on Timotheus at the close of On the Chersonese, where Demosthenes sought to defend his own political function as an unheeded advice giver, likewise here he asserts that there is nothing an orator can do if the Assembly chooses to reject logos.928 Indeed it is their self-delusion, which Demosthenes highlighted in On the Chersonese, which poses the greatest danger to Athens, as their fallacy maintains an illusion of safety (almost that they are untouchable) as opposed to the deadly danger they now find themselves in. The solution, Demosthenes argues, is for the Assembly to purge itself of such bad practices, and to act in its own best interests, shunning laziness and pleasure for what is right, hard: he calls the Assembly to complete their half of the deliberative deal. It is, therefore, 925 Claims we have also seen Demosthenes make at 4.38 and 3.22. Demosthenes 9.4. εἶθ᾿ ὑμῖν συμβέβηκεν ἐκ τούτου ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τρυφᾶν καὶ κολακεύεσθαι πάντα πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἀκούουσιν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς γιγνομένοις περὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἤδη κινδυνεύειν. εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ νῦν οὕτω διάκεισθε, οὐκ ἔχω τί λέγω· 926 Trevett calls this deadly danger, but ἐσχάτων can also be translated as extreme/utmost, and so has a superlative nature too. Also Sandys 1922: 194 remarks that ‘ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις - κινδυνεύειν᾽is repeated from Demosthenes 8.34. This too can be linked back to his earlier speeches where he argues that the Assembly treats deliberative oratory as if it is a theatrical performance for their enjoyment, which in my opinion blurs the line between deliberative and epideictic oratory. In contrast, their military efforts are neglected (in particular one can think of the First Philippic, where he compares their prioritisation of the festivals which are governed by legislation, over military expeditions which are always ad hoc). 927 Persuading people (as opposed to informing or coercing them) is always easier if they are positively disposed towards you. Giving advice, especially unwelcome advice, is a special instance of this. See too Livingstone 2001: 91-101 commentary on Isocrates Busiris 1-4, on people who are resistant to advice, and how to deal with this rhetorically. 928 See discussion at Demosthenes 8.74-5 pp. 267-9. 282 imperative to listen to Demosthenes’ advice, particularly as he asserts himself as a speaker of truth (with the rhetoric of sincerity) and exemplifies the ideal citizen by providing genuine advice: But if you wish to hear what is to your advantage, without any flattery, I am ready to speak. Even if our situation is desperate and much has been squandered, nevertheless it is still possible to set matters right, if you are willing to do what is needed. 929 And here Demosthenes returns to his concept of hope, the same hope that he presented in the First Philippic, that the situation can be rectified simply by the Athenians shaking off their apathy and acting: What I am about to say to you may be paradoxical, but it is the truth: the worst aspect of what has happened holds out the best hope for the future. What do I refer to? To the fact that your affairs are in a bad state even though you are doing none of the things, small or large, that you should be doing; for, if things were as they are, and you were doing all that you should, there would be no hope of improvement. 930 This is almost a verbatim repetition of his argument at the beginning of the First Philippic: For its worst aspect in the past holds out our best hope for the future. What am I referring to? To the fact, men of Athens, that our situation has deteriorated so badly while you have been doing none of the things you needed to do. For if our situation were so poor when you had been doing all that you should, there would be no hope of improving matters.931 Demosthenes 9.4 εἰ δ᾿ ἃ συμφέρει χωρὶς κολακείας ἐθελήσετ᾿ ἀκούειν, ἕτοιμος λέγειν. καὶ γὰρ εἰ πάνυ φαύλως τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἔχει καὶ πολλὰ προεῖται, ὅμως ἔστιν, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν βούλησθε, ἔτι πάντα ταῦτ᾿ ἐπανορθώσασθαι. 929 Demosthenes 9.5. καὶ παράδοξον μὲν ἴσως ἐστὶν ὃ μέλλω λέγειν, ἀληθὲς δέ· τὸ χείριστον ἐν τοῖς παρεληλυθόσι, τοῦτο πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα βέλτιστον ὑπάρχει. τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; ὅτι οὔτε μικρὸν οὔτε μέγ᾿ οὐδὲν τῶν δεόντων ποιούντων ὐμῶν κακῶς τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἔχει, ἐπεί τοι, εἰ πάνθ᾿ ἃ προσῆκε πραττόντων οὕτω διέκειτο, οὐδ᾿ ἂν ἐλπὶς ἦν αὐτὰ γενέσθαι βελτίω. 930 Demosthenes 4.2. Trevett 2011: 165. Sandys 1913:194 notes that the inclusion of καὶ παράδοξον μέν is ‘an apologetic phrases here used to introduce a remark (τὸ χείριστον – βελτίω) which on a former occasion was bluntly stated without any preliminary apology’, this being in reference to 4.2. Usher 1999: 239 is almost disdainful of this 931 283 First Philippic 4.2 (351 BCE) Third Philippic 9.5 (341 BCE) ὃ γάρ ἐστι χείριστον αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ τὸ χείριστον ἐν τοῖς παρεληλυθόσι, τοῦτο παρεληλυθότος χρόνου, τοῦτο πρὸς τὰ πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα βέλτιστον ὑπάρχει. τί μέλλοντα βέλτιστον ὑπάρχει. τί οὖν ἐστι οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; ὅτι οὔτε μικρὸν οὔτε μέγ᾿ τοῦτο; ὅτι οὐδέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν οὐδὲν τῶν δεόντων ποιούντων ὐμῶν δεόντων ποιούντων ὑμῶν κακῶς τὰ κακῶς τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἔχει, ἐπεί τοι, εἰ πράγματ᾿ ἔχει· ἐπεί τοι, εἰ πάνθ᾿ ἃ πάνθ᾿ ἃ προσῆκε πραττόντων οὕτω προσῆκε πραττόντων οὕτως εἶχεν, οὐδ᾿ διέκειτο, οὐδ᾿ ἂν ἐλπὶς ἦν αὐτὰ γενέσθαι ἂν ἐλπὶς ἦν αὐτὰ βελτίω γενέσθαι. βελτίω. Demosthenes reaffirms the same argument: that their worst aspect is their best hope for the future, because if they had been doing their best to defeat Philip then there would be no hope to change the situation. It is interesting that, considering the failure of the First Philippic, Demosthenes returns to this specific argument. As this thesis has demonstrated, Demosthenes’ proposals to the Assembly and core argument has not altered since the First Philippic, but to return verbatim to his earliest assertion, that their worst aspect is their best hope, is significant. Perhaps he believed that he was in a better position than in 352/1, and, having developed his persona over the last ten years, he considered himself to be in a position to persuade them more effectively. It could also be the case that Demosthenes is making a poignant remark on his clarity of judgement and the validity of his unheeded advice in 351. Then as now, the Athenians have not acted but only engaged in empty rhetoric, and therefore simply acting on good advice will fundamentally alter the situation. in his remark that ‘for someone seeking novelty of thought, this speech begins disappointingly, even reverting to sentiments expressed in the First Philippic.’ I believe Usher fails to observe the crucial point: that Demosthenes stresses the continual sincerity of his original arguments. 284 As such, Demosthenes repeats his complaint about their idleness and negligence, but now the statement is supported by the reality that Philip capitalised on this, rather an ominous warning: As it is Philip has got the better of your idleness and negligence, but he has not got the better of the city. You have not been defeated: you have not even been aroused. 932 Despite their current behaviour, the city of Athens has not been defeated, and as we saw in Second Philippic, its reputation has weathered most of the damage their apathy has created, but it can only take them so far. But because of the current political context, Demosthenes’ point generates a greater sense of anger and frustration at the Assembly than in 351. Moreover, this assertion of an undefeated Athens has parallels with the rhetoric of the epitaphic tradition, and in particular, the Menexenus where Socrates comments on the Peloponnesian war: We were not destroyed by others, but were rather the agents of our own destruction. Defeat we ourselves have inflicted on ourselves, and have been that way overcome. Where our enemies are concerned, we remain undefeated to this day. 933 Thus 9.5 repeats a motif that affirms, as Thucydides’ Pericles noted, that the Athenians were undone by their own mistakes, not their adversaries. 934 As Loraux notes, the funeral oration: is organised quite naturally around the same themes as the epitaphs; the same exultation of the eternal memory of valour; the same contrast between perishable life Demosthenes 9.5. νῦν δὲ τῆς ῥᾳθυμίας τῆς ὑμετέρας καὶ τῆς ἀμελίας κεκράτηκε Φίλιππος, τῆς πόλεως δ᾽ οὐ κεκράτηκεν· οὐδ᾽ ἥττησθ᾽ ὑμεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ κεκίνησθε. 932 Plato, Menexenus 243d. Loraux 1986: 199 notes ‘this interpretation is logical from an Athenocentric point of view.’ In particular for Plato in how ‘by praising the city for vanquishing itself, the epitaphoi must have attracted the irony of a philosopher for whom the most shameful defeat is that which one inflicts on itself.’ Loraux also compares this to Laws 1.626e2-3. 933 Thucydides 1.144, ‘I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs.’ Thucydides also blames internal dissension 2.65.12. 934 285 and immoral courage; the same refusal to accept the possibility that Athens could ever be defeated.935 Thus, while Demosthenes shames the current Assembly, he also seeks to inspire them to action, and his rhetoric potentially triggers this memory of eternal valour in the collective historical awareness of his audience. The Athenians, however, are currently a distortion of this ideal (undefeated currently by apathy rather than courage), and while they are not defeated, they have nevertheless shamed and dishonoured their ancestral reputation. Indeed, this repetition of the First Philippic compounds their shame as they are in the same, but even worse, situation because they have done nothing. Moreover, they cannot even technically be defeated as that involves making some semblance of an effort at defence. They are currently passive in their attitude to the entire situation, and Demosthenes’ statement should shame the Athenians into recognition and action. Just as in the First Philippic, hope and belief in the power of effective deliberation and action, and the accusation that their problems are a direct result of their apathetic behaviour, are central to Demosthenes’ persuasive strategy in this speech. Demosthenes is paving the way for the Assembly to take action, if they finally recognise the situation and address their own internal crisis. This provides further confirmation of the view that the principal purpose of the speeches has been to make the Athenians recognise who they are and what kind of situation they find themselves in; for it is only by shaking off their apathy, and acting in an ‘Athenian’ manner that they can turn the situation around. Over the last ten years, Demosthenes has presented these ideological virtues through references to the Athenian past and his use of social memory and the master narrative. 936 The most important aspect is to reaffirm and 935 Loraux 1981: 92, citing IG, I2, 943; IG, I2, 945; IG, I2, 945, 11. 11-12. On how predominant versions of the past from the ‘master narrative of Athenian history’ see Forsdyke 2005: 242. Steinbock 2013: 49n1 notes, ‘it is important to stress that the term “master narrative” does not denote a fixed, official narrative. Rather, it stands for the sum of the converging versions of the Athenian past, which conveys selfimage and were manifested and transmitted in many ways.’ Thomas 1989: 208 refers to this as ‘the official polis tradition.’ 936 286 reclaim Athenian identity within the Assembly itself, and act in accordance with their own ideology. They are not yet defeated, as they have not even awoken to the situation, and but if they reflect and recognise their faults, they can turn the situation around. Demosthenes’ first step is to challenge those maintaining and manipulating this internal crisis, through self-serving actions that deliberately hinder good advice. In particular, Demosthenes challenges their preoccupation with ‘punishing itself.’ 937 Demosthenes seeks to stop the internal delusions by making it clear, as he has since On the Peace, that Philip, not Athens, has broken the peace. Anyone who suggests otherwise ought to be the object of their hostility, as it is these manipulating flatterers, peddling delusions, that are destroying the Assembly from within. Demosthenes affirms that Philip is at war which, as the opening stated, is not anything new, nor what Demosthenes wants to spend his crucial and limited time speaking on. Rather, Demosthenes wishes to confront those that maintain the validity of the Peace and call his own advice warmongering. 938 If we were all in agreement that Philip is at war with our city and is breaking the peace, anyone who comes forward to speak would need to advise us only how to resist him most securely and most easily. But in fact some men have such an absurd attitude that, at a time when Philip is seizing cities and possesses many places that belong to you and is wronging everybody, they tolerate certain people repeatedly saying in the Assembly that it is some of us who are making war; since this is the case we must be on our guard and must correct the situation. 939 937 Demosthenes 9.2. 938 This speech, therefore, is as much trying to remedy the Assembly and the situation, as it is a continuation of Demosthenes’ defence of himself and his policies. Demosthenes 9.6. Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἅπαντες ὡμολογοῦμεν Φίλιππον τῇ πόλει πολεμεῖν καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην παραβαίνειν, οὐδὲν ἄλλ᾿ ἔδει τὸν παριόντα λέγειν καὶ συμβουλεύειν ἢ ὅπως ἀσφαλέστατα καὶ ῥᾷστ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀμυνούμεθα· ἐπειδὴ δ᾿ οὕτως ἀτόπως ἔνιοι διάκεινται, ὥστε πόλεις καταλαμβάνοντος ἐκείνου καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων ἔχοντος καὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀδικοῦντος ἀνέχεσθαί τινων ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις λεγόντων πολλάκις ὡς ἡμῶν τινές εἰσιν οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸν πόλεμον, ἀνάγκη φυλάττεσθαι καὶ διορθοῦσθαι περὶ τούτου· 939 287 Reminiscent of On the Chersonese, Demosthenes calls their arguments illogical, as they directly contradict the evidence of Philip’s intentions though his actions. 940 He continues that ‘there is a danger that anyone who proposes and advises that we defend ourselves will be accused of warmongering’. 941 Having already made this argument in On the Chersonese, Demosthenes continues his defence and asserts that anyone who argues that Philip is not at war with Athens has evidently been bribed. Moreover, the Athenians’ refusal to see this evidence also evokes the observation in the First Philippic that they choose to believe what they hear from others, over what they can see themselves. Building too upon their speech-act delusion in their desire to prosecute Diopeithes, the Athenians appear to cling to comfortable delusion and reject Demosthenes’ parrhēsia. This illogical attitude of the Assembly is demonstrative of the mundus perversus Athens finds itself in, and Demosthenes again attempts to correct this by demonstrating the antithesis between Philip’s actions, and the words that declare peace: If, then, it is possible for our city to remain at peace, and if this is in our hands – to start from this point – I say that we must indeed keep the peace, and I think that anyone who agrees should make proposals and take action to that effect and not try to deceive us. Yet if someone who has weapons in his hands and a great army around him offers you the name of peace but by his actions is waging war, what is left to us to do but to defend ourselves?942 940 Cf. Demosthenes 8.56, 8.69. Demosthenes 9.7. ἔστι γὰρ δέος μήποθ᾿ ὡς ἀμυνούμεθα γράψας τις καὶ συμβουλεύσας εἰς τὴν αἰτίαν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ πεποιηκέναι τὸν πόλεμον. 941 Demosthenes 9.8. Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἔξεστιν εἰρήνην ἄγειν τῇ πόλει καὶ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ἐστι τοῦτο, ἵν᾿ ἐντεῦθεν ἄρξωμαι, φήμ᾿ ἔγωγ᾿ ἄγειν ἡμᾶς δεῖν, καὶ τὸν ταῦτα λέγοντα γράφειν καὶ πράττειν καὶ μὴ φενακίζειν ἀξιῶ· εἰ δ᾿ ἕτερος τὰ ὅπλ᾿ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ἔχων καὶ δύναμιν πολλὴν περὶ αὑτὸν τοὔνομα μὲν τὸ τῆς εἰρήνης ὑμῖν προβάλλει, τοῖς δ᾿ ἔργοις αὐτὸς τοῖς τοῦ πολέμου χρῆται, τί λοιπὸν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀμύνεσθαι; Sandys 1913:197 points to an added emphasis on the antithesis here. By taking ἕτερος as Philip (as at Dem 5.17) τοὔνομα is separated by μέν from τὸ τῆς εἰπήνης, as τοῖς ἔργοις is by αὐτός from τοῖς τοῦ πολέμου. Sandys also observes this contrast between τοὔνομα and τὰ ἔργα in Aeschines. 3.251. Compare Thucydides 2.61.1, ‘if one has a free choice and can live undisturbed, it 942 288 His ironic closing remark ‘But if you wish to say that he is keeping the peace, as he claims, I have no quarrel’, again shows his contempt for the attitude of the Assembly, and refers back to his earlier comment that if they refuse to act, then his advice can only go so far. 943 Demosthenes asserts that they can keep the peace if they choose to neglect their duty, but must acknowledge the truth that they must choose that which is necessary over what is pleasant, as they can no longer have both and hope to survive. 944 This again must be read with On the Chersonese in mind, where Demosthenes argued that ‘we have no choice in the matter now: all that is left to us is to take the most just and necessary course of action.’ 945 To maintain the Peace on the evidence of what these men say, as opposed to the evidence before them, is both illogical and dangerous: If anyone regards as peace a situation in which Philip, after he has captured every other place, will then attack us, first of all, he is insane; and second, what he describes is your being at peace with him, not his being at peace with you. This is what Philip has bought with all his lavish expenditure: that he is at war with you, but you are not at war with him!946 Demosthenes reaffirms his position that Athens has been manipulated by enemies within, who have been bribed by Philip. They have persuaded the Assembly to be blind to Philip’s true intentions, and indeed their own, and to act against Athenian interests. I believe that this is sheer folly to go to war. But suppose the choice was forced upon one – submission and immediate slavery or danger with the hope of survival: then I prefer the man who stands up to danger rather than the one who runs away from it.’ 943 Demosthenes 9.8 φάσκειν δ᾿ εἰρήνην ἄγειν εἰ βούλεσθε, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος, οὐ διαφέρομαι. 944 Cf. Demosthenes 1.15. 945 Demosthenes 8.7. Demosthenes 9.9. δέ τις ταύτην εἰρήνην ὑπολαμβάνει, ἐξ ἧς ἐκεῖνος πάντα τἄλλα λαβὼν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἥξει, πρῶτον μὲν μαίνεται, ἔπειτ᾿ ἐκείνῳ παρ᾿ ὑμῶν, οὐχ ὑμῖν παρ᾿ ἐκείνου τὴν εἰρήνην λέγει· τοῦτο δ᾿ ἐστὶν ὃ τῶν ἀναλισκομένων χρημάτων πάντων Φίλιππος ὠνεῖται, αὐτὸς μὲν πολεμεῖν ὑμῖν, ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν δὲ μὴ πολεμεῖσθαι. 946 289 shows clear evidence of the rhetoric of conspiracy, and correlates with what Roisman defines as ‘local collaborators’. 947 The crisis revolves around this deception within the Assembly and Demosthenes employs the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric against other speakers who hide their true intentions. However, his main direction is at the Assembly: rhētors are expected to some extent to be corrupt, hence a ‘frank and persistent treatment of the subject in a range of sources attests to the primacy of self-interest in Athenian understandings of human motivation and behaviour.’948 The dēmos, in contrast, should be above this, but in their refusal to learn neither from past errors nor from the experiences of others, it is their failure to logically deduce what in turn will happen to themselves, that arguably causes Demosthenes great concern. He seeks, as ever, to bring clarity and realisation of the truth to an obstinate Assembly: If we wait until he admits that he is at war with us, we will be utter fools. For even if he marches against Attica itself and Piraeus, he will not admit that he is doing so, to judge (τεκμαίρεσθαι) from his treatment of others. 949 Demosthenes returns to the examples in On the Chersonese of Olynthus, and Phocis, Pherae, Thebes, Thessaly and Oreus, to remind the Athenians of his own previous arguments that Philip’s intentions have always been in his actions, not his words: This is what he said to the Olynthians, when he was forty stades from their city: that there were two alternatives – either they should stop living in Olynthus or he should stop living in Macedonia – although for the whole time up until then he got angry and Roisman 2006: 128. Roisman applies this later to 9.59-65 and Demosthenes ‘quasi-allegorical story’ of Euphraeus. 947 948 Christ 2006: 15. Demosthenes 9.10. καὶ μὴν εἰ μέχρι τούτου περιμενοῦμεν, ἕως ἂν ἡμῖν ὁμολογήσῃ πολεμεῖν, πάντων ἐσμὲν εὐηθέστατοι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀττικὴν αὐτὴν βαδίζῃ καὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ, τοῦτ᾿ ἐρεῖ, εἴπερ οἷς πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους πεποίηκε δεῖ τεκμαίρεσθαι. Sandys 1913:198 notes τεκμαίρεσθαι is ‘to judge from sure signs or proofs’, as seen in Isocrates 4.141. 949 290 sent ambassadors to defend himself, if anyone should accuse him of having any such intention.950 Demosthenes arguably uses the example of Olynthus to mirror their own current situation in receiving a letter of complaint from Philip against Diopeithes, and in the assertion that he has no ill-intentions towards Athens, despite the siege of Byzantium and his involvement in Cardia and Euboea. 951 Demosthenes continues: And he marched to Phocis as if towards an ally, and was accompanied by Phocian ambassadors as he went, and most speakers here insisted that his arrival would not benefit the Thebans. [12] Moreover, he has recently seized and is now in possession of Pherae, after entering Thessaly as a friend and ally. And last, he offered these wretched men of Oreus the pretext that the troops had been sent as friendly observers. For he saw that they were suffering from factionalism and it is the duty of allies and true friends to assist in such situations.’ 952 Demosthenes emphasises that Philip exploits internal dissension to his own advantage by the use of ἐπισκσψόμενος, which has connotations with visitation to the sick. 953 Building from his earlier association of Philip with prophasis in the Second Olynthiac, the added emphasis of visiting the sick on Philip’s intervention suggests a direct link between Philip’s Demosthenes 9.11. τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ Ὀλυνθίοις, τετταράκοντ᾿ ἀπέχων τῆς πόλεως στάδια, εἶπεν ὅτι δεῖ δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ ἐκείνους ἐν Ὀλύνθῳ μὴ οἰκεῖν ἢ αὑτὸν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ, πάντα τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον, εἴ τις αὐτὸν αἰτιάσαιτό τι τοιοῦτον, ἀγανακτῶν καὶ πρέσβεις πέμπων τοὺς ἀπολογησομένους· 950 It is prudent to acknowledge that ‘despite the vociferous denials of some Athenian orators, Philip had every right to protect his Cardian allies from Athenian depredations.’ Buckler and Beck 2008: 239-240. 951 Demosthenes 9.11-12 καὶ πρέσβεις Φωκέων ἦσαν οἳ παρηκολούθουν αὐτῷ πορευομένῳ, καὶ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἤριζον οἱ πολλοὶ Θηβαίοις οὐ λυσιτελήσειν τὴν ἐκείνου πάροδον. καὶ μὴν καὶ Φερὰς πρῴην ὡς φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος εἰς Θετταλίαν ἐλθὼν ἔχει καταλαβών, καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς ταλαιπώροις Ὠρείταις τουτοισὶ ἐπισκεψομένους ἔφη τοὺς στρατιώτας πεπομφέναι κατ᾿ εὔνοιαν· πυνθάνεσθαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς ὡς νοσοῦσι καὶ στασιάζουσι, συμμάχων δ᾿ εἶναι καὶ φίλων ἀληθινῶν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις καιροῖς παρεῖναι. On ‘νοσοῦσι’ Sandys 1913:199 observes that it is ‘Often used of a state smitten with the troubles of faction… καὶ στασιάζουσιν is here added as in Plato Rep. 470c…[and] Eur. Herc. 34.’ Sandys 1913:199 also comments on 9.12 that, ‘the series of precedents quoted by Demosthenes to prove Philip’s successive aggressions is strictly in chronological order; but each example gives still stronger proof of his treachery.’ 952 Sandys observes ἐπισκσψομένος is ‘one of the regular terms for visiting in sickness’ seen in Isoc. 19.24,30; Xen Cyrop. v 4, 10, viii 2,5; Mem. iii 11,10.’ Trevett’s translation of friendly observers does convey this, whilst Vince 1954: 231 choses to translate this as ‘a visit of sympathy.’ 953 291 involvement with these cities, and their internal instability. 954 Just as Isocrates observes how Greece ‘was filled and obsessed with war and revolutions and massacres and innumerable evils’, Demosthenes suggests that Philip malignantly provoked and manipulated internal dissension.955 It seems plausible then, that this additional connotation of visiting the sick adds to the picture of Philip as one who preys on the weak, and exploits the internal dissension (created by his agents): in other words, the very internal sickness Demosthenes alluded to in the Olynthiacs. In repeating these instances, Demosthenes reminds the Athenians of Philip’s deceitful nature, and warns them of the fate that awaits if they do not resolve their own internal corruption. Moreover, this again reinforces the rhetoric of conspiracy to undermine the Assembly from within: Do you suppose that he chose to deceive these people, who would have done him no wrong, although they would have perhaps defended themselves from attack, rather than declare war on them, but that he will go to war with you only after declaring it, so long as you are willing to be deceived?956 This is the same point as he made in On the Chersonese, that Philip would have met resistance if he had not masked his intentions, under the guise of doing each of them a favour or giving them what they wanted. In that instance, it was to show that Philip knew that attempting to bribe the entire Athenian polis was futile based on their historical reputation, hence the reason that his approach to Athens is different (except for the enemies within). In 954 See earlier discussion at in Chapter 2.2 p. 114 on Demosthenes 2.9. Isocrates first letter 9.8. Gabriel 2010: 167 notes that Isocrates’ assessment ‘did not escape Philip’s notice, and he manipulated these circumstances to his advantage with great skill.’ 955 Demosthenes 9.13. εἶτ᾿ οἴεσθ᾿ αὐτόν, οἳ ἐποίησαν μὲν οὐδὲν ἂν κακόν, μὴ παθεῖν δ᾿ ἐφυλάξαντ᾿ ἂν ἴσως, τούτους μὲν ἐξαπατᾶν αἱρεῖσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προλέγοντα βιάζεσθαι, ὑμῖν δ᾿ ἐκ προρρήσεως πολεμήσειν, καὶ ταῦθ᾿ ἕως ἂν ἑκόντες ἐξαπατᾶσθε; 956 292 this instance, it is to make the Assembly wake up to the reality of the corruption within their own system, and the conspiracy to undermine and sell out Athens: Philip would be a complete fool if, when you make no complaint about the harm he is doing to you but instead blame some of your own citizens, 957 he were to put an end to your internal strife and rivalry, and announce that you should direct them against him instead, and deprive those who are in his pay of the argument by means of which they put you off: that Philip is not at war with the city. 958 In this way, Demosthenes asserts that the Assembly cannot see the true enemy, nor recognise their own selves, and that the manipulation of this internal crisis all serves Philip’s interests. Demosthenes’ purpose is to make the Assembly see the illogical stance they have taken, which is at odds with their intellectual reputation. Demosthenes implores the Assembly to see reason, and that Philip’s words, and the words of those in his pay, do not reflect his true intentions: Yet Philip, from the start, as soon as the peace had been made, at a time when Diopeithes was not yet a general and those who are now in the Chersonese had not yet been sent out, set about seizing Serrium and Doriscus and expelling from Fort Serrium and the Sacred Mountain the troops whom your general had stationed there.959 As in the First Philippic, Demosthenes asks the Assembly to prioritise what they can see happening over what they hear: 957 We can presume he is referring to Diopeithes. Demosthenes 9.14. καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἀβελτερώτατος εἴη πάντων ἀνθρώπων, εἰ τῶν ἀδικουμένων ὑμῶν μηδὲν ἐγκαλούντων αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾿ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν τινὰς αἰτιωμένων, ἐκεῖνος ἐκλύσας τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔριν ὑμῶν καὶ φιλονικίαν ἐφ᾿ αὑτὸν προείποι τρέπεσθαι, καὶ τῶν παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ μισθοφορούντων τοὺς λόγους ἀφέλοιτο, οἷς ἀναβάλλουσιν ὑμᾶς, λέγοντες ὡς ἐκεῖνός γ᾿ οὐ πολεμεῖ τῇ πόλει. 958 Demosthenes 9.15. ὁ τοίνυν Φίλιππος ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἄρτι τῆς εἰρήνης γεγονυίας, οὔπω Διοπείθους στρατηγοῦντος οὐδὲ τῶν ὄντων ἐν Χερρονήσῳ νῦν ἀπεσταλμένων, Σέρριον καὶ Δορίσκον ἐλάμβανε καὶ τοὺς ἐκ Σερρείου τείχους καὶ Ἱεροῦ ὄρους στρατιώτας ἐξέβαλλεν, οὓς ὁ ὑμέτερος στρατηγὸς κατέστησεν. 959 293 Is there anyone, by Zeus, in his right mind who would decide who was at peace with him and who at war by their words rather than by their actions? Of course not. 960 This also returns to the uncomfortable inversion of the Athenians and their mundus perversus: Athenian logos, in the form of pointless deliberation, prevents effective action, whereas Philip’s deceptive words enable his actions. Whilst the there is a vast difference between Philip’s words of peace and his actions, demonstrating a corruption of the virtuous ideal of aligning logos and ergon, they nevertheless work to the same end with devastating effect. But it is also precisely the insincerity of Philip’s logos that can be his undoing, if the Athenians act, as sincere logos united with effective ergon will restore the Athenians to their previous effectiveness. Moreover, it is the duty of the Athenians not only to recognise the discrepancy between Philip’s speeches and his actions, but to act upon it: In taking these actions, what was he doing? It was peace he had sworn! And let no one say, “what are these places?” or “How does this concern the city?” for whether these places were small, or whether any of them concerned you, are different matters. Piety and justice are equally important whether someone transgresses over a small or a large matter.961 Whilst this definitely shows the aggression of Philip, Demosthenes’ purpose is to confront the Assembly and those that are deceiving them that the Peace of Philocrates still stands. 962 Furthermore, Demosthenes’ call to uphold the Athenian virtues of piety and justice for all Greeks arguably could have resonated with the dēmos’ awareness of the master narrative of Demosthenes 9.15. Ἀλλ᾿ ἔστιν, ὦ πρὸς τοῦ Διός, ὅστις εὖ φρονῶν ἐκ τῶν ὀνομάτων μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν πραγμάτων τὸν ἄγοντ᾿ εἰρήνην ἢ πολεμοῦνθ᾿ ἑαυτῷ σκέψαιτ᾿ ἄν; οὐδεὶς δήπου. 960 Demosthenes 9.16. καίτοι ταῦτα πράττων τί ἐποίει; εἰρήνην μὲν γὰρ ὠμωμόκει· καὶ μηδεὶς εἴπῃ· “τί δὲ ταῦτ᾿ ἐστίν, ἢ τί τούτων μέλει τῇ πόλει;” εἰ μὲν γὰρ μικρὰ ταῦτ᾿ ἢ μηδὲν ὑμῖν αὐτῶν ἔμελεν, ἄλλος ἂν εἴη λόγος οὗτος· τὸ δ᾿ εὐσεβὲς καὶ τὸ δίκαιον, ἄν τ᾿ ἐπὶ μικροῦ τις ἄν τ᾿ ἐπὶ μείζονος παραβαίνῃ, τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν. 961 In particular, we can identify Aeschines here, as Trevett 2011: 159 notes in Aeschines 3.82 he ‘mocks their insignificance.’ 962 294 Athenian ideology. Parallels to this appeal to piety and justice can be found in the epitaphioi logoi such as Lysias 2 ‘it was fitting for our ancestors to be single-minded in the fight for justice, because the origin of their life was just.’ 963 Indeed, Lysias also states that the Persian King knew that if he attacked any of the Greeks, he would have to face the Athenians ‘because the Athenians would eagerly come to the rescue of those being wronged.’ 964 Likewise, Plato’s Menexenus asserts an Athenian resolve to view the concerns of Greece as the concerns of Athens: Our fathers and these men themselves, performed many fine deeds, for all the world to see…in the belief that freedom was worth fighting for, whether for the Greeks against Greeks or for Greece as a whole against barbarians. 965 Indeed, Plato’s Socrates goes so far as to state that even when the Athenians felt wronged by the other Greeks and resolved to abandon them to their fate, Athens then ‘buckled and did help them…releasing them from slavery – with the result that they were free until they themselves once more enslaved each other.’ 966 Athenians, therefore, had a reputation for upholding piety and justice, and I would go so far as to argue that Demosthenes’ audience would have been aware of this duty, perpetuated through their collective awareness of this identity through the transmission of social memory; ‘consequently, the Athenians are the only people who cannot idly stand by when an act of injustice is being committed.’ 967 Thus, I propose Demosthenes asserts this Panhellenic duty as their Athenian inheritance: to be a beacon of hope and a pious exemplar. These, as the Second Philippic 963 Lysias 2.17. 964 Lysias 2.22. 965 Plato Menexenus 239a-b. 966 Plato Menexenus 244e-245a. This shall be expanded on later in the speech at 9.24-25 where Demosthenes presents examples of how the Athenians of old went to war to defend others interests, and again at 9.42 with the decree against Arthmius. 967 Steinbock 2013: 55. I believe this can also be applied to the Olynthiacs, and the shame that they did idly stand by. 295 suggested, are the standards they are held to by their enemies, their allies and their ancestors, and thus what they should hold themselves to. As such, Demosthenes maintains a delicate balance between showing how the problem is bigger than Athens, and at the same time making it clear that Athens is at the centre of the conflict (as Philip’s target), and the solution (as only Athens has the reputation that demonstrates their fitness to save the Greeks). In doing so, Demosthenes asserts that their own preservation is paramount, not just out of selfinterest, as to act in any other manner is a rejection of their duty. Thus, to act in defence of the Greeks is imperative to their own security (as in On the Peace), but to maintain their very identity.968 Moreover, in evoking the ideals of piety and justice, Demosthenes raises his rhetoric above mercenary numbers to the values of piety and justice which are of a higher order of nomoi that transcend the everyday nomoi of e.g. theorika preservation.969 In risking their displeasure Demosthenes asserts that he answers to a higher nomos and a deeper duty, and that to transgress his duty to give honest advice would be worse than to transgress the nomoi protecting things such as the Theoric fund. By considering parrhēsia as a core duty of the Athenian adviser, Demosthenes is able to challenge the authority of the dēmos without putting himself up as a rival authority; ultimately his parrhēsia is not suppressible as he is honour-bound to speak. Thus, by asserting that his speech is in defence of the sanctity of advice-giving, which is currently undermined by themselves, Demosthenes clarifies that whilst Philip is an undeniable threat, the bigger picture is their own internal corruption, and what else will be lost if they continue to not act on the situation and stand idly by. In the First Philippic, the One could compare Pericles at Thucydides 2.61, ‘You must remember that you are citizens of a great city and that you were brought up in a way of life suited to her greatness; you must therefore be willing to face the greatest disasters and be determined never to sacrifice the glory that is yours. We all look with distaste on people who arrogantly pretend to a reputation to which they are not entitled; but equally to be condemned are those who, through a lack of moral fibre, fail to live up to the reputation which is already theirs.’ 968 969 In terms of higher nomoi, I mean in the sense that Antigone regarded the duty to her oikos and honouring the dead a of higher order than obeying the laws of the king. 296 role of Philip could (according to Demosthenes) have been filled by anyone, but their own lack of action would have resulted in the same outcome. Over the last decade, however, it became increasingly apparent that the unique nature of Philip has exacerbated this crisis through both his own relentless qualities, but also his tyrannical deception and diplomatic trickery.970 This includes his manipulation of internal strife working within Athens to manipulate the Assembly to Philip’s will. Demosthenes’ complaint is that despite all they have lost, the Assembly still does not take decisive action and he rhetorically calls the Assembly to confront the logic of his deductions: Very well then, when he sends mercenaries into the Chersonese, which the King and all the Greeks have recognised as yours, and admits he is providing help and sends a letter for this effect, what is he doing?971 Demosthenes does not just call them to act in the interests of justice and piety (although they should), but to defend their own interests and not repeat the same mistakes that cost them their possessions in the north Aegean, leading up to and following the fall of Olynthus and the Peace of Philocrates. By evoking these past examples of Philip’s actions, Demosthenes’ arguments acquire a sense of inevitability: He says that he is not at war. But I so completely disagree that, by these actions, he is keeping the peace with you, that I make this assertion: by seizing Megara for himself and establishing a tyranny in Euboea and now entering Thrace and intriguing in the Peloponnese and doing all that he is doing by force, he is in breach of the peace and is at war with you.972 970 This is, of course, according to Demosthenes’ rhetoric. Demosthenes 9.16. φέρε δὴ νῦν, ἡνίκ᾿ εἰς Χερρόνησον, ἣν βασιλεὺς καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἕλληνες ὑμετέραν ἐγνώκασιν εἶναι, ξένους εἰσπέμπει καὶ βοηθεῖν ὁμολογεῖ καὶ ἐπιστέλλει ταῦτα, τί ποιεῖ; 971 Demosthenes 9.17. φησὶ μὲν γὰρ οὐ πολεμεῖν, ἐγὼ δὲ τοσούτου δέω ταῦτα ποιοῦντ᾿ ἐκεῖνον ἄγειν ὁμολογεῖν τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰρήνην, ὥστε καὶ Μεγάρων ἁπτόμενον καὶ ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ τυραννίδα κατασκευάζοντα καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ Θρᾴκην παριόντα καὶ τὰ ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ σκευωρούμενον καὶ πάνθ᾿ ὅσα πράττει μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως ποιοῦντα, λύειν φημὶ τὴν εἰρήνην καὶ πολεμεῖν ὑμῖν. 972 297 Demosthenes is direct and clear here, but also makes the situation almost overwhelming: unless you will claim that even those who have set up siege engines are keeping the peace, until they bring them up to the city walls! But you will not say this, since anyone whose actions and preparations are aimed at seizing me is at war with me, even if he has not yet started throwing missiles or shooting at me. 973 Demosthenes uses emotive and destructive war imagery to reinforce his point on the stark contrast between these destructive actions and Philip’s hollow peaceful words, and the danger this poses to an Assembly that refuses to see reality, but chooses comfortable delusion. Demosthenes continues his scare tactics by asking: What dangers would you face, if war should break out, the loss of the Hellespont, your enemy gaining control of Megara and Euboea, the Peloponnesians going over to his side. Am I then supposed to say that the man who has set up this engine against our city is at peace with you?974 In this frank and terrifying prospect, Demosthenes’ parrhēsia builds upon his assertions in On the Chersonese that the duty of the good citizen to say what is necessary despite its unpopularity, and likewise here, Demosthenes refuses to comfort the Assembly with lies, when the logical evidence before them says otherwise. Also, in listing the potential dangers, Demosthenes not only presents the scale of the crisis they face, and what they stand to lose to Philip in an increasingly small world, but repeats his recurrent question: what will they endure before they do their duty? Demosthenes 9.17. εἰ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τὰ μηχανήματ᾿ ἐφιστάντας εἰρήνην ἄγειν φήσετε, ἕως ἂν αὐτὰ τοῖς τείχεσιν ἤδη προσαγάγωσιν. ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φήσετε· ὁ γὰρ οἷς ἂν ἐγὼ ληφθείην, ταῦτα πράττων καὶ κατασκευαζόμενος, οὗτος ἐμοὶ πολεμεῖ, κἂν μήπω βάλλῃ μηδὲ τοξεύῃ. Sandys 1913:204 notes the opening with εἰ μή implies an afterthought. I suggest that the effect is to place an ironic emphasis on this very real prospect. 973 Demosthenes 9.18. τίσιν οὖν ὑμεῖς κινδυνεύσαιτ᾿ ἄν, εἴ τι γένοιτο; τῷ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ἀλλοτριωθῆναι, τῷ Μεγάρων καὶ τῆς Εὐβοίας τὸν πολεμοῦνθ᾿ ὑμῖν γενέσθαι κύριον, τῷ Πελοποννησίους τἀκείνου φρονῆσαι. εἶτα τὸν τοῦτο τὸ μηχάνημ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν ἱστάντα, τοῦτον εἰρήνην ἄγειν ἐγὼ φῶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς; 974 298 Demosthenes’ hypophora is then resolved to reinforce the point that Philip is at war, and anyone that argues otherwise is lying: Absolutely not! I define him as having been at war with us from the day he destroyed Phocis. And I say that if you are sensible, you will defend yourselves; but if you give him free rein, you will not be able to do this even when you wish to. 975 Again, Demosthenes presents the same argument as was set out in the First Philippic and developed in the Olynthiacs: that if they continue to let Philip act unchecked, they will be in a situation which they can no longer control but only react to, even on Attic soil. Moreover, having discredited the other rhētors as manipulators of rhetoric, Demosthenes fashions himself as the sole voice of reason. He is the only man who can see the situation for what it is, in an almost prophetic manner. 976 This gives Demosthenes’ argument authority, and his logic the only path to success: I see the situation so differently than your other advisors, men of Athens, that at this point I think you shouldn’t be deliberating about even the Chersonese or Byzantium.977 The rhetoric of sincerity from his own perspective further emphasises his own persona as dutiful the parrhēsiastes, whose concerns are those of the polis: I wish to tell you why the situation alarms me, in order that, if my assessment is correct, you may share it and take precautions for yourselves at least, even if you refuse to do so for the other Greeks.978 Demosthenes 9.19. πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ, ἀλλ᾿ ἀφ᾿ ἧς ἡμέρας ἀνεῖλε Φωκέας, ἀπὸ ταύτης ἔγωγ᾿ αὐτὸν πολεμεῖν ὁρίζομαι. ὑμᾶς δ᾿, ἐὰν ἀμύνησθ᾿ ἤδη, σωφρονήσειν φημί, ἐὰν δ᾿ ἐάσητε, οὐδὲ τοῦθ᾿ ὅταν βούλησθε δυνήσεσθαι ποιῆσαι. 975 976 The concept of the seer is discussed by Flower 2008. Demosthenes 9.19. καὶ τοσοῦτόν γ᾿ ἀφέστηκα τῶν ἄλλων, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν συμβουλευόντων, ὥστ᾿ οὐδὲ δοκεῖ μοι περὶ Χερρονήσου νῦν σκοπεῖν οὐδὲ Βυζαντίου. 977 Demosthenes 9.20. βούλομαι δ᾿ εἰπεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὧν ὑπὲρ τῶν πραγμάτων οὕτω φοβοῦμαι, ἵν᾿ εἰ μὲν ὀρθῶς λογίζομαι, μετάσχητε τῶν λογισμῶν καὶ πρόνοιάν τιν᾿ ὑμῶν γ᾿ αὐτῶν εἰ μὴ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄρα βούλεσθε. As previously noted att pp. 139-40, Foucault 1983 (2001): 12 argues the parrhēsiastes shows ‘as directly as possible what he actually believes’. 978 299 As one whose personal interests are aligned with the welfare of the polis, what alarms Demosthenes should concern the Assembly too. And whilst he calls them to act in their own interests, he simultaneously shames them that the plight of Greece should be enough motivation to act, but either way he concedes to their sovereignty: But if you think that I am talking nonsense and have been struck senseless, you should conclude that I am not in my right mind and pay no attention to me, either now or in the future.979 Building once more upon the example of Timotheus, discussed above, Demosthenes again asserts how it is the duty of the adviser to consistently attempt to advise the Assembly, even when they reject his truth. To this end, Demosthenes attempts to explain the nature of the situation to the Assembly, and begins with an apophasis: That Philip has grown great from small and humble beginnings, and that the Greeks are distrustful and quarrelsome towards each other, and that it was much more surprising that he should have become so great from his previous condition than that now, when he has taken so many places already, he should be bringing the rest under his control as well, and all such topics that I could discuss, I shall leave to one side. 980 This, in my opinion, serves to reverse the expected: as Demosthenes has said, Philip rising from nothing to greatness is more surprising than if he gained power from the position he is in now; perhaps Demosthenes presents the strange inversion of what is expected as a hope that what they dread, and logically deduce, may not come to pass, and returns to his point in the Olynthiacs that, like all thieves, Philip will be found out and his power will fall. Demosthenes 9.20. ποιήσησθε, ἐὰν δὲ ληρεῖν καὶ τετυφῶσθαι δοκῶ, μήτε νῦν μήτ᾿ αὖθις ὡς ὑγιαίνοντί μοι προσέχητε. 979 Demosthenes 9.21. ὅτι μὲν δὴ μέγας ἐκ μικροῦ καὶ ταπεινοῦ τὸ κατ᾿ ἀρχὰς Φίλιππος ηὔξηται, καὶ ἀπίστως καὶ στασιαστικῶς ἔχουσι πρὸς αὑτοὺς οἱ Ἕλληνες, καὶ ὅτι πολλῷ παραδοξότερον ἦν τοσοῦτον αὐτὸν ἐξ ἐκείνου γενέσθαι ἢ νῦν, ὅθ᾿ οὕτω πολλὰ προείληφε, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ὑφ᾿ αὑτῷ ποιήσασθαι, καὶ πάνθ᾿ ὅσα τοιαῦτ᾿ ἂν ἔχοιμι διεξελθεῖν, παραλείψω. 980 300 Moreover, though the apophasis continues the complaint from 9.5-6 that Philip has grown through seizing Athenian possessions, he was permitted to do so because the Assembly gave him free reign. The real issue is the corruption/ apathy/ delusion/selfdestruction of the Assembly itself: But I see that everyone, starting with you, has conceded to him the one thing that has been the cause of every single previous Greek war. What is this? It is the right to do what he wants, and to plunder and rob each of the Greeks in turn, and to attack and enslave their cities.981 The additional connotations of plundering and robbing, and to attacks and enslavement, are also reminiscent of the First Philippic where Philip’s conduct was likened to ensnaring the Athenians as if with nets. 982 This also invokes shame on all the Greeks, but in particular Athens, for not acting when they could systematically see this occurring across the Greek world. In enabling Philip to flourish unchecked, Demosthenes further emphasises the guilt and shame by recalling their past reputation, to again compare and contrast their current attitude and behaviour: And yet you were the leaders of Greece for seventy-three years, and the Spartans were leaders for twenty-nine. The Thebans also became quite powerful in recent times, after the battle of Leuctra. Nevertheless, men of Athens, the Greeks have never yet conceded to you or the Thebans or the Spartans the right to do whatever you wish – far from it.983 Demosthenes 9.22. ἀλλ᾿ ὁρῶ συγκεχωρηκότας ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους, ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν ἀρξαμένους, αὐτῷ, ὑπὲρ οὗ τὸν ἄλλον ἅπαντα χρόνον πάντες οἱ πόλεμοι γεγόνασιν οἱ Ἑλληνικοί. τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; τὸ ποιεῖν ὅ τι βούλεται, καὶ καθ᾿ ἕν᾿ οὑτωσὶ περικόπτειν καὶ λωποδυτεῖν τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ καταδουλοῦσθαι τὰς πόλεις ἐπιόντα. There is also the irony that Demosthenes has already said this in the Olynthiacs to no avail when the situation was acute. Usher 1999: 240 argues that this is ‘an extension of the Thucydidean idea that empires are the result of natural human opportunism in the face of passivity (1.76.2, 4.61.5, 5.105.2).’ 981 982 Cf. Demosthenes 4.9. Demosthenes 9.23. καίτοι προστάται μὲν ὑμεῖς ἑβδομήκοντ᾿ ἔτη καὶ τρία τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐγένεσθε, προστάται δὲ τριάκονθ᾿ ἑνὸς δέοντα Λακεδαιμόνιοι· ἴσχυσαν δέ τι καὶ Θηβαῖοι τουτουσὶ τοὺς τελευταίους χρόνους μετὰ τὴν ἐν Λεύκτροις μάχην. ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως οὔθ᾿ ὑμῖν οὔτε Θηβαίοις οὔτε Λακεδαιμονίοις οὐδεπώποτ᾿, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, 983 301 In this manner he reminds them, again, of their past reputation and the values of Athenian ideology, and how far removed their current behaviour is from these ideals, to the extent that they are now even unworthy of their old enemies. Demosthenes not only shames the Athenians, but he holds them to account by using the reputation of their ancestral exempla to define the values that led them to defend both their own interests and these values themselves: But first, since you – or rather the Athenians of the time – were thought to be treating some people unfairly, everyone, even those who had no complaint to make of them, thought that they had to go to war with them in support of those who had been wronged. Again, after the Spartans had become the masters and attained the same supremacy as yours, when they tried to encroach and were disturbing the status quo beyond what was reasonable everyone declared war on them, even those who had no complaint against them. 984 And it was this Panhellenic duty to maintain the balance of power/prevent injustice, that Demosthenes asserts is lost in the attitudes of the Greeks now: What need is there to speak of the others? Both we and the Spartans, although at first we had virtually no wrongs to complain of at each other’s hands, nevertheless felt driven to go to war because of the injustice that we saw others suffering. 985 This is again reminiscent of First Philippic where he proposed: συνεχωρήθη τοῦθ᾿ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ποιεῖν ὅ τι βούλοισθε, οὐδὲ πολλοῦ δεῖ· Sandys 1913: 208 notes that the use of προστάται (προστάτης: one who stands before/in the front rank) for Athens and Sparta ‘implies that their position was to a certain extent legitimate.’ He compares this to Demosthenes’ description of Thebes as only ἴσχυσαν: became powerful, thus in my opinion implying their strength, but not their position as leaders. This, for my own argument, would fit well with Demosthenes’ presentation of Thebes as the natural defectors in the Second Philippic as discussed at pp. 206-7. Demosthenes 9.24. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὑμῖν, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῖς τότ᾿ οὖσιν Ἀθηναίοις, ἐπειδή τισιν οὐ μετρίως ἐδόκουν προσφέρεσθαι, πάντες ᾤοντο δεῖν, καὶ οἱ μηδὲν ἐγκαλεῖν ἔχοντες αὐτοῖς, μετὰ τῶν ἠδικημένων πολεμεῖν· καὶ πάλιν Λακεδαιμονίοις ἄρξασι καὶ παρελθοῦσιν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν δυναστείαν ὑμῖν, ἐπειδὴ πλεονάζειν ἐπεχείρουν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μετρίου τὰ καθεστηκότ᾿ ἐκίνουν, πάντες εἰς πόλεμον κατέστησαν, καὶ οἱ μηδὲν ἐγκαλοῦντες αὐτοῖς. 984 Demosthenes 9.25. καὶ τί δεῖ τοὺς ἄλλους λέγειν; ἀλλ᾿ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, οὐδὲν ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοντες ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὅ τι ἠδικούμεθ᾿ ὑπ᾿ ἀλλήλων, ὅμως ὑπὲρ ὧν τοὺς ἄλλους ἀδικουμένους ἑωρῶμεν, πολεμεῖν ᾠόμεθα δεῖν. 985 302 Next, you must consider…how well and appropriately you acted, in keeping with the reputation of the city, and endured war against them for the sake of justice. 986 And this praise of the idealised virtuous behaviour of the ideological ancestors, then turns again into a rebuke of their current state: And yet all the wrongs that were done by the Spartans in those thirty years, and by our ancestors in seventy, are fewer, men of Athens, than the wrongs that Philip has done to Greece in the fewer than thirteen years since he emerged from obscurity. Or rather, they are scarcely a fraction of them.987 Philip is an embodiment of their worst selves in the superlative; he exceeds all their collective wrongs together, which emphasises not only the necessity to act against Philip, but with the reminder of Philip’s emergence from obscurity, Demosthenes reminds the Athenians that their apathy and lack of action has permitted Philip to become the greatest threat to Greek freedom. In this regard, they are again the antithesis of the projection of Athenian identity from the epitaphioi logoi: In the eyes of the Athenians, Athens’ role as champion of the Greeks [προστάτης τῶν Ἑλλήνων] involved not only the defence of Greece against barbarian invaders but also the protection of the weak against the unjust oppression of overbearing Greek Powers.988 Their lack of action against Philip – who in this short space of time has surpassed all of their respective evils – and their failure to even acknowledge this, but insist on peace, is a damning assessment of their own current character. Indeed, this list of Philip’s wrongs could easily be a list of what the Athenians have neglected: 986 Demosthenes 4.3 Demosthenes 9.25. καίτοι πάνθ᾿ ὅσ᾿ ἐξημάρτηται καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις ἐν τοῖς τριάκοντ᾿ ἐκείνοις ἔτεσι καὶ τοῖς ἡμετέροις προγόνοις ἐν τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα, ἐλάττον᾿ ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὧν Φίλιππος ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκ᾿ οὐχ ὅλοις ἔτεσιν, οἷς ἐπιπολάζει, ἠδίκηκε τοὺς Ἕλληνας, μᾶλλον δ᾿ οὐδὲ μέρος τούτων ἐκεῖνα. 987 988 Steinbock 2013: 54, based on Lysias 2.47. 303 I say nothing about Olynthus and Methone and Apollonia and the thirty-two cities of the coast of Thrace, all of which he destroyed with such cruelty that it would be hard for a visitor to tell whether they had ever been inhabited. I also pass over in silence the destruction of the Phocian nation, which was so populous. But what of Thessaly? Did he not remove their constitution and cities and established tetrarchies, so that they might be slaves not only by city but also by region? 989 Not only does the polysyndeton in the recurrent use of καὶ emphasise the list of wrongs, but the use of apophasis also intensifies Philip’s terrible actions. This serves the purpose of further criticising the Assembly for not attempting to stop Philip in their actions, and for still upholding a futile peace. 990 Demosthenes develops this further: Are not tyrants now in control of the cities of Euboea, an island that is close to both Thebes and Athens? Does he not expressly write in his letters: “I am at peace with those who wish to give heed to me”? Nor does he fail to put what he has written into effect. For he has set out against the Hellespont, previously he marches against Ambracia, he possesses a city as great as Elis in the Peloponnese, and he has recently plotted against Megara. Neither Greece nor the rest of the world can contain this man’s greed.991 Demosthenes 9.26. Ὄλυνθον μὲν δὴ καὶ Μεθώνην καὶ Ἀπολλωνίαν καὶ δύο καὶ τριάκοντα πόλεις ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης ἐῶ, ἃς ἁπάσας οὕτως ὠμῶς ἀνῄρηκεν ὥστε μηδ᾿ εἰ πώποτ᾿ ᾠκήθησαν προσελθόντ᾿ εἶναι ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν· καὶ τὸ Φωκέων ἔθνος τοσοῦτον ἀνῃρημένον σιωπῶ. ἀλλὰ Θετταλία πῶς ἔχει; οὐχὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν παρῄρηται καὶ τετραρχίας κατέστησεν, ἵνα μὴ μόνον κατὰ πόλεις ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾿ ἔθνη δουλεύωσιν; As discussed in Chapter Two pp. 157-8, the destruction of Olynthus is also attested to in Diodorus 16.53.3. Gabriel 2010: 155 considers this false, and that only Stageria was destroyed in such a manner. 989 990 Both Hermogenes (iii 335) and Demetrius (ix 109) note Demosthenes’ use of paralipsis here. Demosthenes 9.27. αἱ δ᾿ ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ πόλεις οὐκ ἤδη τυραννοῦνται, καὶ ταῦτ᾿ ἐν νήσῳ πλησίον Θηβῶν καὶ Ἀθηνῶν; οὐ διαρρήδην εἰς τὰς ἐπιστολὰς γράφει “ἐμοὶ δ᾿ ἐστὶν εἰρήνη πρὸς τοὺς ἀκούειν ἐμοῦ βουλομένους”; καὶ οὐ γράφει μὲν ταῦτα, τοῖς δ᾿ ἔργοις οὐ ποιεῖ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐφ᾿ Ἑλλήσποντον οἴχεται, πρότερον ἧκεν ἐπ᾿ Ἀμβρακίαν, Ἦλιν ἔχειτηλικαύτην πόλιν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ, Μεγάροις ἐπεβούλευσε πρῴην, οὔθ᾿ ἡ Ἑλλὰς οὔθ᾿ ἡ βάρβαρος τὴν πλεονεξίαν χωρεῖ τἀνθρώπου. 991 On being at peace with those who give heed, ‘ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἐστὶν εἰρήνη πρὸς τοὺς ἀκούειν ἐμοῦ βουλομένους’ Sandys 1913: 210 notes that both ἐμοί and ἐμοῦ are ‘emphatic and self-assertive’, which in my opinion adds to the 304 Philip is now uniting his written logos and his ergon to devastating effect and is uncontainable and insatiable in his extreme pleonexia: οὔθ᾿ ἡ Ἑλλὰς οὔθ᾿ ἡ βάρβαρος τὴν πλεονεξίαν χωρεῖ τἀνθρώπου. In asserting this, Demosthenes stresses the urgency of the situation, but also shames the Assembly for permitting such a man to be in this position, and act as he wishes. Demosthenes asserts that the Athenians cannot maintain the illusion of peace against such injustice, and indeed they must act against Philip as they did previously against the Persians and the Spartans. 992 Whilst Philip’s vices have determined the scale of their external crisis, he would not have been in such a position had the Athenians not left a power vacuum to be exploited in the first place. As Demosthenes has argued since the First Philippic, this is a self-inflicted crisis, and all of their problems originate from the corruption within the Assembly: We Greeks all see and hear these things happening, but we do not send ambassadors about them to each other and get angry; we are in such poor condition and are so entrenched in our separate cities that right up to the present day, we have been unable to take any advantageous or necessary step, or to unite, or to form an association of mutual aid and friendship. We overlook his growing power, and though each of us recognises that Philip profits from the opportunities that others squander, or so it seems to me, none of us deliberates or acts to save Greece. 993 aggressive expansionist nature of Philip which Demosthenes is utilising to prove that there is no longer a peace to maintain. 992 Demosthenes has referred to such examples over the speeches. Demosthenes 9.28-9. καὶ ταῦθ᾿ ὁρῶντες οἱ Ἕλληνες ἅπαντες καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐ πέμπομεν πρέσβεις περὶ τούτων πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ ἀγανακτοῦμεν, οὕτω δὲ κακῶς διακείμεθα καὶ διορωρύγμεθα κατὰ πόλεις ὥστ᾿ ἄχρι τῆς τήμερον ἡμέρας οὐδὲν οὔτε τῶν συμφερόντων οὔτε τῶν δεόντων πρᾶξαι δυνάμεθα, οὐδὲ συστῆναι, οὐδὲ κοινωνίαν βοηθείας καὶ φιλίας οὐδεμίαν ποιήσασθαι, ἀλλὰ μείζω γιγνόμενον τὸν ἄνθρωπον περιορῶμεν, τὸν χρόνον κερδᾶναι τοῦτον ὃν ἄλλος ἀπόλλυται ἕκαστος ἐγνωκώς, ὥς γ᾿ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, οὐχ ὅπως σωθήσεται τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων σκοπῶν οὐδὲ πράττων, 993 305 The contrast between what they see and what they do is there to demonstrate the core problem. As a collective, they refuse to see what is happening, or the opportunity to act, because they have turned from hard virtues to self-satisfying vice. However, maintaining his method of criticism and hope, Demosthenes suggests that these qualities of Philip’s nature which make him so formidable, are simultaneously natural flaws to be exploited: Philip’s akrasia and pleonexia risk destabilising the ever-expanding Macedonian kingdom, and underline the injustice of his actions towards Athens. 994 As noted in Chapter One, Aristotle’s definition of the ideal polis maintains it should not stretch beyond a certain size, else it makes itself unstable. 995 Linking this with his views on pleonexia in the Nicomachean Ethics, we could view Demosthenes’ remarks on Philip’s flaws as evidence that Macedonian expansion has destabilised its own power by an excessive greed which chases apparent goods.996 Such a view on unstable expansion is also suggested by Herodotus’ Cyrus, when he warns of the dangers of moving too far from Persia, the place that provided their strength.997 Indeed, the flaws of pleonexia and greed resonate throughout both Herodotus and Thucydides where ‘greed thus infected a central pillar of democratic process and destroyed the sense of civic trust on which Athenian vitality depended.’ 998 If we assume 994 I am not arguing that this was the actual case, but rather I am presenting Demosthenes’ argument. 995 As noted in Chapter One pp. 42-3 on Aristotle Politics 7.1326b, and Roochnik 2013: 211. 996 For a discussion on greed and injustice in classical Greece see Balot 2001. Balot 2001: 24 argues that in the Ethics, Aristotle discusses pleonexia as a means to discuss the virtue of justice, and pleonexia, the vice of excess ‘accounts for the drive to get more in violation of communal canons of distributive fairness.’ Curzer 1995: 215 discusses, with reference to Hobbes, the notion that pleonexia is not just greed for more, but a desire for that which is not rightfully yours, ‘Pleonexia is a desire for certain good not qua good, but rather qua more’, where gain (kerdos) is a characteristic of pleonexia.’ Herodotus 9.121.3. On the proposal to move out and find better land Herodotus states that ‘Cyrus did not regard this as a wonderful proposal; he did tell them to carry it out, however, with the recommendation that as they did so they should prepare to be rulers no longer, but rather to become subjects under the rule of others. This was so, he said, because soft places tend to produce soft men; for the same land cannot yield both wonderful crops and men who are noble and courageous in war.’ This can also be read with the Airs, Waters, Places from the Hippocratic corpus and the notion of environmental determinism, and the belief behaviours can be pre-determined by geographical conditioning. Cyrus’ point is not that they should not leave Persia because it is their natural place, but that Persia, by its (tough) nature, has formed their (tough) nature. Of course what point Herodotus, the creator of the character Cyrus, is making is a matter of interpretation. 997 998 Balot 2001: 166. For greed in Herodotus and Thucydides see Balot 2001: 99-179. 306 a fairly high level of exposure to ideas about greed and its consequences through oratory, drama, and social memory, the Assembly will have been primed to detect these loaded notions within Demosthenes’ speech. Demosthenes then takes this poor condition and emotively transforms it into a physical example – which psychologically makes the audience feel uncomfortable by making Philip, ‘like the periodic return or the sudden onset of a fever or some other evil, he visits even those who seem to have kept far away from him; not one of you is ignorant of this.’ 999 This potentially psychologically discomforted the Assembly by the cognitive triggers of sickness, previously remarked upon in the Olynthiacs, where the weak passivity of the Athenians and their enemies within, is likened to a doctor that neither cures nor kills. Here too, Philip is a consuming fever, and will exploit their already weakened state. 1000 This develops into the height of Demosthenes’ criticism of Philip throughout the speeches, where he examines the levels of shame that the Greeks can endure: You also know that all the wrongs the Greeks suffered at the hands of the Spartans or of ourselves were injustices committed by genuine Greeks at least, and one should treat this in the same way as if a legitimate son, after coming into a great fortune, manages it badly and unjustly: such a person deserves blame and censure for his actions, but it cannot be denied that he who was doing these things was an heir. 1001 Demosthenes 9.29. ἐπεί, ὅτι γ᾿ ὥσπερ περίοδος ἢ καταβολὴ πυρετοῦ ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς κακοῦ καὶ τῷ πάνυ πόρρω δοκοῦντι νῦν ἀφεστάναι προσέρχεται, οὐδεὶς ἀγνοεῖ. 999 As argued at p. 292, Philip’s involvement in other states internal affairs has been likened to visiting the sick. Regarding cognitive reactions, Devereaux 2015 discusses how, in Cicero’s Philippics, the description of Antony being physically sick triggers a physical repulsive sensation within the physical bodies of the audience. 1000 Demosthenes 9.30: αὶ μὴν κἀκεῖνό γ᾿ ἴστε, ὅτι ὅσα μὲν ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ἢ ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔπασχον οἱ Ἕλληνες, ἀλλ᾿ οὖν ὑπὸ γνησίων γ᾿ ὄντων τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἠδικοῦντο, καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἄν τις ὑπέλαβε τοῦθ᾿, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ υἱὸς ἐν οὐσίᾳ πολλῇ γεγονὼς γνήσιος διῴκει τι μὴ καλῶς μηδ᾿ ὀρθῶς, κατ᾿ αὐτὸ μὲν τοῦτ᾿ ἄξιον μέμψεως εἶναι καὶ κατηγορίας, ὡς δ᾿ οὐ προσήκων ἢ ὡς οὐ κληρονόμος τούτων ὢν ταῦτ᾿ ἐποίει, οὐκ ἐνεῖναι λέγειν. Trevett’s translation reads ‘it cannot be denied that depsite his behaviour, he is still a kinsman and heir.’ Sandys 1913: 213 observes κατηγορίας suggests such a person might be subject not just to ‘censure’ in a general sense but literally to prosecution if they attempted to exercise citizen rights after wasting their inheritance, and compares Aeschines’ Against Timarchus 1.30 noting that ‘among those who were not allowed to speak in public was any one ἣ τὰ πατρῷα κατεδηδοκὼς ἣ ὧ ἄν κληρονόμος γένηται. Hornblower 2011: 295 notes on Thucydidean themes that ‘the justification of past Athenian (and Spartan) imperialist excesses…is remarkable: roughly, the line is, those offences 1001 307 But if a slave or changeling wasted and spoiled what did not belong to him, by Herakles, how much more terrible and deserving of anger would everyone have said this was. And yet they do not take this attitude towards Philip and his actions – he who is not only not Greek and in no way related to the Greeks, nor even a foreigner from a land to which it is honourable to say that one belongs, but a wretched Macedonian, from a land from which in the past you could not have even bought a decent slave.1002 In this, Demosthenes denies Philip any rights to Greece or Greek identity. In fact the Greek is actually more violent than Trevett’s translation suggests if we take ἀπώλλυε as destroy utterly, and note the repetition of οὐδὲ (underlined above and below) which also intensifies the negative definition of Philip. But rather than attacking Philip, I argue the remark unequivocally shames the Greeks by the unworthy origins of the man who now subjugates them.1003 It serves to compound the shame of the Athenians, that they are not only being overcome by an ‘other’ but the worst possible other, which magnifies Demosthenes’ criticism of the Assembly. 1004 While this passage is disdainful of Philip, for the Greeks their treatment by an inferior foreigner is an abomination, and Demosthenes is indignant at them for permitting such a man to shame them and dictate the terms of Greece. As Pearson notes, in forensic oratory such comparisons between tolerance and hybris are usually employed to were bad, but they were at least committed within the Greek family, not by outsiders. This is certainly a novel way to read such passages of Thucydides such as the Melian Dialogue.’ Demosthenes 9.31 εἰ δέ γε δοῦλος ἢ ὑποβολιμαῖος τὰ μὴ προσήκοντ᾿ ἀπώλλυε (destroy utterly) καὶ ἐλυμαίνετο (outrage/maltreat), Ἡράκλεις ὅσῳ μᾶλλον δεινὸν καὶ ὀργῆς ἄξιον πάντες ἂν ἔφησαν εἶναι. ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑπὲρ Φιλίππου καὶ ὧν ἐκεῖνος πράττει νῦν, οὐχ οὕτως ἔχουσιν, οὐ μόνον οὐχ Ἕλληνος ὄντος οὐδὲ προσήκοντος οὐδὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ βαρβάρου ἐντεῦθεν ὅθεν καλὸν εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ὀλέθρου Μακεδόνος, ὅθεν οὐδ᾿ ἀνδράποδον σπουδαῖον οὐδὲν ἦν πρότερον πρίασθαι. Hunt 2010: 81 notes that ‘Demosthenes here denies Philip any fictive kinship with the Greeks.’ 1002 Guth 2015: 333-348 argues for Philip’s rhetorical knowledge and how in the Peace of Philocrates the ambassadors in support of it ‘praised Philip’s speaking ability as part of his philhellenism.’ As Hunt 2010: 81 remarks, ‘For a Macedonian to defeat and rule Greek cities was a reversal of the natural and proper order of things, similar to a slave, the lowest person in the household, taking over the patrimony.’ Cf. Aristotle Rhetoric 2.9.9-10. 1003 1004 Demosthenes also uses rather uncharacteristic lowest-common-denominator abuse. 308 contrast the speaker with their adversaries, but here ‘the tolerance of the Greeks in the face of Philip’s hybris is not praiseworthy but shameful.’ 1005 Demosthenes’ assertion that they have suffered at the hands of a ‘wretched Macedonian’, something their ancestors would neither have endured nor tolerated, shames the Assembly by questioning what the will endure before they will recognise the damage caused by their own attitudes. As such, I argue that Demosthenes’ criticism of Philip is not an end in itself, but a means to an end: to shame the Athenians into acting in a manner worthy of the city. This has been consistent since the First Philippic and has only intensified since the Peace. For Demosthenes, it is imperative that the Assembly recognises their own culpability, and that they have passively granted Philip free reign in Greece by their lack of action: How is this not the height of insolence? In addition to his destruction of the cities, does he not administer the Pythian festival, the shared competition of the Greeks, and, if he himself is absent, does he not send his slaves to preside at the games? Is he not the master of Thermopylae and the entranceways into Greece, and does he not occupy these places with garrisons and mercenaries? Does he not have the right of preaudience at the oracle, thrusting us aside together with the Thessalians and the Dorians and the other Amphictyons – a right that not even every Greek enjoys.1006 Philip’s power is an insult to the Greeks, and Demosthenes’ accusations of impiety also rebuke the Greeks for entrusting the sacred administration of Delphi and the Amphtyonic council to the hands of a Macedonian. It is interesting to observe here Demosthenes’ change of attitude from On the Peace and Philip’s role at the Pythian festival, where he compared 1005 Pearson 1976: 152. Demosthenes 9.32. καίτοι τί τῆς ἐσχάτης ὕβρεως ἀπολείπει; οὐ πρὸς τῷ πόλεις ἀνῃρηκέναι τίθησι μὲν τὰ Πύθια, τὸν κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀγῶνα, κἂν αὐτὸς μὴ παρῇ, τοὺς δούλους ἀγωνοθετήσοντας πέμπει; [κύριος δὲ Πυλῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας παρόδων ἐστί, καὶ φρουραῖς καὶ ξένοις τοὺς τόπους τούτους κατέχει; ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὴν προμαντείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, παρώσας ἡμᾶς καὶ Θετταλοὺς καὶ Δωριέας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἀμφικτύονας, ἧς οὐδὲ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἅπασι μέτεστι;] The English italics and the Greek enclosed within square brackets indicate the two versions of the text. As noted at the beginning of this subchapter, this occurs because the tenth-century manuscript ‘S’ has omissions which are preserved in other manuscripts, but appear as additions in S’s margins. 1006 309 challenging Philip’s right to organise that games to chasing the shadow of a donkey. Demosthenes was telling the Athenians to pick their battles and be sensible in their actions, but the threat to Byzantium and the Chersonese has greater ramifications for the Athenians than their indignation. It is now imperative that they defend their vital interests, and their failure to acknowledge this is again indicative of the Athenians’ misguided priorities. The reference to the games in the list of rhetorical questions accentuates Demosthenes’ outrage at Philip’s audacity, which as a whole is directed at the Assembly to shock them into seeing the situation at hand, and what they permit to happen by holding on to the peace: Does he not write to the Thessalians telling them what form of political organisation to have? Is he not sending out mercenaries – some to Porthmus to expel the Eretrian people, others to Oreus to establish Philistides as tyrant?1007 Finally, Demosthenes resolves this question and affirms that it is the Greeks, not Philip, with whom he has the greatest complaint: But even though they see these things, the Greeks put up with them. They seem to me to watch them happening in the same way as one might watch a hailstorm, each praying that it does not strike him, but none trying to avoid it. 1008 This behaviour is at odds with Athenian ideology, especially in comparison to the ancestors who could not sit and endure the suffering of the other Greeks.1009 It is this apathetic, not-myproblem attitude which Demosthenes has confronted throughout the speeches, and confronts again here: Demosthenes 9.33. γράφει δὲ Θετταλοῖς ὃν χρὴ τρόπον πολιτεύεσθαι; πέμπει δὲ ξένους τοὺς μὲν εἰς Πορθμόν, τὸν δῆμον ἐκβαλοῦντας τὸν Ἐρετριέων, τοὺς δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ Ὠρεόν, τύραννον Φιλιστίδην καταστήσοντας; 1007 Demosthenes 9.33. ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως ταῦθ᾿ ὁρῶντες οἱ Ἕλληνες ἀνέχονται, καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ τὴν χάλαζαν ἔμοιγε δοκοῦσι θεωρεῖν, εὐχόμενοι μὴ καθ᾿ ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστοι γενέσθαι, κωλύειν δ᾿ οὐδεὶς ἐπιχειρῶν. 1008 1009 As at Lysias 2.21. 310 No one retaliates for his insults towards Greece, or even for the wrongs that he does to each individual. The worst is already here. 1010 Intensifying not only what Philip has done, but the shameful endurance of the Greeks, Demosthenes continues: Has he not advanced against Corinthian Ambracia and Leucas? Has he not sworn to hand over Achaean Naupactus to the Aetolians? Has he not deprived the Thebans of Achinus? Is he not now marching against his allies the Byzantines?1011 From this, Demosthenes moves to their own possessions, which they have squandered since the First Philippic: As for our own possessions – leave aside those of others – does he not hold Cardia, the greatest city in the Chersonese? This is how we are treated, yet we all delay, and are weak, and cast suspicious glances at our neighbours, distrusting each other, rather than the man who is wronging us all. 1012 This is the same problem as we saw in On the Chersonese, that the Assembly will look to blame anyone else, except Philip. They will look for an easy scapegoat – one of their own – who they can easily deal with, thereby giving themselves a false impression of having taken action. In the face of all these individual events, the Athenians still permit themselves to be persuaded that Philip is not at war with Athens, and that men like Demosthenes are warmongers. To confront this, Demosthenes does not only compare the current Athenians to Demosthenes 9.34 οὐ μόνον δ᾿ ἐφ᾿ οἷς ἡ Ἑλλὰς ὑβρίζεται ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, οὐδεὶς ἀμύνεται, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ὑπὲρ ὧν αὐτὸς ἕκαστος ἀδικεῖται· τοῦτο γὰρ ἤδη τοὔσχατόν ἐστιν. 1010 Demosthenes 9.34. οὐ Κορινθίων ἐπ᾿ Ἀμβρακίαν ἐλήλυθε καὶ Λευκάδα; οὐκ Ἀχαιῶν Ναύπακτον ὀμώμοκεν Αἰτωλοῖς παραδώσειν; οὐχὶ Θηβαίων Ἐχῖνον ἀφῄρηται, καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ Βυζαντίους πορεύεται συμμάχους ὄντας; 1011 Demosthenes 9.35. οὐχ ἡμῶν, ἐῶ τἄλλα, ἀλλὰ Χερρονήσου τὴν μεγίστην ἔχει πόλιν Καρδίαν; ταῦτα τοίνυν πάσχοντες ἅπαντες μέλλομεν καὶ μαλακιζόμεθα καὶ ποὺς τοὺς πλησίον βλέπομεν, ἀπιστοῦντες ἀλλήλοις, οὐ τῷ πάντας ἡμᾶς ἀδικοῦντι. The manuscript traditon provides two readings: μαλακιζόμεθα: weakened/ softened (MSS), and μαλκίομεν: lit. we are numb (lexicographer Harpocration). Both have connotations of fragility, but I am following Trevett and Vince with μαλακιζόμεθα. With regard to πάσχοντες, to suffer as opposed to doing/ or to suffer at another’s hands, when used without a limiting word it always refers to evil, being used for κακως or κακα, according to the Liddle and Scott Lexicon. Also, with ἅπαντες Demosthenes chooses the strengthened version of pas pasa pan, for added emphasis on the collective behaviour of the Greeks. 1012 311 their own ideals, but also the Greeks collectively, suggesting that the Greeks of Demosthenes’ time are weak. Such submission can be expected of those that medized in the past, but for the Athenians it is horrendously shameful to sacrifice their honour and reputation. Moreover, by not presenting an example for the other Greeks to follow, they are not only acting in a manner at odds with their ideology, but have condemned both themselves and the Panhellenic community to Macedonian hegemony. 1013 Demosthenes urges them not to forget the immediate danger they are in, and the prospects they face: but when he treats us collectively with such brutality, what do you suppose he will do when he becomes master of each of us separately? 1014 Demosthenes’ emphasis on ἅπασιν demonstrates that this is a Panhellenic problem, and that a problem for the rest of Greece is a problem for Athens. In particular, Demosthenes stresses that if Athens falls then there will be no hope left, as they are the only ones with the reputation (of both nomos and phusis) to withstand and galvanise the Greeks to challenge this new Persia. Indeed, Demosthenes’ use of κύριος for Philip carries connotations of an extreme, absolute master, and given that κύριος was usually used for a male relative with 1013 Being an example for the Greeks (and living Athenians) is a topos of the epitaphioi logoi: Plato Menexenus 240c-e on Athens at Marathon ‘They acted as guides and teachers to the rest of Greece, the lesson being that the power of the Persians was not irresistible, that all the numbers in the world, and all the wealth in the world, are no match for courage. For my part, therefore, I maintain that those men are not merely our fathers in a physical sense, but also fathered freedom both for us and for everybody in mainland Greece. That was the action to which the Greeks looked when they screwed up their courage to take their chance in the later battles for their freedom. They were pupils of the heroes of Marathon.’ Lysias 2.32-49, in particular 2.41, ‘victorious in the sea battle, they showed everybody that it is better with few men to run the risks for the sake of freedom, rather than with many to be ruled for the sake of your own slavery.’ At 2.46 Lysias notes that the Spartans took Athens’ example to join the forces at Plataea. Thucydides 2.41-43 ‘I declare that our city is an education to Greece…their [the dead ancestors] glory reminds eternal in men’s’ minds, always there on the right occasion to stir others to speech or to action…in foreign lands also, not in any visible form but in people’s hearts, their memory abides and grows. It is for you to try to be like them.’ See too discussion on links to Herodotus in Chapter 4.2 pp. 202-5 and the Second Philippic. Demosthenes 9.35. καίτοι τὸν ἅπασιν ἀσελγῶς οὕτω χρώμενον τί οἴεσθε, ἐπειδὰν καθ᾿ ἕν᾿ ἡμῶν ἑκάστου κύριος γένηται, τί ποιήσειν; 1014 312 authority over women in his family, Demosthenes could be alluding to the subjugation (and emasculation) of the Athenian citizenry to Philip.1015 But crucially this is shamefully selfinflicted. Essentially from 9.30 to at least 9.40, Demosthenes’ purpose has been to shame the Greeks into action, and even the attack on Philip’s nature was not necessarily directed against Philip, but served to make him an unworthy opponent, to shame the Greeks. We also have the sense (which has been developing since the Second Philippic) that Athens serves as a microcosm of the Greek virtues of freedom and justice, and this is essential to challenging their external foes and ensuring Panhellenic survival. Demosthenes’ use of ancestral rhetoric asserts that Athenian lack of action is ominous for the all of the Greeks, as no one else has set a historical precedence for defending Greek freedom.1016 The fundamental problem, therefore, is the collective lack of action from the Greeks, and in particular, the Athenians. Thus, Demosthenes presents the only explanation for the current situation as a moral decline within Athens: What is the explanation for this state of affairs? It is not without reason or just cause that the Greeks were so enthusiastic for liberty in the past, but for slavery now. There was something then, there really was, men of Athens, in the spirit of the people, which is now absent, which overcame the wealth of Persia and led Greece to freedom, and was undefeated in battle on sea and land – but now it has been lost, ruining everything and turning Greece upside down. 1017 1015 See earlier discussion 3.31 and emasculation of the Assembly in Chapter 2.3 pp.150-51. As we have seen in examples from the Menexenus, and Lysias’ funeral speech, if we substitute the Great King for Philip. 1016 Demosthenes 9.36. τί οὖν αἴτιον τουτωνί; οὐ γὰρ ἄνευ λόγου καὶ δικαίας αἰτίας οὔτε τόθ᾿ οὕτως εἶχον ἑτοίμως πρὸς ἐλευθερίαν οἱ Ἕλληνες οὔτε νῦν πρὸς τὸ δουλεύειν. ἦν τι τότ᾿, ἦν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐν ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν διανοίαις, ὃ νῦν οὐκ ἔστιν, ὃ καὶ τοῦ Περσῶν ἐκράτησε πλούτου καὶ ἐλευθέραν ἦγε τὴν Ἑλλάδα καὶ οὔτε ναυμαχίας οὔτε πεζῆς μάχης οὐδεμιᾶς ἡττᾶτο, νῦν δ᾿ ἀπολωλὸς ἅπαντα λελύμανται καὶ ἄνω καὶ κάτω πεποίηκε πάντα τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πράγματα. The dichotomy is emphasised by the polysyndeton of καὶ. 1017 Trevett translates πολλῶν διανοίαις as spirit of the people, which also can be: the thoughts of the many, and could be representative of idea of the collective wisdom of the dēmos. Sandys 1913: 217 suggests that the 313 Demosthenes returns to the clear comparison (and extreme dichotomy) between their current selves and the ancestors he remarked upon in the Third Olynthiac. 1018 Now, Demosthenes makes this applicable to all the Greeks, and attributes their current problems to their deficiency in virtues: What was this thing? It was the fact that everyone hated any person who took money from those who were seeking to dominate or destroy Greece: it was most dreadful to be convicted of taking bribes, and such a man was punished with the severest penalty.1019 The point of the speech therefore, is to highlight this contrast and make the Athenians realise that nothing will be resolved until they recognise their own corruptions and change their attitude.1020 Demosthenes again identifies this as the cause (the ἀρχή but also the αἴτιον, or αἰτία) of all their problems, and presents a return to their ancestral ideology as the means to remedy it: Neither the crucial opportunity in each situation – an opportunity that fortune often grants even to the careless against the attentive and those who shrink from deeds against those who fulfil their duties – nor the mutual concord that existed, nor the distrust of tyrants and barbarians, nor in brief any such thing could be bought from the politicians and generals. 1021 ‘personification of the unconquerable principle which “overcame the wealth of Persia and maintained the freedom of Greece,” rises to a higher level than that of ordinary prose, noting too that ‘οὔτε ... μάχης ... ἡττᾶτο [is] a poetic phrase, parallel to ἐκράτησε πλούτου.’ 1018 Demosthenes 3.23. Demosthenes 9.37. τί οὖν ἦν τοῦτο; [οὐδὲν ποικίλον οὐδὲ σοφόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι] τοὺς παρὰ τῶν ἄρχειν βουλομένων ἢ διαφθείρειν τὴν Ἑλλάδα χρήματα λαμβάνοντας ἅπαντες ἐμίσουν, καὶ χαλεπώτατον ἦν τὸ δωροδοκοῦντ᾿ ἐλεγχθῆναι, καὶ τιμωρίᾳ μεγίστῃ τοῦτον ἐκόλαζον [καὶ παραίτησις οὐδεμί᾿ ἦν οὐδὲ συγγνώμη]. 1019 I therefore disagree with Kennedy 1993: 74 who argues that 9.36-40 demonstrates ‘a battle for Athens, decadent and fond of flattery, is fought out between Demosthenes the unpopular patriot (2) and Philip the violent foreign king’, as I argue in the introduction, the battle is between Demosthenes and the Athenian Assembly itself. 1020 Demosthenes 9.38. τὸν οὖν καιρὸν ἑκάστου τῶν πραγμάτων, ὃν ἡ τύχη καὶ τοῖς ἀμελοῦσι κατὰ τῶν προσεχόντων [καὶ τοῖς μηδὲν ἐθέλουσι ποιεῖν κατὰ τῶν πάνθ᾿ ἃ προσήκει πραττόντων] πολλάκις παρασκευάζει, οὐκ ἦν πρίασθαι παρὰ τῶν λεγόντων οὐδὲ τῶν στρατηγούντων, οὐδὲ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμόνοιαν, οὐδὲ τὴν πρὸς τοὺς τυράννους καὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἀπιστίαν, οὐδ᾿ ὅλως τοιοῦτον οὐδέν. 1021 314 It is therefore imperative to recover their moral compass, as their hope rests in reclaiming this past virtue, and demonstrating the strength they showed against their past foes. However, their situation cannot improve if they maintain their current attitude: But now all these things are exported as if from the market place, and in exchange we import things that cause Greece’s sickness and ruin. What are these? Envy of anyone who has taken a bribe; laughter, if he admits it; pity, for those who are convicted, hatred of anyone who rebukes this conduct; and everything else relating to the taking of bribes.1022 In referencing their ancestral past Demosthenes asserts that, through moral corruption, they are now an inversion of their ideal selves. In using the past to draw the comparison between their current vices and their ancestral virtue, Demosthenes offers an explanation as to why the Athenians are experiencing a deterioration in their external issues: the decline of the morals of the polis. Whilst the ancestors are idealised as incorruptible defenders of piety, justice, and liberty, the current Athenians are unworthy of their heritage as descendants of the victors of Marathon, as they have sold their honour for personal gain. 1023 Moreover, this bribery and corruption serves no ultimate purpose; they might have wealth, but they are morally bankrupt: Now we possess triremes and men and money and abundant military equipment, and whatever else serves to demonstrate the strength of a city, in far greater quantities Demosthenes 9.39. νῦν δ᾿ ἅπανθ᾿ ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀγορᾶς ἐκπέπραται ταῦτα, ἀντεισῆκται δ᾿ ἀντὶ τούτων ὑφ᾿ ὧν ἀπόλωλε καὶ νενόσηκεν ἡ Ἑλλάς. ταῦτα δ᾿ ἐστὶ τί; ζῆλος, εἴ τις εἴληφέ τι· γέλως, ἂν ὁμολογῇ· [συγγνώμη τοῖς ἐλεγχομένοις·] μῖσος, ἂν τούτοις τις ἐπιτιμᾷ· τἄλλα πάνθ᾿ ὅσ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ δωροδοκεῖν ἤρτηται. Demosthenes uses ἀπόλωλε again: to kill/utterly destroy. Sandys 1913: 218 notes that together ἀπόλωλε καὶ νενόσηκεν it reads: ruined and diseased, which I think emphasises the moral decline. (Italics are the additions in the longer manuscript.) 1022 As Steinbock 2013: 53 notes, the history of Marathon became symbolic for ‘the Athenians fighting alone on behalf of all the Greeks.’ This is reminiscent of the Olynthiacs, where Demosthenes suggested they had squandered their inheritance – which had been won by many hard efforts – out of apathy and greed. Moreover, the epitaphioi logoi forbid the survivors to dishonour them and lose what was gained by their ancestors’ efforts. 1023 315 than we did then, but these are rendered useless, ineffectual, and unprofitable by those who are selling us out. 1024 This is also a repetition of the First Philippic 4.36 where Demosthenes stated their military preparations were: ἄτακτα, ἀδιόρθωτα, ἀόρισθ᾿ ἅπαντα ‘everything is ill-arranged, illmanaged, ill-defined.’1025 This was initially a consequence of their deficient sense of priorities and apathy; it is now exacerbated in the Third Philippic by internal corruption instigated by local collaborators working for Philip/ in Philip’s pay. 1026 It is this corruption within that will render everything else useless and futile, as their situation will only deteriorate further if they continue to permit Philip’s continued expansion at Athenian expense. Moreover, it again makes the point that Athens’ problem is not Philip, but the enemies within who are selling the Athenians out, and the Assembly itself for permitting their own vices and rhetorical gratification to cloud their judgement. It is this internal immorality (perhaps even amorality through their self-delusion) which desperately needs addressing, that ‘this is the case at present you see for yourselves, I presume, and have no need of me as a further witness.’ 1027 As such they should not be debating on the best means to maintain the peace, nor criticising men such as Diopeithes or indeed Demosthenes himself as aggressors. Demosthenes’ assertion that they do not need to hear more on the situation, stresses the irony that they refuse to see this, and the urgency to remind them of their duty as Athenians. But this assertion could likewise be a rhetorical device to assert an impression that “you know about the present... but I know about the past”. Demosthenes 9.40 ἐπεὶ τριήρεις γε καὶ σωμάτων πλῆθος καὶ χρημάτων πρόσοδοι καὶ τῆς ἄλλης κατασκευῆς ἀφθονία, καὶ τἄλλ᾿ οἷς ἄν τις ἰσχύειν τὰς πόλεις κρίνοι, νῦν ἅπασι καὶ πλείω καὶ μείζω ἐστὶ τῶν τότε πολλῷ. ἀλλὰ ταῦτ᾿ ἄχρηστα, ἄπρακτα, ἀνόνητα ὑπὸ τῶν πωλούντων γίγνεται. 1024 Trans. Vince 1954: 91. I believe this mirrors the pattern of the Greek in a stricter maner than Trevett’s translation: ‘but none of our military preparations are organized, kept up to date, or properly defined.’ 1025 1026 Again, I believe the Third Philippic resounds with examples of the rhetoric of conspiracy which could usefully be added to Roisman’s 2006 account. 1027 Demosthenes 9.41. ὅτι δ᾿ οὕτω ταῦτ᾿ ἔχει, τὰ μὲν νῦν ὁρᾶτε δήπου καὶ οὐδὲν ἐμοῦ προσδεῖσθε μάρτυρος· 316 In this way, Demosthenes presents himself as spokesperson for the ancestral past, and by association shares the virtues of the Athenians in former times. Demosthenes speaks through the ancestors, functioning as a messenger to rebuke their unworthy successors: Yet in previous times the opposite was the case, as I shall show not in my own words but from a document of your ancestors that they inscribed on a bronze pillar and deposited on the Acropolis – not because it would be useful to them, since even without it they had a strong sense of duty, but to leave you reminders and examples of how seriously such offences should be treated.1028 Presenting the physical presence of these lost virtues, Demosthenes recalls their attitude towards Arthmius1029: It reads: “Arthmius the son of Pythonax of Zeleia is to be an outlaw and enemy of the Athenian people and its allies, himself and his descendants.” After is written the explanation: “because he brought gold from the Medes into the Peloponnese.” 1030 Demosthenes barrages the Athenians with reasons to be ashamed. Not only do they, unlike their ancestors, require a visual incentive to do their duty, but worse still, rather than heeding these reminders, they do exactly the opposite, praising and honouring men who commit these offences. Demosthenes again attributes their failure to act like their ancestors as the explanation for the decline of Athens and Philip’s position of power, because if Athens had Demosthenes 9.41. τὰ δ᾿ ἐν τοῖς ἄνωθεν χρόνοις ὅτι τἀναντί᾿ εἶχεν ἐγὼ δηλώσω, οὐ λόγους ἐμαυτοῦ λέγων, ἀλλὰ γράμματα τῶν προγόνων τῶν ὑμετέρων ἁκεῖνοι κατέθεντ᾿ εἰς στήλην χαλκῆν γράψαντες εἰς ἀκρόπολιν [οὐχ ἵν᾿ αὐτοῖς ᾖ χρήσιμα (καὶ γὰρ ἄνευ τούτων τῶν γραμμάτων τὰ δέοντ᾿ ἐφρόνουν), ἀλλ᾿ ἵν᾿ ὑμεῖς ἔχηθ᾿ ὑπομνήματα καὶ παραδείγματα, ὡς ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων σπουδάζειν προσήκει. 1028 Trevett 2011: 168 states that ‘The decree outlawing Arthmius of Zeleia, a city in north western Asia Minor, is referred to in several texts of the period (Dem 19.27; Aes 3.258; Din 2.24-25.) Meiggs 1972: 508-512 discusses the decree in detail, and suggests that it dates to the early 460s, and may have been proposed by the leading politician and general Cimon.’ MacDowell 2009: 352 notes that Demosthenes used the example of Arthmius in On the False Embassy 19.270-2. Mack 2015: 94 n12. Milns 2000: 22 n43, notes how Arthmius became a topos in the Attic orators. 1029 Demosthenes 9.42. “Ἄρθμιος” φησὶ “Πυθώνακτος Ζελείτης ἄτιμος καὶ πολέμιος τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων αὐτὸς καὶ γένος.” εἶθ᾿ ἡ αἰτία γέγραπται, δι᾿ ἣν ταῦτ᾿ ἐγένετο· “ὅτι τὸν χρυσὸν τὸν ἐκ Μήδων εἰς Πελοπόννησον ἤγαγε.” 1030 317 acted in a manner worthy of the city, Olynthus would not have fallen to Philip, nor would they have conceded their possessions.1031 The condemnation of the current Athenians is all the stronger as it is delivered via the ancestors, and may be compared with the prosopopoeia of the Athenians’ forefathers in the Menexenus, where their voice is used to tell the living that they will not be welcome among their forefathers after death, if they have shamed the honour of the polis.1032 Demosthenes reminds the Assembly that the ancestors acted against a man who committed corruption and bribery (on orders), when his actions were not directed against themselves, but did so on principle to uphold what was right. 1033 Here again Demosthenes uses the ancestors’ actions, and this time their tangible inscribed words (ταῦτ᾿ ἐστὶ τὰ γράμματα 9.42) as a moral lesson: Consider, by the gods, what was the purpose and resolve of the Athenians of that time in taking this action. They wrote that a man of Zeleia, Arthmius, a slave of the king (for Zeleia is in Asia), because in the service of his master he had brought money to the Peloponnese – not to Athens – should be declared their and their allies’ enemy, himself and his descendants, and that they should be outlaws.1034 Demosthenes holds the actions of the ancestors, who were resolute in both their words and their deeds, against the apathy of the current Assembly and calls them to recognise their enemies, with specific distinction: This is speaking from Demosthenes’ projection of the situation. I personally am of the opinion that Philip would have succeeded regardless because of his military reforms and his own personal ability. 1031 1032 Plato Menexenus 247c. This evokes his argument of the First Philippic 4.3 that Athens acted ‘for the sake of justice’ during the Corinthian War against Sparta and their defence of Thebes when the Spartans also invaded Boeotia. 1033 Demosthenes 9.43. λογίζεσθε δὴ πρὸς θεῶν, τίς ἦν ποθ᾿ ἡ διάνοια τῶν Ἀθηναίων τῶν τότε ταῦτα ποιούντων, ἢ τί τὸ ἀξίωμα. ἐκεῖνοι Ζελείτην τινά, Ἄρθμιον, δοῦλον βασιλέως (ἡ γὰρ Ζέλειά ἐστι τῆς Ἀσίας), ὅτι τῷ δεσπότῃ διακονῶν χρυσίον ἤγαγεν εἰς Πελοπόννησον, οὐκ Ἀθήναζε, ἐχθρὸν αὑτῶν ἀνέγραψαν καὶ τῶν συμμάχων αὐτὸν καὶ γένος, καὶ ἀτίμους. 1034 318 And this is not the form of outlawry that people commonly speak of – for what would it matter to a Zeleian to be forbidden to participate in Athenian public life? But that is not what it means; rather, it is written in the laws of homicide, with regard to cases where prosecutions for homicide may not be brought, but one may kill without pollution: “and let the outlaw be killed.” This law means that anyone who has killed such a man shall be free from pollution. 1035 Rather than just shaming the Assembly, Demosthenes prescribes that this attitude should be held by the Assembly now against their internal enemies. The fiercest criticism is not directed against Philip, but against these internal traitors: These men thus thought it their duty to ensure the safety of all of Greece. For they would not have been concerned if someone was bribing and corrupting other people in the Peloponnese, unless they held this opinion; they sought to punish and take vengeance on those whom they detected, and thus they posted their names on a pillar. As a result, it is not surprising that the Greeks inspired fear in the foreigner, rather than the other way around. But this is not the case now, since you do not have the same attitude either towards such offences or towards others. 1036 This is key to their current situation and what Demosthenes has been arguing consistently since the First Philippic: the Assembly, in an attitude of apathy and self-interest has neglected (indeed, forgotten) their duty as Athenians, and in failing to act in a manner worthy Demosthenes 9.44. τοῦτο δ᾿ ἐστὶν οὐχ ἣν οὑτωσί τις ἂν φήσειεν ἀτιμίαν· τί γὰρ τῷ Ζελείτῃ τῶν Ἀθηναίων κοινῶν εἰ μὴ μεθέξειν ἔμελλεν; ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τοῖς φονικοῖς γέγραπται νόμοις, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν μὴ διδῷ δίκας φόνου δικάσασθαι, [ἀλλ᾿ εὐαγὲς ᾖ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι,] “καὶ ἄτιμος” φησὶ “τεθνάτω.” τοῦτο δὴ λέγει, καθαρὸν τὸν τούτων τιν᾿ ἀποκτείναντ᾿ εἶναι. On homicide law see MacDowell 1978: 109-122. Trevett 2011: 168 notes: pollution (miasma) was ‘thought by some to spread from killer to the community at large unless he was brought to justice, but a justifiable homicide did not give rise to it.’ See also Parker 1983: 104-43 on pollution and Gagarin 2002: 109-10; 1997: 22-3. 1035 Demosthenes 9.45 οὐκοῦν ἐνόμιζον ἐκεῖνοι τῆς πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων σωτηρίας αὑτοῖς ἐπιμελητέον εἶναι· οὐ γὰρ ἂν αὐτοῖς ἔμελεν εἴ τις ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ τινὰς ὠνεῖται καὶ διαφθείρει, μὴ τοῦθ᾿ ὑπολαμβάνουσιν· ἐκόλαζον δ᾿ οὕτω καὶ ἐτιμωροῦνθ᾿ οὓς αἴσθοιντο, ὥστε καὶ στηλίτας ποιεῖν. ἐκ δὲ τούτων εἰκότως τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἦν τῷ βαρβάρῳ φοβερά, οὐχ ὁ βάρβαρος τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. ἀλλ᾿ οὐ νῦν· οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἔχεθ᾿ ὑμεῖς οὔτε πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτ᾿ οὔτε πρὸς τἄλλα. 1036 319 of the city, they have failed to offer the same protection as their ancestors did to the Greeks, nor to Athens’ own interests. Their problems are not the product of Philip, but of their internal crisis of corruption through the rejection of core values that constitute Athenian identity. As such Philip has been given no reason to fear the Athenians by their actions, nor have the allies been given any reason to hope the Athenians will act; they have only been saved the worst as of yet because of the power of their ancestral reputation and the understanding of Athenian ideology in the wider social memory of fourth-century Greece. This, however, is fragile if not backed up by actions, and their own façade (as attested to in the Second Philippic and On the Chersonese is) is beginning to slip.1037 Thus their problems all come back to their lack of action and that this whole situation is self-inflicted. This loss of Athenian spirit has been the core theme of the speech(es). He finishes this account of the Athenians’ decree by focusing on their current attitude: ‘What then is your attitude? You know for yourselves – what need is there to criticise you over every detail? And all the other Greeks have a similar attitude and are no better than you. As a result, I assert that the present situation requires great energy and good counsel. What is my advice? Do you ask me to speak? And do you promise not to be angry with me?1038 In asking these ironic questions Demosthenes emphasises that the problem with the Assembly is precisely that they reject unflattering truths, and still choose comforting deception. Demosthenes too contrasts how wars were once fought against the Spartans in the open, but now cities are undone from within: Again, a self-inflicted crisis is a common trope when explaining defeats, cf. Plato Menexenus 243d, ‘we were not destroyed by others, but were rather the agents of our own destruction.’ 1037 Demosthenes 9.45-6. ἀλλὰ πῶς; [ἴστ᾿ αὐτοί· τί γὰρ δεῖ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν κατηγορεῖν; παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ οὐδὲν βέλτιον ὑμῶν ἅπαντες οἱ λοιποὶ Ἕλληνες· διόπερ φήμ᾿ ἔγωγε καὶ σπουδῆς πολλῆς καὶ βουλῆς ἀγαθῆς τὰ παρόντα πράγματα προσδεῖσθαι. τίνος;] εἴπω κελεύετε; καὶ οὐκ ὀργιεῖσθε; 1038 320 So old fashioned were they, or rather so like true citizens, that they did not buy anything from anybody, but war was fought according to custom and in the open. [49] Now, however, I dare say you see how most places are destroyed by traitors and how nothing results from the drawing up of armies in pitched battle. 1039 Drawing the focus away from Philip’s military strength as he did in the First Philippic, Demosthenes’ gaze turns inwards in asserting that success is now determined by the actions of traitors within the polis, and therefore, they are – whether they chose to recognise it or not – having war waged upon them both externally against their interests in the North and in the Black Sea region, and internally by those working in Philip’s interest. As argued previously, Athens’ enemies are hiding in plain sight within the Assembly and unrecognisable to the (blissfully) ignorant Assembly. Demosthenes stresses, ‘in addition to these advantages, he attacks those who are sick from internal dissension’, as now cities are destroyed by traitors manipulating internal crises. 1040 This continues the motif that the polis is sick and associated Demosthenes’ diagnosis of Athens from the Third Olynthiac with the earlier assertion that Philip visits those already sick and malignantly preys upon internal dissension. Moreover: No one is willing to go out to defend their territory on account of their mutual mistrust, and so he sets up his siege engines and lays siege to them – to say nothing of the fact that he makes no distinction between summer and winter and that there is no off season, when he leaves off fighting. 1041 Demosthenes 9.49. οὕτω δ’ ἀρχαίως εἶχον, μᾶλλον δὲ πολιτικῶς, ὥστ’ οὐδὲ χρημάτων ὠνεῖσθαι παρ’ οὐδενὸς οὐδέν, ἀλλ’ εἶναι νόμιμόν τινα καὶ προφανῆ τὸν πόλεμον. νυνὶ δ᾿ ὁρᾶτε μὲν δήπου τὰ πλεῖστα τοὺς προδότας ἀπολωλεκότας, οὐδὲν δ᾿ ἐκ παρατάξεως οὐδὲ μάχης γιγνόμενον· 1039 1040 Demosthenes 9.50. ἐπειδὰν δ᾿ ἐπὶ τούτοις πρὸς νοσοῦντας ἐν αὑτοῖς προσπέσῃ. Demosthenes 9.50. ἐπειδὰν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις πρὸς νοσοῦντας ἐν αὑτοῖς προσπέσῃ καὶ μηδεὶς ὑπὲρ τῆς χώρας δι᾽ ἀπιστίαν ἐξίῃ, μηχανήματ᾽ ἐπιστήσας πολιορκεῖ. καὶ σιωπῶ θέρος καὶ χειμῶνα, ὡς οὐδὲν διαφέρει, οὐδ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐξαίρετος ὥρα τις ἣν διαλείπει. 1041 321 In contrast to Philip’s initiative, and ability to utilise the seasons, Demosthenes presents the Athenians’ irrational judgement of choosing not to defend themselves but instead considering the recall their general on the spot. Demosthenes’ purpose is to shake the Assembly out of its delusion, to realise the folly of the Peace, and the imperative need to change their attitude within the Assembly. 1042 In full knowledge of these factors and taking due account of them, we must all prevent war from approaching our land, and must avoid being thrown to ground through contemplation of the simplicity of our previous war against the Spartans. Instead, we must defend ourselves from as great a distance as possible, by our actions and by our preparations, and be on watch in case he stirs from his home, and must avoid grappling with him in a decisive engagement. 1043 Such actions and preparations are long overdue, and will not come any time soon if the Assembly maintains the same attitude towards Philip, towards truthful advice, and their duty. Demosthenes implores them, as he has since the First Philippic, to act in defence of their own interests, as trying to uphold a peace that is one-sided is not only dangerously naïve, but tantamount to suicide. 1044 We have many natural advantages, men of Athens, for waging war – so long as we are willing to do our duty: the nature of his territory, much of which can be ravaged 1042 The purpose of this thesis is to view this according to Demosthenes, but for an account (and appreciation) of the reality of Philip’s strength and military prowess, see Worthington 2014. Demosthenes 9.51. ταῦτα μέντοι πάντας εἰδότας καὶ λογιζομένους οὐ δεῖ προσέσθαι τὸν πόλεμον εἰς τὴν χώραν, οὐδ᾿ εἰς τὴν εὐήθειαν τὴν τοῦ τότε πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους πολέμου βλέποντας ἐκτραχηλισθῆναι, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκ πλείστου φυλάττεσθαι τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ ταῖς παρασκευαῖς, ὅπως οἴκοθεν μὴ κινήσεται σκοποῦντας, οὐχὶ συμπλακέντας διαγωνίζεσθαι. 1043 1044 Indeed he warned throughout the Olynthiacs, that war shall come to Attica if they do not change their attitude and practices. 322 and damaged, and a host of others, but he is better suited than we are to the fighting of battles.1045 Again, it comes back to this same repeated argument from the start of the speech, and from the First Philippic and Olynthiacs, that they can do something about their situation, but only if they choose to do their duty. This concession that Philip’s forces are better suited to fighting battles also demonstrates the deterioration of their situation. This is not scaremongering, but a very real fact that Philip’s pro-active attitude and relentless campaigning constitutes a serious threat. But, it is one of their own creation, and thus they can halt Philip if they take the war to him before it is too late. To achieve this they must remove the traitors from their decision-making process. We must not only acknowledge this, and resist him through acts of war, but we must also make it our policy and be resolved to detest those who speak to you on his behalf, keeping in mind that it is not possible to defeat our city’s enemies until you punish those within the city itself who are their servants.1046 They must act, in short, as the ancestors did in the case of Arthmius, and acknowledge that their external issues are a direct result of their internal crisis, and that they cannot deal with the external threat until the internal one is resolved. This is also a repetition of his affirmation from On the Chersonese that ‘it is impossible, impossible I say, to defeat your enemies outside the city until you have punished your enemies in the city itself.’ 1047 This has been Demosthenes’ consistent stance throughout all the speeches: that they must deal, not only with the traitors within, but more importantly with their identity crisis which has caused the Demosthenes 9.52. πρὸς μὲν γὰρ πόλεμον πολλὰ φύσει πλεονεκτήμαθ᾿ ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει, ἄν περ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ποιεῖν ἐθέλωμεν ἃ δεῖ, ἡ φύσις τῆς ἐκείνου χώρας, ἧς ἄγειν καὶ φέρειν ἔστιν πολλὴν καὶ κακῶς ποιεῖν, ἄλλα μυρία· εἰς δ᾿ ἀγῶν᾿ ἄμεινον ἡμῶν ἐκεῖνος ἤσκηται. 1045 Demosthenes 9.53. Οὐ μόνον δὲ δεῖ ταῦτα γιγνώσκειν, οὐδὲ τοῖς ἔργοις ἐκεῖνον ἀμύνεσθαι τοῖς τοῦ πολέμου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ λογισμῷ καὶ τῇ διανοίᾳ τοὺς παρ᾿ ὑμῖν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντας μισῆσαι, ἐνθυμουμένους ὅτι οὐκ ἔνεστι τῶν τῆς πόλεως ἐχθρῶν κρατῆσαι, πρὶν ἂν τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πόλει κολάσηθ᾿ ὑπηρετοῦντας ἐκείνοις. 1046 Demosthenes 8.61 οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστι τῶν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως ἐχθρῶν κρατῆσαι, πρὶν ἂν τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πόλει κολάσητ᾿ ἐχθρούς. 1047 323 corruption of the Assembly and all subsequent crises. Without resolving these internal issues, they will never challenge anyone, let alone Philip. To emphasise this Demosthenes asserts that they are gripped by an internal madness: But this, by Zeus and the other gods, is something that you will be unable to do, since you have reached such a state of foolishness or madness or I do not know what to call it – I have often come to fear that some demon is driving our affairs – that out of a spirit of quarrelsomeness or envy, or for a joke, or for any other reason that might occur to you, you urge hired men to speak, some of whom would not even deny that they are hired, and you laugh if anyone attacks them. 1048 Demosthenes’ priority is to address the inversion of the Assembly, which is both sick and afflicted with delusional madness. With οὐκ ἔχω τί λέγω, Demosthenes demonstrates that the Athenians’ behaviour is so at odds with their identity that they are beyond comprehension and expression, adding to the dramatic effect when their situation does get worse: And this is not the really terrible thing, terrible though it is. For you have also permitted these men to participate in public life with more security than you give to those who speak in your interest. 1049 Repeating his complaint that we saw most recently in On the Chersonese 8.30-31 (but also strongly asserted in On the Peace and the Second Philippic), Demosthenes argues that they have allowed these men to participate and thrive in the Assembly to the detriment of others who attempt to speak in the best interest of Athens. Indeed, it is their refusal to recognise the intentions of speakers, and their hostility towards speakers such as Demosthenes, all with a view to maintaining their comforts, that has proven to be their downfall. Demosthenes 9.54. ὃ μὰ τὸν Δία καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς οὐ δυνήσεσθ᾿ ὑμεῖς ποιῆσαι, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τοῦτ᾿ ἀφῖχθε μωρίας ἢ παρανοίας ἢ οὐκ ἔχω τί λέγω (πολλάκις γὰρ ἔμοιγ᾿ ἐπελήλυθε καὶ τοῦτο φοβεῖσθαι, μή τι δαιμόνιον τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἐλαύνῃ), ὥστε λοιδορίας, φθόνου, σκώμματος, ἧστινος ἂν τύχηθ᾿ ἕνεκ᾿ αἰτίας ἀνθρώπους μισθωτούς, ὧν οὐδ᾿ ἂν ἀρνηθεῖεν ἔνιοι ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶ τοιοῦτοι, λέγειν κελεύετε, καὶ γελᾶτε, ἄν τισι λοιδορηθῶσιν. 1048 Demosthenes 9.55. καὶ οὐχί πω τοῦτο δεινόν, καίπερ ὂν δεινόν· ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ πλείονος ἀσφαλείας πολιτεύεσθαι δεδώκατε τούτοις ἢ τοῖς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν λέγουσιν. 1049 324 In my opinion, the problem Demosthenes addresses is unequivocally an internal one, and in their failure to address these issues, and their continual dismissal of Demosthenes’ own advice (most clearly expressed in On the Peace), they continue to suffer time and again. Here too he says ‘But observe how many disasters arise from a willingness to listen to such men. I shall tell you about events that will be familiar to you all.’ 1050 To this end, Demosthenes returns to narrating examples of recent events to validate (and vindicate) his own arguments. Not only does he demonstrate a pattern of decline across Greece, but calls the Assembly to logically deduce what will happen at Athens: Of those who took part in public life at Olynthus, some supported Philip and served him in all things, whereas others desired what was best for their city and acted to prevent the enslavement of their fellow-citizens. Which of these destroyed their native land? Which of them betrayed the cavalry, leading to the destruction of Olynthus? It was the men who supported Philip, who, while the city was still in existence, slandered and brought malicious prosecutions against those who were offering the best advice, as a result of which the Olynthian people were persuaded to exile Apollonides.’1051 Demosthenes uses Olynthus as an example of what is happening within Athens itself, and what will be their fate too if they do not address the corruption within. Moreover, he is again defining his own role against those of his opponents, and the failure of the Assembly to listen, thus warning of the dangers of ignoring the wise and well-intentioned advisor. Demosthenes 9.55. καίτοι θεάσασθ᾿ ὅσας συμφορὰς παρασκευάζει τὸ τῶν τοιούτων ἐθέλειν ἀκροᾶσθαι. λέξω δ᾿ ἔργ᾿ ἃ πάντες εἴσεσθε. 1050 Demosthenes 9.56. ἦσαν ἐν Ὀλύνθῳ τῶν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι τινὲς μὲν Φιλίππου καὶ πάνθ᾿ ὑπηρετοῦντες ἐκείνῳ, τινὲς δ᾿ οἱ τοῦ βελτίστου καὶ ὅπως μὴ δουλεύσουσιν οἱ πολῖται πράττοντες. πότεροι δὴ τὴν πατρίδ᾿ ἐξώλεσαν; ἢ πότεροι τοὺς ἱππέας προὔδοσαν, ὧν προδοθέντων Ὄλυνθος ἀπώλετο; οἱ τὰ Φιλίππου φρονοῦντες, καί ὅτ᾿ ἦν ἡ πόλις τοὺς τὰ βέλτιστα λέγοντας συκοφαντοῦντες καὶ διαβάλλοντες οὕτως, ὥστε τόν γ᾿ Ἀπολλωνίδην καὶ ἐκβαλεῖν ὁ δῆμος ὁ τῶν Ὀλυνθίων ἐπείσθη. Apollodorus [Dem.] Against Neaera 59.91 notes that Apollonides was going to be granted Athenian citizenship. Trevett 2011: 171 notes that ‘Apollonides was the leader of the proAthenian party at Olynthus.’ 1051 325 Furthermore, the Athenians had a duty to prevent the fall of Olynthus and failed, which had wider repercussions for the Greek world. In enabling Philip to grow and Olynthus to fall, Athens created a greater problem for Greece, and he notes how this ‘habit of mind’ had a chain effect of evils. Demosthenes presents Eretria as evidence: Nor is it that case that this habit of mind cause all sorts of evils only for these people and had no effect anywhere else. On the contrary, in Eretria, after Plutarchus and his mercenaries had been expelled, and the people held both the city and Porthmus, some of them wished to side with you and others with Philip. The wretched and unfortunate Eretrians listened to the latter for the most part, and were finally persuaded to exile those who were speaking in their interests. 1052 This last point resonates with Demosthenes’ complaint that the Athenians have been persuaded to reject both him and his advice, and they are (allegedly) too easily satisfied by mere rhetoric and thus fail to examine the intentions which lie beneath it. 1053 Any doubts on the outcomes of such internal corruption are removed by the fate of Eretria’s harbour Porthmus, and their delusion that Philip was an ally: For in fact their ally Philip, after sending Hipponicus with a thousand mercenaries, demolished the walls of Porthmus and set up three men as tyrants…since then he has twice already exiled from the territory of Eretria people who wanted to be saved, first by sending the mercenaries under Eurylochus, and then by sending those under Parmenion.1054 Demosthenes 9.57. οὐ τοίνυν παρὰ τούτοις μόνον τὸ ἔθος τοῦτο πάντα κάκ᾿ εἰργάσατο, ἄλλοθι δ᾿ οὐδαμοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Ἐρετρίᾳ, ἐπειδὴ ἀπαλλαγέντος Πλουτάρχου καὶ τῶν ξένων ὁ δῆμος εἶχε τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὸν Πορθμόν, οἱ μὲν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἦγον τὰ πράγματα, οἱ δ᾿ ἐπὶ Φίλιππον. ἀκούοντες δὲ τούτων τὰ πολλά, μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ πάνθ᾿ οἱ ταλαίπωροι καὶ δυστυχεῖς Ἐρετριεῖς τελευτῶντες ἐπείσθησαν τοὺς ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν λέγοντας ἐκβάλλειν. 1052 Cf. Roisman 2004: 263 ‘the notion of the dēmos’ moral superiority is implied even in the frequent claim that it had been misled by clever speakers who took advantage of the natural simplicity, goodness and magnanimity of the people, which blinded them from seeing other’s evil intentions.’ 1053 Demosthenes 9.58. καὶ γάρ τοι πέμψας Ἱππόνικον ὁ σύμμαχος αὐτοῖς Φίλιππος καὶ ξένους χιλίους, τὰ τείχη περιεῖλε τοῦ Πορθμοῦ καὶ τρεῖς κατέστησε τυράννους ... καὶ μετὰ ταῦτ᾿ ἐξελήλακεν ἐκ τῆς χώρας δὶς ἤδη βουλομένους σῴζεσθαι, [τότε μὲν πέμψας τοὺς μετ᾿ Εὐρυλόχου ξένους, πάλιν δὲ τοὺς μετὰ Παρμενίωνος]. 1054 326 Likewise, in Athens, the delusion that Philip is their ally has only one outcome, but the gratifying flattery of self-serving rhētors has persuaded the Assembly to neglect their affairs, and in heeding these men they left Athens dangerously vulnerable, as the loss of their possessions has demonstrated. To emphasise how it is internal corruption and the rejection of virtuous honest advisers which most threatens Athens, Demosthenes returns to his use of past exempla to didactically advise the present Assembly. Whilst Timotheus served to remind the Assembly of their own deliberative responsibilities in On the Chersonese, Demosthenes uses the patriot Euphraeus to show the consequences of rejecting his well-intentioned advice, whilst demonstrating hope that he believes the Athenians can still change. 1055 What need is there to speak at length? At Oreus Philistides, Menippus, Socrates, Thoas and Agapaeus acted for Philip; these men now possess the city, as everyone knew they would, but a man named Euphraeus, who once lived here among us, acted to try and ensure that they would be free and slaves to nobody. 1056 [60] This man – and much could be said about the other ways in which he was insulted and treated with contempt by the people – in the year before the city fell charged Philistides and his supporters with treason, since he saw what they were up to. But many men banded together, with Philip as paymaster and controller, and took Euphraeus off to prison, claiming that he was throwing the city into disorder. 1057 Due to its importance in Demosthenes’ argument and his own self-fashioning I shall quote the passage in full. For a detailed discussion of the political significance of Euphraeus see Trampedach 1994: 93-7. 1055 Demosthenes 9.59. καὶ τί δεῖ τὰ πολλὰ λέγειν; ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Ὠρεῷ Φιλιστίδης μὲν ἔπραττε Φιλίππῳ καὶ Μένιππος καὶ Σωκράτης καὶ Θόας καὶ Ἀγαπαῖος, οἵπερ νῦν ἔχουσι τὴν πόλιν (καὶ ταῦτ᾿ ᾔδεσαν ἅπαντες), Εὐφραῖος δέ τις ἄνθρωπος καὶ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ποτ᾿ ἐνθάδ᾿ οἰκήσας, ὅπως ἐλεύθεροι καὶ μηδενὸς δοῦλοι ἔσονται. Sandys 1913:234 notes that ‘καὶ τί δεῖ τὰ πολλὰ λέγειν; is a ‘formula of transition, giving prominence to one fact out of many.’ On ‘ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Ὠρεῷ Φιλιστίδης μὲν ἔπραττε Φιλίππῳ’ Sandys 1913: 234 also notes a comparison to Thucydides 5.76.3, 4.106.2 and 8.5.3. 1056 Demosthenes 9.60. οὗτος τὰ μὲν ἄλλ᾿ ὡς ὑβρίζετο καὶ προὐπηλακίζεθ᾿ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, πόλλ᾿ ἂν εἴη λέγειν· ἐνιαυτῷ δὲ πρότερον τῆς ἁλώσεως ἐνέδειξεν ὡς προδότην τὸν Φιλιστίδην καὶ τοὺς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, αἰσθόμενος ἃ πράττουσιν. συστραφέντες δ᾿ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ καὶ χορηγὸν ἔχοντες Φίλιππον καὶ πρυτανευόμενοι ἀπάγουσι τὸν 1057 327 [61] When they saw this, the people of Oreus, instead of helping the one and cudgelling the others to death, did not get angry with them, but said that Euphraeus deserved his suffering, and were glad about it. Later one party began to act in perfect freedom to ensure that the city would be seized, and started to arrange the deed; and any member of the majority who noticed what was happening kept silent and was intimidated, recalling what kinds of things Euphraeus had suffered. They were in such a wretched condition that no one dared speak out, as such an evil drew near, until their enemies had equipped themselves and approached the city walls. At that point some resisted, but others turned traitor.1058 Likewise, Demosthenes states that certain rhētors can speak with impunity within Athens, and his advice has been the victim of hostile rejection, and he himself accused of warmongering. He also insinuates here that the Assembly are cowards if they continue to refute his truths when all the evidence supports his assertion that the Peace is a farce. Demosthenes continues: After the city was captured in this shameful and evil way, the one group has been ruling it as tyrants, after exiling some and killing others of the men who at that time had been prepared to protect them and to do all manner of harm to Euphraeus, while the admirable Euphraeus killed himself, thereby demonstrating that he had resisted Philip, acting with justice and honesty, on behalf of his fellow citizens.1059 Εὐφραῖον εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον, ὡς συνταράττοντα τὴν πόλιν. Sandys 1913: 235 observes how ἀπάγουσι ‘summarily arrest’ is ‘another term of Attic law (Meier and Schömann 1.c.), here applied to a lawless action.’ Demosthenes 9.59-61. ὁρῶν δὲ ταῦθ᾿ ὁ δῆμος ὁ τῶν Ὠρειτῶν, ἀντὶ τοῦ τῷ μὲν βοηθεῖν, τοὺς δ᾿ ἀποτυμπανίσαι, τοῖς μὲν οὐκ ὠργίζετο, τὸν δ᾿ ἐπιτήδειον ταῦτα παθεῖν ἔφη καὶ ἐπέχαιρεν. μετὰ ταῦθ᾿ οἱ μὲν ἐπ᾿ ἐξουσίας ὁπόσης ἐβούλοντ᾿ ἔπραττον ὅπως ἡ πόλις ληφθήσεται, καὶ κατεσκευάζοντο τὴν πρᾶξιν· τῶν δὲ πολλῶν εἴ τις αἴσθοιτο, ἐσίγα καὶ κατεπέπληκτο, τὸν Εὐφραῖον οἷ᾿ ἔπαθε μεμνημένοι. οὕτω δ᾿ ἀθλίως διέκειντο, ὥστ᾿ οὐ πρότερον ἐτόλμησεν οὐδεὶς τοιούτου κακοῦ προσιόντος ῥῆξαι φωνήν, πρὶν διασκευασάμενοι πρὸς τὰ τείχη προσῄεσαν οἱ πολέμιοι· τηνικαῦτα δ᾿ οἱ μὲν ἠμύνοντο, οἱ δὲ προὐδίδοσαν. On apotumpanismos as hypothetical brutal punishment, see Todd 2000: 42, and discussion in Chapter 4.2 on Demosthenes 8.61 p. 261. 1058 Demosthenes 9.62. τῆς πόλεως δ᾿ οὕτως ἁλούσης αἰσχρῶς καὶ κακῶς οἱ μὲν ἄρχουσι καὶ τυραννοῦσι, τοὺς τότε σῴζοντας ἑαυτοὺς καὶ τὸν Εὐφραῖον ἑτοίμους ὁτιοῦν ποιεῖν ὄντας τοὺς μὲν ἐκβαλόντες, τοὺς δ᾿ 1059 328 Given his earlier references to justice and honesty, Demosthenes may be using Euphraeus to narrate his own treatment by the Assembly. Euphraeus serves as a warning for the Athenians if they continue to ignore advice, but also smears Demosthenes’ opponents as Philip’s collaborators.1060 It is, therefore, in his and Athens’ best interests to speak the truth and suffer, rather than to corrupt his and their honour. 1061 The suicide of Euphraeus mirrors Demosthenes’ own statement that ‘in any event it would be better to die ten thousand times than to do anything out of flattery for Philip, or to abandon any of those who speak in your interests.’1062 The villain in this is not primarily Philip, but rather the enemies within who enable his success, and the shame is directed at the cowardice of the people. In this Demosthenes’ method again has parallels to the epitaphic tradition, which praises the courage of the fallen and ‘admonishes them [the audience] to emulate the courage of the dead.’ 1063 All of these episodes have been to the end of exposing the reality of the situation to the Assembly, and the damage caused by rejecting the best advice: Perhaps you are wondering what possible reason induced the people of Olynthus and Eretria and Oreus to pay more attention to those who were speaking in Philip’s interests than to those who were speaking in their own. This is the case with you too: those who advocate the best policy are not always able to win your favour, even if they want to, since they are obliged to examine affairs of state and how to provide ἀποκτείναντες, ὁ δ᾿ Εὐφραῖος ἐκεῖνος ἀπέσφαξεν ἑαυτόν ὑπὲρ τῶν πολιτῶν ἀνθειστήκει Φιλίππῳ. Sandys 1913: 236 observes on ἔργῳ μαρτυρήσας ὅτι καὶ δικαίως καὶ καθαρῶς that it is ‘from pure and disinterested motives’. Roisman 2006: 128 ‘Demosthenes’ aims in this quasi-allegorical story are to cast himself as a patriotic democrat and malign those who opposite confronting Philip as the king’s intentional or unwitting collaborators in pandering to their audience.’ 1060 Parallels can be drawn again to the epitaphic tradition. See Lysias 2.33 ‘they decided that freedom accompanied by bravery and poverty and exile was better than the enslavement of their fatherland with wealth and shame.’ 1061 Demosthenes 9.65. τεθνάναι δὲ μυριάκις κρεῖττον ἢ κολακείᾳ τι ποιῆσαι Φιλίππου [καὶ προέσθαι τῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν λεγόντων τινάς]. Cf. Lysias 2.62 ‘They preferred death with freedom to life with slavery.’ 1062 Christ 2006: 126. He notes, ‘the epitaphioi bestow praise on the war dead for not turning away from danger (Thucydides 2.40.4), not playing the coward (2.42.4); not being too fond of life (Lysias 2.250).’ 1063 329 security; whereas the others are collaborating with Philip through the very things by which they win your favour. 1064 Thus, in his reference to Oreus, Demosthenes has created a cascade of analogies: if Oreos is like Athens, then the polis, and Euphraeus’ Athenian counterpart Demosthenes, are similarly in danger.1065 The internal corruption of the Assembly and their manipulation by the flattering rhetoric of self-serving rhētors has been a consistent focus in Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches. With Euphraeus in mind, Demosthenes compares his own parrhēsia to the advice of his opponents with his key complaint against popular rhetoric and its practitioners, but also the weakness of the Assembly for indulging them. Demosthenes does not just use the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric to discredit these rhētors, but condemns the Assembly for being persuaded by flattery to endorse the wrong policy. Demosthenes attempts to motivate the Assembly into action by accusing Oreus of surrender as it was the masses that endorsed these popular proposals: One group said what would make themselves popular; the other said what would lead to safety. But many things, including the last, were approved by the majority not so much as a favour or out of ignorance but out of resignation, since they believed that they were being utterly defeated. This, by Zeus and Apollo, is just what I fear may happen to you, if when you consider the matter, you conclude there is nothing left for you to do. I pray, men of Athens, that our affairs never reach that state! 1066 Demosthenes 9.63. τί οὖν ποτ᾿ αἴτιον, θαυμάζετ᾿ ἴσως, τὸ καὶ τοὺς Ὀλυνθίους καὶ τοὺς Ἐρετριέας καὶ τοὺς Ὠρείτας ἥδιον πρὸς τοὺς ὑπὲρ Φιλίππου λέγοντας ἔχειν ἢ τοὺς ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν; ὅπερ καὶ παρ᾿ ὑμῖν, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν ὑπὲρ τοῦ βελτίστου λέγουσιν οὐδὲ βουλομένοις ἔνεστιν ἐνίοτε πρὸς χάριν οὐδὲν εἰπεῖν· τὰ γὰρ πράγματ᾿ ἀνάγκη σκοπεῖν ὅπως σωθήσεται· οἱ δ᾿ ἐν αὐτοῖς οἷς χαρίζονται Φιλίππῳ συμπράττουσιν. Usher 1999: 241 calls this a ‘chilling parallel’, between Athens and Oreus. 1064 1065 Which, again, following Balot 2004 would suggest that his parrhēsia is a form of civic courage. Demosthenes 9.64-5. οἱ μὲν ἐφ᾿ οἷς χαριοῦνται, ταῦτ᾿ ἔλεγον, οἱ δ᾿ ἐξ ὧν ἔμελλον σωθήσεσθαι. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα οὐχ οὕτως οὔτε πρὸς χάριν οὔτε δι᾿ ἄγνοιαν οἱ πολλοὶ προσίεντο, ἀλλ᾿ ὑποκατακλινόμενοι, ἐπειδὴ τοῖς ὅλοις ἡττᾶσθαι ἐνόμιζον. ὃ νὴ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν Ἀπόλλω δέδοικ᾿ ἐγὼ μὴ πάθηθ᾿ ὑμεῖς, ἐπειδὰν εἰδῆτ᾿ ἐκλογιζόμενοι μηδὲν ὑμῖν ἐνόν. καίτοι μὴ γένοιτο μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰ πράγματ᾿ ἐν τούτῳ· Demosthenes’ reference to their resignation also draws its own parallel to the epitaphic tradition where the Athenian ancestors, in contrast, were never resigned to barbarian subjugation, such as Lysias 2.23, the Ancestors ‘were ashamed that the 1066 330 Thus, like Demosthenes’ earlier self-citation of his address to the Messenians, recalling the events at Oreus functions as a didactic cautionary tale, and appeals to the Assembly to recognise the parallels of their own situation and follow Demosthenes’ honest parrhēsia. Indeed, in this torrential speech Demosthenes seeks any strategy to make the Athenians drop their pretence of peace: if serving their own best interests, or doing their moral duty, or shaming them into action was not enough to change their attitudes, he then shatters any futile hopes that anything can be gained from betraying the polis: It is a fine return that the majority at Oreus have received, for entrusting themselves to the friendship of Philip and exiling Euphraeus! [66] Equally fine is the return for the people of Eretria, who drove away your ambassadors and entrusted themselves to Clitarchus: now they are slaves, subject to whippings and killings! How nobly did Philip spare the Olynthians who elected Lasthenes cavalry commander and exiled Apollonides! [67] It was folly and wickedness to cherish such hopes, as it is for those who follow bad advice and are utterly unwilling to do their duty, but pay attention to those who speak in their enemies’ interests, to imagine that the city they inhabit is so great that it cannot suffer any disaster at all. 1067 Directly challenging those in Athens supporting Philip, Demosthenes reveals in these examples how the fallacy of a benevolent Philip will backfire on the traitors as much as the polis itself, as they have been deceived as much as they have misled the Assembly. 1068 barbarians were within their territory, and so did not stay to learn whether any allies would help them’, but went to the fight. Demosthenes 9.65-7. καλήν γ᾿ οἱ πολλοὶ νῦν ἀπειλήφασιν Ὠρειτῶν χάριν, ὅτι τοῖς Φιλίππου φίλοις ἐπέτρεψαν αὑτούς, τὸν δ᾿ Εὐφραῖον ἐώθουν· καλήν γ᾿ ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἐρετριέων, ὅτι τοὺς μὲν ὑμετέρους πρέσβεις ἀπήλασε, Κλειτάρχῳ δ᾿ ἐνέδωκεν αὑτόν· δουλεύουσί γε μαστιγούμενοι καὶ σφαττόμενοι. καλῶς Ὀλυνθίων ἐφείσατο τῶν τὸν μὲν Λασθένην ἵππαρχον χειροτονησάντων, τὸν δ᾿ Ἀπολλωνίδην ἐκβαλόντων. μωρία καὶ κακία τὰ τοιαῦτ᾿ ἐλπίζειν, καὶ κακῶς βουλευομένους καὶ μηδὲν ὧν προσήκει ποιεῖν ἐθέλοντας, ἀλλὰ τῶν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν λεγόντων ἀκροωμένους, τηλικαύτην ἡγεῖσθαι πόλιν οἰκεῖν τὸ μέγεθος ὥστε <μηδέν>, μηδ᾿ ἂν ὁτιοῦν ᾖ, δεινὸν πείσεσθαι. 1067 1068 Demosthenes 9.56-7 can be read with 8.40 in mind where Demosthenes presented the fate of Lasthenes and Euthycrates, who sold out Olynthus. 331 Moreover, he reminds them yet again that things can only deteriorate if they continue to follow bad advice and refuse to do their duty. Indeed, his remarks that they believe themselves untouchable, is not a critical reflection on democracy but rather that the polis can only function as a democracy when its citizens embody the values and virtues (such as isegoria and parrhēsia) to preserve it. As argued in the Second Philippic, the polis relies on its citizens to maintain the virtues which underpin democratic institutions. Essentially, Demosthenes calls on the Athenians to be Athenian (in words and deeds), for the sake of Athens itself. Given what has happened elsewhere, it would be negligent and naïve to be surprised if what happened at Olynthus and Oreus happened in Athens: This at any rate is shameful, to say after the event: “who would have thought that such things could happen? We should have done this thing or that, and not the other.” The Olynthians could tell you many things now: if they had known them at the time, they would not have been destroyed. There are many things too that the people of Oreus could tell you, and the Phocians, and the people of every city that has been destroyed.1069 And it is in light of this knowledge that Demosthenes presents his hope that Athens will not suffer the same fate as these places, but this is dependent upon them acting upon his advice, and shaking off their apathy and detrimental practices within the Assembly. Their fate will be determined, not by Philip, but within their own Assembly, and they will be defeated, not by Philip, but by their own errors. 1070 Demosthenes returns to his ‘kairos rhetoric’, now is the time to act, before it is too late: Demosthenes 9.68. καὶ μὴν ἐκεῖνό γ᾿ αἰσχρόν, ὕστερόν ποτ᾿ εἰπεῖν “τίς γὰρ ἂν ᾠήθη ταῦτα γενέσθαι; νὴ τὸν Δί᾿, ἔδει γὰρ τὸ καὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι καὶ τὸ μὴ ποιῆσαι.” πόλλ᾿ ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοιεν Ὀλύνθιοι νῦν, ἃ τότ᾿ εἰ προείδοντο, οὐκ ἂν ἀπώλοντο· πόλλ᾿ ἂν Ὠρεῖται, πολλὰ Φωκεῖς, πολλὰ τῶν ἀπολωλότων ἕκαστοι. 1069 1070 Again, parallels can be drawn to the epitaphioi logoi at Menexenus 243d; Thucydides 2.65.12. 332 But what good is this to them now? While the boat can still be saved, whether it is large or a small one, that is the time for the sailor and the steersmen and everyone on board to be energetic, and to be on their guard to prevent anyone, wittingly or unwittingly, from capsizing it. Once the sea overwhelms it, their effort is useless.1071 Thus now: In the same way, what are we to do, men of Athens, while we are still safe and have a very great city, with many assets and an excellent reputation? …By Zeus, I will tell you, and I shall propose a resolution on which you will be able to vote, if you so desire.’1072 Repeating his proposals from the First Philippic, Demosthenes recommends: First, I say, we must defend ourselves and make our preparations in person, with triremes and money and troops. Even if everyone else submits to be enslaved, we at least must fight for liberty!1073 Demosthenes uses provocative and emotive language, aims to shame the Assembly into action, and repeats his call for the Athenians to man and fund their military expeditions. He continues After making these preparations in person and in the open let us then call upon others, and send out ambassadors to instruct people in every direction – to the Peloponnese, to Rhodes, to Chios, and to the King, since it is in his interests not to allow this man to overturn everything – so that you succeed in persuading them you will have people Demosthenes 9.69. ἀλλὰ τί τούτων ὄφελος αὐτοῖς; ἕως ἂν σῴζηται τὸ σκάφος, ἄν τε μεῖζον ἄν τ᾿ ἔλαττον ᾖ, τότε χρὴ καὶ ναύτην καὶ κυβερνήτην καὶ πάντ᾿ ἄνδρ᾿ ἑξῆς προθύμους εἶναι, καὶ ὅπως μήθ᾿ ἑκὼν μήτ᾿ ἄκων μηδεὶς ἀνατρέψει, τοῦτο σκοπεῖσθαι· ἐπειδὰν δ᾿ ἡ θάλαττα ὑπέρσχῃ, μάταιος ἡ σπουδή. 1071 Demosthenes 9.70. καὶ ἡμεῖς τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἕως ἐσμὲν σῷοι, πόλιν μεγίστην ἔχοντες, ἀφορμὰς πλείστας, ἀξίωμα κάλλιστον, τί ποιῶμεν; ... ἐγὼ νὴ Δί᾿ ἐρῶ, καὶ γράψω δέ, ὥστ᾿ ἂν βούλησθε χειροτονήσετε. Usher 1999: 241 n 235 argues that this ‘parable is a simile converted into a story. This one may be the first in Greek oratory.’ The analogy of a ship is also used by Plato at Republic 488a-e to describe the dangers of rejecting those with true knowledge/expertise for those who display rhetorical skill in winning and subduing. 1072 Demosthenes 9.70. αὐτοὶ πρῶτον ἀμυνόμενοι καὶ παρασκευαζόμενοι, τριήρεσι καὶ χρήμασι καὶ στρατιώταις λέγω· καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἅπαντες δήπου δουλεύειν συγχωρήσωσιν οἱ ἄλλοι, ἡμῖν γ᾿ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἀγωνιστέον· 1073 333 to share both the risks and the costs, if you need anything; and even if you do not succeed, you may at any rate delay his plans. 1074 Again, as in the First Philippic, Demosthenes calls on the Athenians to be seen by the wider community to be acting in their own best interests. In this manner he again refers to the master narrative and Persian War rhetoric where he calls on the Athenians to once more be a beacon to galvanise the Greeks. Demosthenes calls the Assembly to reclaim both their reputation and their traditional role in Greece, by addressing the balance of power and the dominance of Philip’s Realpolitik caused by their own apathy. The only way to victory is through first acknowledging they are at war and not walking blindly into slavery, and secondly to emulate their previous actions. Moreover, the embassies that Demosthenes had undertaken have proven to be effective and have shown that Philip can be checked, if his agents are not able to manipulate the internal dissension that, in Demosthenes’ opinion, destabilises the polis and enables Philip’s success, and that ‘as a result of which we forced Philip to stop and prevented him from attacking Ambracia or invading the Peloponnese.’ 1075 It is not inevitable that Athens will fall like the other States, but abandoning the Chersonese and by attacking those who advocate defence will not facilitate this. What is inevitable, however, is their undoing if they refuse to acknowledge the reality that Philip is at war with them, and if they maintain this damaging apathetic attitude. If they do not deal with their internal issues, reject the traitors, and reclaim their identity by doing their duty, bridging the gap between their words and their actions, Athens will fall. Demosthenes beseeches them to see the reality of the situation, as he sees it, and to make their policies, both foreign and domestic, address this reality. Demosthenes 9.71. ταῦτα δὴ πάντ᾿ αὐτοὶ παρεσκευασμένοι καὶ ποιήσαντες φανερὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ἤδη παρακαλῶμεν, καὶ τοὺς ταῦτα διδάξοντας ἐκπέμπωμεν πρέσβεις πανταχοῖ, εἰς Πελοπόννησον, εἰς Ῥόδον, εἰς Χίον, ὡς βασιλέα λέγω (οὐδὲ γὰρ τῶν ἐκείνῳ συμφερόντων ἀφέστηκε τὸ μὴ τοῦτον ἐᾶσαι πάντα καταστρέψασθαι), ἵν᾿ ἐὰν μὲν πείσητε, κοινωνοὺς ἔχητε καὶ τῶν κινδύνων καὶ τῶν ἀναλωμάτων, ἄν τι δέῃ, εἰ δὲ μή, χρόνους γ᾿ ἐμποιῆτε τοῖς πράγμασιν. 1074 1075 Demosthenes 9.72. 334 As I have argued since in the First Philippic, Demosthenes holds a mirror up to the Athenians, to reflect their current behaviours, to see the façade they delude themselves with and instead act in a manner worthy of the city. To this end, they must make an Athenian effort, as he has stressed since the First Philippic, not delegated to others, but a new resolve to act efficiently in their own best interests. It is a task that only they can perform, but they must choose to do it: 1076 I do not urge you to summon others, when you are unwilling to take any necessary steps yourselves, since it would be foolish to claim to care for other people’s affairs when you neglect your own. 1077 Demosthenes implores them to act with sincerity and conviction, and this is essentially the same argument from the First Philippic: that they have caused their current situation by an attitude of neglect. In 351, by not acting the Athenians lost areas of vital interest, Amphipolis, Potidaea, Methone, and Pydna. With the hindsight of 341, they only went on to lose more. Nevertheless, Athens’ situation is crucially different in certain key respects: Philip’s position is now undisputed in Greece, the Athenians conceded Amphipolis in the Peace of Philocrates, and their ally Olynthus was emphatically defeated. It is no longer the case that Athens merely created a political vacuum for any opportunist power to take advantage of – they have witnessed what has happened when a proactive military genius acts with purpose and conviction. Indeed, the confidence of the First Philippic, the reassurance that Athens could correct the situation by simply acting, has now been replaced with a sombre finality, that ‘the Athenians must learn from the fates of other and wake up to the deadly threat of Philip.’ 1078 1076 Noting again that the epitaphioi logoi assert that true Athenians are never compelled to do their duty by anything other than their honour. They are virtuous by the volition of their actions. Demosthenes 9.73. οὐ μέντοι λέγω μηδὲν αὐτοὺς ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀναγκαῖον ἐθέλοντας ποιεῖν, τοὺς ἄλλους παρακαλεῖν· καὶ γὰρ εὔηθες τὰ οἰκεῖ᾿ αὐτοὺς προϊεμένους τῶν ἀλλοτρίων φάσκειν κήδεσθαι. 1077 1078 Trevett 2011: 154. 335 Despite the change of circumstances, I maintain that Demosthenes’ first priority in the speeches since the First Philippic has been to confront the neglect he notes here in 9.73 – and not a systematic policy against Philip. This constant focus on addressing Athens’ internal crisis indeed culminates in his scathing ‘wretched Macedonian’ attack; the purpose of which was to shame the Greeks, not merely insult Philip. As discussed in the introduction, scholars have understood the purpose of the speeches in a very different way, i.e. as a policy against Philip. I instead argue that Demosthenes views Philip as a product of their internal corruption and apathy – a secondary crisis which cannot be resolved until they acknowledge their internal issues. They must, therefore, safeguard the Chersonese immediately. Having told them it would be foolish to claim to care for others interests when they have neglected their own, he likewise states he is not telling them to: Overlook your present predicament and worry about what others will do in the future. That is not what I urge. But I do say that you should send funds to those who are in the Chersonese and should do whatever else they ask, and make your own preparations, and summon, gather, inform, and warn the other Greeks: this is the duty of a city with as great a reputation as ours. 1079 Demosthenes’ argument to send funds dovetails with his arguments in On the Chersonese that they should be supporting Diopeithes rather than potentially indicting him; his call to make preparations also returns to his constant request to do so since the First Philippic. And in asserting their duty, and their ancestral reputation, Demosthenes makes a rejection of his proposals a rejection of their Athenian heritage, stating that, ‘it is up to you to act: your ancestors won this prize, having faced many great dangers in doing so, and bequeathed it do Demosthenes 9.73. καὶ τὰ παρόντα περιορῶντας ὑπὲρ τῶν μελλόντων τοὺς ἄλλους φοβεῖν. οὐ λέγω ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν ἐν Χερρονήσῳ χρήματ᾿ ἀποστέλλειν φημὶ δεῖν καὶ τἄλλ᾿ ὅσ᾿ ἀξιοῦσι ποιεῖν, αὐτοὺς δὲ παρασκευάζεσθαι, τοὺς δ᾿ ἄλλους Ἕλληνας συγκαλεῖν, συνάγειν, διδάσκειν, νουθετεῖν· ταῦτ᾿ ἐστὶ πόλεως ἀξίωμ᾿ ἐχούσης ἡλίκον ὑμῖν ὑπάρχει. 1079 336 you.’1080 As argued earlier, they cannot rely on others to act as the Chalcideans and Megarians ‘will be content if they are saved themselves.’ 1081 The other Greeks, as history has shown, have a tendency to bow to vice and power; Demosthenes presents the Athenians with a simple choice, between duty or neglect, between virtue or vice, freedom and slavery, and action or apathy: But if every one of you sits around following his own desires and trying to avoid having to do anything himself, first he will never find anyone who will take action, and then I fear that we may be forced to take every kind of undesirable measure, all at the same time.1082 Demosthenes’ message has been consistent: if they continue to refuse to act war will be thrust upon them. And it will be all the more shameful as they will be forced to act, rather than doing their duty of their own volition, which should be the instinctive motivation of each Athenian citizen. The purpose of the speech – of all the speeches – is to drive the message home that they must shake off their apathy, and act as (according to Athenian ideology) only Athenians can. If they do not do this, then there is no hope that anyone else will, and there is no hope for their democracy to survive. Demosthenes’ conclusion is brief and simple: This then is my speech; these are my proposals. If they are put into effect, I believe that even now our fortunes may be restored…whatever you decide – all you gods! – may it be to our advantage!1083 1080 Demosthenes 9.74. Demosthenes 9.74. This comment on the Megarians would suggest that Demosthenes’ proxeny decree IG ii2 231 (discussed in Lambert 2012: 249-272) is later than this speech. 1081 Demosthenes 9.75. εἰ δ᾿ ὃ βούλεται ζητῶν ἕκαστος καθεδεῖται, καὶ ὅπως μηδὲν αὐτὸς ποιήσει σκοπῶν, πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲ μή ποθ᾿ εὕρῃ τοὺς ποιήσοντας, ἔπειτα δέδοιχ᾿ ὅπως μὴ πάνθ᾿ ἅμ᾿ ὅσ᾿ οὐ βουλόμεθα ποιεῖν ἡμῖν ἀνάγκη γενήσεται. 1082 Demosthenes 9.76. ἐγὼ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα λέγω, ταῦτα γράφω· καὶ οἴομαι καὶ νῦν ἔτ᾿ ἐπανορθωθῆναι ἂν τὰ πράγματα τούτων γιγνομένων... ὅ τι δ᾿ ὑμῖν δόξει, τοῦτ᾿, ὦ πάντες θεοί, συνενέγκοι. 1083 337 Demosthenes’ hope rests on the power of Athenian ideology, and that in acting in a manner worthy of the city by upholding the virtues which underpin Athenian identity, they will resolve the internal corruption which currently paralyses their decision-making process making them vulnerable to any external threat. Conclusion I maintain that, despite the vastly altered political landscape in 341, certain aspects of what I have defined as Demosthenes’ core arguments (e.g. to act with conviction, the rejection of parrhēsia) have not fundamentally altered since the First Philippic. Demosthenes prime argument has been to repeatedly assert that Athens’ current misfortunes are a direct result of their failure to act effectively to stop Macedonian expansion at the cost of their own interests. I argue that Demosthenes attributes this failure to an internal crisis within the Assembly: a corruption of their decision-making processes caused by self-serving rhētors and by the Assembly’s own attitude towards advice. As Demosthenes asserted in On the Chersonese, the Athenians cannot hope to resolve their external issues, without resolving their internal crisis, which Demosthenes has consistently presented as resulting from a loss of core Athenian values. As I have shown, attacks upon Philip’s character initially diminished him as a threat, and later became devices to criticise the behaviour of the Greeks, and in particular the Athenians. In neglecting the virtues which defined their identity, Demosthenes insists that the Athenians lost that which made them resistant to the external threats of Persia and of Macedonia. It is against the shame of being subjugated by Philip that Demosthenes directs his indignation, and his anger is reserved for the enemies within Athens, and the Assembly for acting in a manner so antithetical to Athenian ideology. It is this corruption of their internal decision-making process, this internal crisis, which Demosthenes priorities in the speech: to make the Athenians reflect self-critically 338 recognise their damaging behaviour and act in their best interests. Now, as in the First Philippic, their problems can still be dealt with if the Athenians shake off their apathy and choose to act. Their decision to repeatedly squander any and all opportunities demonstrates both a lack of priorities and their failure to listen to Demosthenes’ Olynthiacs, despite the vindication of his arguments by subsequent events. His condemnation of those who stood by and allowed the mistreatment of the democratic patriot Euphraeus, likewise serves as a condemnation of those who treat Demosthenes’ parrhēsia with hostility. As in On the Chersonese, Demosthenes asserts that the greatest threat to Athens is its own self-sabotaging attitude, and that it is imperative that the Athenians recognise their own accountability for Macedonian expansion into Greece, and act in a manner worthy of their ideology. Rather than accepting the gradual erosion of their interests, Demosthenes acts in a manner similar to the epitaphioi logoi, reminding the Assembly that – as Athenian citizens – they have a duty to act in the defence of Greek freedom, and that to not act against those who advocate peace with Philip would inflict irrevocable damage on the polis.1084 Over the last decade, Demosthenes’ proposals have remained unchanged: he calls the Athenians to act, in person, and to fund their expeditions, thus demonstrating the strength of their convictions to the rest of the Greek world. Demosthenes holds the same mirror to the Assembly as he did in 351, calling on the Assembly to reflect self-critically on the damage caused by their refusal to acknowledge their own culpability. Now, however, unlike in 351, Such as Lysias 2.33 the ancestors ‘decided that freedom accompanied by bravery and poverty and exile was better than the enslavement of their fatherland with wealth and shame.’ Lysias 2.62, ‘they preferred death with freedom to life with slavery.’ Plato Menexenus 246d, ‘for the person who brings shame on his own family, we think, life is not worth living; such a person has no friend – neither among mankind nor amond the gods, neither on earth nor under the earth when he is dead.’ Thucydides 2.43, ‘So and such they were, these men – worthy of their city. We who remain behind may hope to be spared their fate, but must resolve to keep the same daring spirit against the foe.’ 1084 339 the Athenians were in a physical and emotional position to finally accept his parrhēsia and act.1085 Worthington 2008: 127 notes ‘Demosthenes’ speeches [8 and 9] were wildly successful in the now emotionally charged atmosphere in which the Athenians were living.’ Usher 1999: 237 notes their success ‘sets them apart from most of the deliberative oratory that he had hitherto addressed to the Athenians.’ 1085 340 CONCLUSION THE MIRROR OF DEMOSTHENES Truth is like poetry, and most people fucking hate poetry. 1086 Periods of crisis are often characterised by accusations of hostility towards inconvenient truth, particularly when it involves hard truths characteristic of parrhēsia.1087 Despite parrhēsia being valued ideologically in the self-image of the Athenian dēmos, in practice it often asserted unwelcome and uncomfortable realities. As Isocrates notes in To Nicocles while people praised the moralising poetry of Hesiod, Theognis and Phocylides, in practice it was the last thing they would choose to hear. 1088 In The Big Short, Dr Michael Burry looked where the banking establishment had conveniently turned a blind eye, and was ridiculed for his (accurate) assessment that there was a bubble in the housing market, and that a crash was inevitable. Despite operating in a flawed system which was undermining itself from within, the ‘big banks’ of America rejected any notion that their comfortable and seemingly indestructible world was in fact a ticking time-bomb created by their own corruption. Despite the fact that Dr Burry presented irrefutable figures, his truth was resented and rejected by an arrogant banking system that did not, could not, or would not acknowledge the reality of the situation, despite their own ability to see the logic of his deductions. It is arguably an aspect of human nature to avoid the honest truth, both of ourselves and our situation, especially if it is a truth we would rather avoid, as Demosthenes notes, ‘it is 1086 This phrase was overheard in a Washington DC bar by Michael Lewis, the writer of the book The Big Short published in 2010 and now a film (2015), which centred on the housing bubble of the mid 2000s and the refusal of the banks to acknowledge the inevitable crash, nor their own part in it. 1087 Janis 1972 notes an aspect of groupthink is the collective decision to ignore arguments or truths which the group does not want to hear. Janis argued that this led to political fiascos, such as the Bay of Pigs during the Kennedy administration. For elements of groupthink in Thucydides see Turner 2015. 1088 Isocrates To Nicocles 43. 341 the easiest thing to deceive oneself.’ 1089 The history of the Classical, indeed the Western world, repeatedly attests to our natural defence mechanism to avoid the truth, even to the point of self-destruction.1090 The bankers, and the Assembly, would rather ignore Burry’s truth/ Demosthenes’ parrhēsia to maintain their comforting and self-perpetuating fallacies, than accept the hard truths to save (or at least salvage) their respective situations. But to acknowledge the ‘truth’ of a situation requires the courage to reflect self-critically, the ability to admit culpability, and the willingness to change attitudes. It is this courage which Demosthenes calls for in the deliberative speeches. As this thesis has demonstrated, the deliberative corpus demonstrates his consistent attempts to make the Assembly recognise the severity of their situation, and the damage they have inflicted upon themselves (and Greece) by their hostility to honest advice. Demosthenes does not have a prophetic foresight (pronoia) in 351 that they will one-day fight at Chaeronea in 338, but he asserts the inevitable self-destruction of Athens if the Assembly refuses to acknowledge the corruption of logos and its damaging effect on the democratic process. Demosthenes presents an impression that the Assembly simply did not want to listen to his parrhēsia, which is ironic considering that Demosthenes is regarded as a supreme example of a politician who held consistent sway over the Assembly, and yet in his speeches he repeatedly affirms his frustrations at an Assembly that rejects his advice. 1091 I argue that Demosthenes’ rhetoric sought to shake the Athenians out of a state of denial, to make them recognise their problems as self-inflicted, and to shatter the illusions with which the dēmos deceived itself. This, of course, is a portrayal of the Assembly according to Demosthenes. In reality the Assembly may have simply not liked his proposals, 1089 Demosthenes 3.19. 1090 This could lead into discussion on what is truth, what is reality, but these are not immediately relevant for this thesis. Herman 2006: 56 remarks that Demosthenes, with Pericles, was a ‘supreme’ example of politicians who managed ‘consistently to hold sway over the Assembly for significant periods of time.’ 1091 342 which challenged the economically conscious reforms of Eubulus, and chose a different path. Indeed, some scholars such as Cawkwell would argue that Demosthenes’ policies were seriously flawed, but it is not the purpose of this thesis to determine the soundness of Demosthenes’ policies. Rather I maintain that, contrary to the opinion that the speeches are defined by an anti-Macedonian invective or ‘Philippic’ rhetoric, the speeches confront an internal Athenian crisis, and that it is not a ‘Macedonian Question’ at the heart of the speeches, but a fundamentally Athenian one. I argue that Demosthenes consistently asserts that first and foremost the Athenians must address their internal corruption: as he maintained from the First Philippic to the Third Philippic, their attitude of apathy and idleness generated a political vacuum that was seized upon and exploited by Philip, which in turn created an environment for Philip to flourish in at Athenian expense. Their external issues were, therefore, self-inflicted and the result of an internal crisis within the Athenian Assembly itself, and consequently analysis of the speeches should focus on this aspect rather than defining the speeches as primarily anti-Macedonian.1092 Focusing on this aspect of the deliberative speeches, my analysis shows that Demosthenes’ speeches augment the anxieties raised in fifth and fourth century Athens on the dangers of rhetoric and the corruption of the decision-making process.1093 Demosthenes’ appeals to the Assembly demonstrate the dangers of the dēmos’ self-indulgent appetite for flattering displays of rhetoric, and their hostility towards honest advisers, which perpetuated a vicious cycle of self-destruction. Emblematic of this was the Theoric Fund, where the Assembly created a stalemate that was simultaneously a destructive spiral: it was illegal to threaten the fund, and yet the defence of the fund defended the misplaced priorities that 1092 It is worth noting that Classicists (as opposed to Ancient Historians) have tended to paint a rather negative picture of Philip and his ambitions, and it is refreshing that recent publications such as Worthington 2014 and Brun 2015: 10-11 have begun to redress the balance. 1093 As demonstrated in references to Thucydides, Aristophanes, Isocrates and Plato at relevant points throughout this thesis. 343 damaged Athenian interests. As Demosthenes reminds them ‘you should not suppose that anyone is so prominent as to be able to break these laws with impunity, or so foolish as to throw himself into trouble.’ 1094 Demosthenes’ call for the repeal of the laws protecting this fund highlighted that one of the reasons the Athenians could not rectify their situation, but exacerbated their problems, was their failure to recognise these counter-productive practices. Demosthenes attributes this to the abuse of rhetoric, and the way self-serving rhētors persuaded the dēmos to pursue apparent, but false, goods. As Demosthenes noted in the Third Olynthiac, the manipulation of logos turned the Assembly into docile pets, emasculated by the men who ought to serve them. 1095 But Demosthenes’ criticism is also directed at the dēmos, for failing to see through rhetorical flattery. 1096 Thus, in Demosthenes’ damning words in On the Chersonese: You are spoiled and easily flattered, listening to everything with an ear to your own pleasure, but your public affairs have come to the point that you are in deadly danger.1097 Consequently, the current external crisis (of possessions lost to effective Macedonian expansion) is a direct result of this attitude, manipulated by self-serving rhētors. I suggest that through his references to the past and his method of juxtaposing criticism of their current behaviour with praise of their ancestors (and thus their potential as their successors), Demosthenes’ priority has been to confront this internal crisis of their decision-making process. Indeed, within a constitution that functions primarily through oratory, a crisis within oratory is a political crisis, and is arguably the ἀρχή, the origin of all subsequent crises – including Macedonian expansion under Philip. 1094 Demosthenes 3.13. 1095 Demosthenes 3.31. Demosthenes 5.4 asserted that with regard to the case of Neoptolemus, ‘the people I criticise are not those who spoke on Neoptolemus’ behalf … but you!’ 1096 1097 Demosthenes 8.34. 344 Demosthenes’ consistent purpose, therefore, was to make the Athenians self-reflect and change their attitudes. As such, I propose the speeches function as a mirror to the Assembly, firstly to reflect their current flaws to make the Assembly aware of this unflattering reality, and secondly to hold up their ancestral ideology as a reminder of what can be achieved when they act in a manner worthy of the city and its past. 1098 Increasingly Demosthenes asserted that, if the dēmos would not be motivated by duty, then they must acknowledge the evidence of their deteriorating misfortunes as Philip increased his influence in Greece at their expense. But as he asserted in On the Chersonese and the Third Philippic, they could only confront their external enemies after first addressing their internal ones, which required them to acknowledge their own culpability, and act swiftly upon his parrhēsia. C.1 The Corruption of the Assembly and the Misuse of Rhetoric. Fundamental throughout the speeches are Demosthenes’ repeated complaints at the corruption within, and manipulation of, the Assembly. Demosthenes maintains that the misuse of rhetoric and oratory has paralysed their decision-making process and hinders any hope of effective deliberation and action. In their rejection of his parrhēsia in favour of flattering traitors, Demosthenes deplores their failure and unwillingness to recognise the true intentions of speakers, which time and again resulted in the endorsement of flawed policies.1099 Demosthenes consistently criticised the Assembly’s preference for flattery over 1098 As discussed in the introduction it is important to clarify that at no point does Demosthenes refer to a mirror, and this is a phrase coined by myself, influenced by (but different to) Hartog’s title The Mirror of Herodotus. References to Demosthenes’ own use of a physical mirror is noted by Plutarch Demosthenes 11, cf. Quintilian 11.3.68. Bartsch 2006: 22 refers briefly to Apuleius’ account of Demosthenes’ mirror. Whilst this is different to my meaning, it nevertheless demonstrates an ancient tradition which associated Demosthenes’ rhetoric with selfconsciousness (naturally with his speech-impediment) but thus also with self-awareness and self-criticism. 1099 This is the portrayal of the Assembly according to Demosthenes. In reality, the Assembly may have just not liked his proposals, which challenged the economically conscious reforms of Eubulus and chose a different path. Also, some scholars such as Cawkwell would argue that Demosthenes’ policies were seriously flawed, but it is not the purpose of this thesis to determine the soundness of Demosthenes’ policies. 345 truth and their indulgence of rhetorical sycophancy which created a dangerous environment of blissful ignorance, and a hostile climate for the rhētors such as Demosthenes, who advocated unpopular polices that were nevertheless in the best interest of the polis. Demosthenes asserts that the greatest problem facing the Athenians, greater than Philip, was the Assembly itself. Consistently, Demosthenes criticised the dēmos’ desire for instant gratification in preference to performing their duty, stressing how their avoidance of this duty resulted in a fundamental gap between their words and actions. Their failure to complete logos with effective ergon consistently undermined their reputation, and the allies no longer had faith in Athenian logos, ‘since all speech, if it is not accompanied by action, seems vain and empty.’1100 In its extremes, the Assembly’s refusal to be ‘men of words and deeds’ developed into speech-act logic, where constant deliberation created the illusion of acting on the situation in the Chersonese. In this way, the Assembly avoided taking necessary action to defend their interests in the region by turning Diopeithes into a scapegoat who could be dealt with in-house. For Demosthenes, this speech-act logic epitomised the corruption within the Assembly and how the misuse of rhetoric had turned logos into the tool of self-destruction. For Demosthenes, the Assembly was responsible for its own mutation from the centre of Greek wisdom and intelligence into a degenerate self-harming mundus perversus, where advice could not be given or heard. These complaints were resolutely directed at the Assembly and the dēmos itself, but Demosthenes also attacks the manipulation of the dēmos by self-serving rhētors: unequivocally enemies within. The misuse of rhetoric, and the manipulation of the Assembly, is consistently criticised throughout the speeches, where the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric defines such men as the antithesis of Demosthenes’ own didactic rhetoric of sincerity. As the dēmos fails to recognise this manipulation, preferring to listen to 1100 Demosthenes 2.12. Demosthenes calls for the Ambassadors to demonstrate Athenian conviction to restore faith in Athenian logos. 346 flattery than to heed unwelcome truths, Demosthenes weaves the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric with the rhetoric of conspiracy to demonstrate that their rhetorical manipulation is part of a larger conspiracy where these local collaborators exploit their weaknesses and vices for their own ends, at the direct expense of Athens itself. This criticism of the Assembly is not unique to Demosthenes but, as has been seen throughout this thesis, is apparent across genres. In particular, this thesis has demonstrated that Demosthenes may well have acquired a sophisticated reading of Thucydides at an early date, and a digested appropriation of ideas from his History, particularly in his comments on the flaws of the Assembly in post-Periclean Athens in the Mytilenean Debate. Thucydides presents the problems of demagogues and an indecisive malleable Assembly, and as Hesk observes, the rhetoric of anti-rhetoric displayed by both Cleon and Diodotus projects an image of an Assembly that is both suspicious of deceitful speech, and ultimately helpless in the face of it. Thucydides favours neither of them, but rather they reveal the counterproductive and dwindling state of decision-making in the post-Periclean democratic constitution when it lacks strong and virtuous leadership. Democratic deliberation and effective action is, therefore, at the mercy of its citizens and their moral unreliability results in an unstable constitution. Hesk also observes this in Aristophanes’ Knights, where the personified Dēmos is corrupted both by others and (perhaps more worryingly) by himself; he admits to knowingly following bad advice because he enjoys gorging on displays of rhetoric. 1101 Indeed Demosthenes’ complaint that the Assembly treats the Pnyx as if it is the theatre, and wastes precious time treating oratory as a spectator experience, draws parallels to Cleon’s complaints in the Mytilenean debate and to Aristophanes’ Acharnians: Dicaeopolis appears Hesk 2000: 257 notes how in Agoracritus we see ‘the dystopian nightmare (as Thucydides would see it) of a post-Periclean demagogue who actually does manage to achieve total supremacy and control of the dēmos through flattering rhetoric, gratification of his audience.’ 1101 347 to be at the theatre when he is actually at the Pnyx. 1102 For Demosthenes, this attitude demonstrates how the Assembly paralyses the decision-making process by its obsession with rhetorical experience but, in contrast to Thucydides, Demosthenes does not see this as a flaw in the democratic institution, but as the failure of its citizens to act in a manner worthy of the city. Moreover, I argue that Demosthenes resists the division made by Ober on attitudes towards advising the Assembly between the elitist writers (such as Thucydides) and the orators.1103 Rather, in refusing to tell the Assembly what it wants to hear, Demosthenes merges this anti-rhetorical stance of Thucydides and Isocrates in his role as protector of the people, and demonstrates that it is possible to criticise the dēmos without being antidemocratic.1104 Indeed, I argue that Demosthenes upholds rather than rejects the deliberative process, and it is in this regard that he essentially differs from Thucydides and Plato, because he does not reject Athenian democracy as an intrinsically flawed system, but instead emphasises the essential position of democratic deliberation within Athenian ideology. 1105 In this Demosthenes agrees with the claim of the Persian aristocrat Otanes in Herodotus, that democracy by its nature should uphold nomoi and avoid corruption. 1106 The problem for Demosthenes, as this thesis has demonstrated, is not the concept but the execution, which has 1102 Hesk 2000: 258-260. Ober 1989: 315, ‘Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Isocrates all condemn demagogues as mere crown pleasers who said only what the people wanted to hear. Elitist writers, of course, typically considered mass-decision making to be foolish, and the populace anything but wise. Therefore, they castigated the political orators…for failing to oppose the will of the mass, and for saying what everyone wanted to hear rather than what was good and salutary for the state.’ 1103 As Ober 1989: 317 notes, ‘the protective role of the political orators merged with an advisory function.’ Indeed, this thesis shows how Demosthenes uses the concerns within these elite writers to defend democratic deliberation from the corrupt rhētors. 1104 1105 Of course, Demosthenes is simultaneously noting the importance of his own position, but his praise of democracy is one that emphasises interdependency. The system itself does not need an individual such as Pericles, but rather a dēmos of citizens that uphold the values of Athens in the manner of men such as Pericles, and himself. 1106 Herodotus 3.80-82. Herodotus puts this comment on democracy into the mouth of a Persian, an outside perspective, much like Demosthenes’ use of the voice of Philip in the Second Philippic discussed in Chapter 4.1. 348 been corrupted by self-serving rhētors and the Assembly’s hostility to parrhēsia.1107 In consistently calling on the Assembly to recognise this internal crisis and its effects, Demosthenes asserts that it is only by changing their attitudes in deliberative debates that they can make effective decisions and thus efficiently confront their external challenges. C.2 An Athenian reflection: Athenian Ideology and the use of the Athenian Past Having shown the Athenians their current reflection in his criticism of the Assembly, Demosthenes’ mirror also functions to display Athens’ ancestral past as a means to both criticise and praise the current citizens of Athens. As Clarke notes, Demosthenes participates in a general ‘decline theory’, as attested to in his frequent use of the recent past to inspire the current Assembly.1108 In his rhetorical use of the past, I argue that Demosthenes reminds the Athenians of their past actions not in a nostalgic capacity, but in a didactic manner to prescribe their past actions to rectify their current situation. Prominent references to the Corinthian War serve to remind the Athenians of what they can achieve when they take action, and likewise their role in the Persian Wars serves to remind the Athenians of their μονομαχία, their past reputation of defending the liberty of the Greeks, and of rejecting bribes, along with the individual exempla of virtuous leaders, such as Pericles. All of Demosthenes’ allusions to the distant and recent past serve the end of instructing the polis on the errors of their current behaviour, and how to change. Examples from the more recent past, such as recounting the Fall of Olynthus or the Euboean expedition not only serve to vindicate Demosthenes’ arguments, but confront the Assembly with the consequences of their actions. 1107 One could argue that Thucydides likewise does not reject the concept of the ideal Assembly, but he does criticise democracy for its reliance on individuals such as Pericles. As Ober 1998: 82-3 notes ‘there is an association to be made between an innate “general Athenian” capacity to err, and the innate genius of Athens’ two most prominent statesmen [Themistocles and Pericles]. By implication, as long as the inherently error-prone Athenians follow the advice and accept the leadership of inherently insightful men, all will be well. But absent wise leadership, the Athenians will be liable to fall into error.’ 1108 Clarke 2008: 252-3. 349 Moreover, when compared to their fifth-century counterparts, these reminders demonstrate their complete failure to do their duty as hailed men of Athens, and their neglect of the responsibilities they inherited from these ancestors. This is most pointedly articulated in the Second Olynthiac, where Demosthenes compares and contrasts fifth century leaders with the prominent men of the fourth century, to highlight the virtues of their former leaders and show how personal vice and self-interest have had a direct effect on the polis itself. Demosthenes uses the idea of Athens as a device to praise and criticise the Assembly: to remind the Athenians of their past actions and values and thus make them ashamed of their current practices, thereby inspiring them to change their damaging attitudes. All of these references to the past use Athenian social and collective memory as a means both to define their ideology and to prescribe it in the present, employing the topoi of historical events which over time ‘had become symbols of national character.’1109 As discussed in the introduction, the importance of social memory and ideology cannot be underestimated in understanding Demosthenes’ method in these deliberative speeches. Following Yunis’ approach to Demosthenes and the burden of the Athenian past in On the Crown, I have developed this to view the use of the ‘Athenian past’ as a method evident throughout Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches. This thesis also contributes to the work of Loraux and Steinbock on the power of the idea of Athens, how it is transmitted, and the importance of social memory and collective historical consciousness to fourth-century persuasion and deliberative decision-making. The arguments in this thesis are is distinctive in my assertion that, first, the speeches should not be defined as ‘Anti-Macedonian’ or as ‘Philippic invective’, as I believe these terms are misleading and suggest that the speeches were dedicated to attacking Philip. In my opinion, Demosthenes prioritises confronting the crisis within the Assembly, which prevents 1109 A. Assmann 2001: 6824. 350 them from taking any effective action against any adversary. Secondly, in removing the ‘Philippic’ lens, we can see that Demosthenes uses the past, and the audience’s social memory and collective awareness of the past, as a mirror to make the Athenians reflect on their own behaviour and culpability. Drawing parallels to the epitaphioi logoi, I suggest that Demosthenes hails the Assembly as ‘men of Athens’ and didactically approaches the Assembly to acknowledge their failure to act in a manner worthy of their ancestors, to which he attributes their current problems. In reminding the Athenians of certain elements of their past, Demosthenes prescribes the exempla of the ancestors – using the ideological power of Athens – as the solution to their internal and external crises. These virtues are epitomised in the proposals that he consistently advocated since the First Philippic: to act, with conviction, by acting in person and by financially supporting their proposals. Moreover, I believe this thesis has shown that familiar epideictic material, particularly the complex ideas about Athenian identity recorded in epitaphioi logoi, have didactic parallels in the context of deliberative oratory. I argue that study of the rhetorical strategy of Demosthenes in these speeches contributes to our understanding of the wider nuances of both Athenian historical consciousness, and notions of the ‘idea of Athens’, and how these are used both in a persuasive and a didactic capacity. As discussed in the introduction, scholarship on the deliberative speeches have focused specifically upon the conflict with Philip and, as such, it is rare to find scholars who use these speeches to discuss these topics as they are predominantly used to discuss Demosthenes’ anti-Macedonian policy and his role in the fall of Classical Athens.1110 This is reflected in how Demosthenes’ contribution to, for example, the rhetoric of conspiracy, has focused mainly on his forensic speeches and the later 1110 The exceptions being Steinbock and Mader. 351 deliberative speeches. 1111 This thesis has shown that Demosthenes’ speeches have an important place in discussions on Athenian uses of the past and social memory, building in particular on Steinbock’s research on social memory in the Attic Orators to: move beyond the purely intertextual modes of interpretation and develop a more nuanced appreciation of the conditions of origin and the ideological aspects of these works.1112 Steinbock draws attention to the important relationship between ideology and social memory, and how ‘a group’s mental framework originates from its historical experience…ideological frameworks, [to] determine both the perception of the present and the recollection of the past.’1113 As has been seen, there is an interesting example of this in Demosthenes’ use of Philip’s voice in the Second Philippic, where his view of Athens not only reminds the Assembly of how they are expected to act, but is also used to define the current conflict, augmenting Demosthenes’ narrative with the historical weight of the past. 1114 Moreover, Demosthenes’ recurrent use of pointed references to the Athenian past should be seen in the light of modern studies that have shown that the psychology of remembering involves encoding perceptions into long-term memory so that ‘people, places, dates and distinctive characteristics of events can serve as cues for later retrieval.’ 1115 Demosthenes also uses references to the Persian Wars, and Periclean ideals, to layer his own advice with the ideological tropes of the ‘Master Narrative’ of Athens. 1116 I have shown how Demosthenes used the past deeds which provided a basis for Athenian identity, 1111 Most notably the Embassy Speeches, On the Crown, Against Meidias and Against Stephanus. The Second Philippic is only commented on because of its direct reference to the Persian War. 1112 Steinbock 2013: 7. Some of the most prominent discussions of this aspect of social memory are Assmann 2001, 2012, Clarke 2008 and Gehrke 2001. 1113 Steinbock 2013: 14. 1114 Again, we can see here Yunis’ idea of the burden of the Athenian past dictating Demosthenes’ rhetoric. 1115 Steinbock 2013: 10-11, Schacter 2001: 26-33. 1116 See previous references to Forsdyke 2005: 242, Steinbock 2013: 49 n1 in Chapter 4.3 pp.287 fn 936. 352 episodes which were valorised in the funeral orations, to evoke similar emotions and responses in his deliberative oratory. Remembering that each speech sought specific action on his advice, which often called upon the Assembly to live up to these historical archetypes, Demosthenes presumed a level of historical consciousness that depended on the shared memory of these identity-defining events.1117 In his references to the Persian and Corinthian Wars, Demosthenes likewise uses historical consciousness to remind the audience of the role they are expected to play. Furthermore, my argument that Demosthenes focuses on confronting the corruption of the deliberative decision-making process within the Assembly is also supported by the lack of reference to the overthrow of the Pisistratid tyranny, which Demosthenes refers to on several occasions elsewhere, and would be a more obvious choice if his focus was on Philip and tyrannicide. 1118 Further research could explore similarities between the rhetoric of Demosthenes’ own funeral oration and his methods of asserting Athenian ideology in the deliberative speeches analysed here, as perhaps an accumulation and vindication of his arguments since 351. It would also be interesting to pursue intertextualities with contemporary and earlier accounts in the funeral orations, historiography (Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon), and philosophy (Plato and Isocrates) to understand the wider significance of such cues in Athenian historical consciousness.1119 A natural extension of this thesis could also examine the reception of the ‘idea’ of Demosthenes beyond the Classical period to understand how the power of an idea or an ideal, imagined or otherwise, can transcend the reality of defeat, charting the process 1117 Steinbock 2013: 54 observes how the Persian Wars, and in particular, the Battle of Marathon, became a ‘cornerstone of [Athenian] identity’, had ‘a prescriptive force for future conduct.’ Gehrke 2001: 302. Clarke 2008: 255 notes that ‘one might have expected that the theme of tyrannicide would prove even more dominant than is the case, given its exemplary force in the rhetoric of opposition to Philip. However, the Philippics themselves are devoid of references to the model tyrannicide.’ For references to Pisistratid tyranny see Against Leptines 18; 68-70; On the Treaty with Alexander 3. 1118 1119 Hunt 1998: 19-25 on ideology. Also, whilst I acknowledge the difference between them, I place Isocrates with Plato here for convenience. 353 whereby the ultimately defeated Demosthenes came to be fashioned as the hero of democracy.1120 This thesis offers a Demosthenes liberated from the limiting assumptions of an ‘antiMacedonian’ lens or any ‘Philippic’ expectations. By focusing on Demosthenes’ internal gaze on the Athenian Assembly, this new approach demonstrates Demosthenes’ contribution to our understanding of the political dynamics of the Assembly in fourth-century Athens, the role of advisers and the rhetoric of advice, and his contribution to the wider concerns of the corruption of the deliberative process in Athens as displayed in other genres, such as Thucydidean historiography and Isocratean wisdom. Moreover, my approach opens up the possible parallels that can be drawn between the epitaphioi logoi and Demosthenes’ own didactic approach in his deliberative oratory, and highlights the crucial importance of social memory and the influence of collective historical consciousness in Athenian persuasion. 1120 The association of Demosthenes with Athenian democracy was made explicit when the Athenians raised his statue when democracy made its brief reappearance, as noted by Plutarch Demosthenes 30.5. 354 BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Aeschines, Speeches 1-3, trans. C. Carey. [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2000). Aeschylus, Persians, trans. P. Vellacott [Penguin Classics] (London 1961). Aristophanes, Acharnians and Knights, trans. J. Henderson [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1998). Aristophanes, Birds, trans. S. Halliwell. [Oxford World Classics] (Oxford 1998). Aristophanes, Clouds. Wasps. Peace, trans. J. Henderson [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1998). Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric, trans. H. C. Lawson-Tancred. [Penguin Classics] (London 1991). Aristotle, Metaphysics I-IX, trans. H. Tredennick [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1968). Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, trans. H. Rackham [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1926). Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham. [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1932). Cicero, Philippics 1-6, trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 2010). Cicero, Political Speeches, trans. D.H. Berry [Oxford World Classics] (Oxford 2009). Demosthenes, Speeches 1-17, trans. J. Trevett [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2011). Demosthenes, Speeches 18-19, trans. H. Yunis [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2005). Demosthenes, Speeches 20-22, trans. E. M. Harris [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2008). Demosthenes, Speeches 23-38, trans. D. M. MacDowell [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2004). Demosthenes, Speeches 39-49, trans. A.C. Scafuro [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2011). Demosthenes, Speeches 60 and 61, Prologues, Letters, trans. I. Worthington [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2006). Demosthenes, Orations 1-17 and 20, trans. J.H. Vince [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1954). Demosthenes, On the Crown, trans. W. W Goodwin (Cambridge 1901). Didymus, On Demosthenes, trans P. Harding [Clarendon Ancient History Series] (Oxford 2006). 355 Dinarchus, Hyperdes and Lycurgus, trans. I. Worthington, C. Cooper, E.M. Harris [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2001). Diodorus Siculus, The Reign of Philip II, trans. E.I. McQueen [Bristol Classical Press] (Bristol 2001). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Three Literary Letters, trans. Roberts [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1901). Erasmus, Spiritualia and Pastoralia: Exomologesis and Ecclesiastes, trans. M.J. Heath and F.J. McGinness [Toronto University Press] (Toronto 2015). Euripides, Fragments: Aegeus-Meleager, trans. C. Collard [Loeb Classics Library] (Cambridge MA 2008). Euripides, Medea, trans. D.A. Svarlien [Hackett] (Indianapolis IN 2007). Euripides, Ion, Orestes, Phoenician Women, Suppliant Women, trans. R. Waterfield [Oxford World’s Classics] (Oxford 2001). Euripides, Hecuba, trans D. Kovacs [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 1996). Herodotus, The Histories, trans. A.L. Purvis [Landmark] (London 2008). Hesiod, Works and Days, trans. M.L. West. [Oxford World’s Classics] (Oxford 1988). Hippocratic Writers, trans. J. Chadwick and Mann, W.N. [Penguin Classics] (London 1983). Isocrates, trans. D. Mirhady and T.L. Too [Oratory of Classical Greece], 1 (Austin 2000) Isocrates, trans, T.L. Papillon [Oratory of Classical Greece], 2 (Austin 2004). Lysias, trans. S.C. Todd [Oratory of Classical Greece] (Austin 2000). Polybius, The Histories, trans. W.R. Paton (rev. F. W. Walbank Christian Habicht) [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 2010). Plato, Republic, trans. R Waterfield [Oxford World’s Classics] (Oxford 2008). Plato, Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras, trans. T. Griffith [Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought] (Cambridge 2010). Plato, Apology (Defence of Socrates), trans. D. Gallop [Oxford World’s Classics] (Oxford 1997). Plutarch, Demosthenes and Cicero, trans. A. Lintott [Clarendon Ancient History Series] (Oxford 2013). Quintilian, The Orators Education, trans. D.A. Russell [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge MA 2002). Solon, Greek Lyric Poetry, trans. M.L. West [Oxford World’s Classics] (Oxford 1993). The First Philosophers, trans. R. Waterfield [Oxford World’s Classics] (Oxford 2000). 356 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. R. Warner [Penguin Classics] (London 1954). Xenophon, Conversations of Socrates, trans. H. Tredennick and R. Waterfield [Penguin Classics] (London 1990). Wilson, T. 1570. The Three Orations of Demosthenes. Imprinted by Henrie Denham. Commentaries and Critical Editions Butcher, S.H. Demosthenis Orationes, vol. 1, [Oxford Clarendon Press] (Oxford 1903 repr. 1966). Brémond, É. and G. Mathieu. Isocrate. Discours, vol. 2, [Les Belles Lettres] (Paris 1938 repr. 1967 1st edn. rev. et corr.). Dindorf, W. Demosthenis Orationes [Teubner] (Leipzig 1855). Gagarin, M. (ed.) Antiphon: The Speeches. [Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics] (Cambridge 1997). Karvounis, C. 2002. Demosthenes: Studien zu den Demegorien orr. XIV, XVI, XV, IV, I, II, III. Tübungen. Ramsey, J.T. Cicero. Philippics I-II. [Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics] (Cambridge 2003). Sandys, J.E. 1920. The First Philippic and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes. Cambridge Sandys, J. E. 1910. Demosthenes: On the Peace, Second Philippic, On the Chersonesus and Third Philippic. Cambridge. Wooten, C. W. 2008. A Commentary on Demosthenes’ Philippic I. Oxford. Secondary Adams, A. 1941. ‘Philip Alias Hitler’, G&R 10, pp.105-113. Adams, C.D. 1912. ‘Are the Political Speeches of Demosthenes to be regarded as political Pamphlets?’, TAPhA 43, pp. 5-22. Adams, W.L and Borza, E. N. (eds.) 1982. Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian Heritage. Larnham. Althusser, L. 1965. For Marx. Paris. [Trans. B. Brewster]. Althusser, L. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and other essays. Paris. [Trans. B. Brewster 2001, NewYork]. Andronikos, M. 2004. Vergina: The Royal Tombs and Ancient City. 357 Archibald, Z. 2010. ‘Macedonia and Thrace’, in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds.) Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden. pp. 362-341. Asirvatham, S. 2010. ‘Perspectives on the Macedonians from Greece, Rome and Beyond’, in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds.) Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden. pp. 99-124. Assmann, A. 2001. ‘History and Memory’, in N.J Smelser and P. B. Baltes (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. 26 vols. Amsterdam. Assmann, A. 2011. Cultural Memory and Western Civilisation: functions, media, archives. Cambridge. Badian, E. 1983. “Philip II and Thrace”, Pupudeva. 4. Pp. 51-71. Badian, E. 1995. ‘The Ghost of Empire: Reflections on Athenian Foreign Policy in the Fourth Century’, in W. Eder (ed.) Die athenische Demokratie im 4 Jahrhundert v Chr. Stuttgart. pp. 79-106. Badian, E. 2000. ‘The Road to Prominence’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Demosthenes Statesman and Orator. London. pp. 9-44. Balot, R. 2001. Greed and Injustice in Classical Greece. Princeton. Balot, R. 2004. ‘Free Speech, Courage, and Democratic Deliberation’, in I. Slutier and R.M. Rosen (eds.) Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Mnemosyne. Brill. pp. 233-260. Balot, R. 2006. Greek Political Thought. Malden. Balot, R. 2013. ‘Democracy and Political Philosophy: Influences, Tensions, Rapproachement’, in, J.P. Arnason, and K.A. Raaflaub and P. Wagner (eds.) The Greek Polis and the Invention of Democracy. A politico-cultural transformation and its interpretation. Malden. pp. 181-204. Banfi, A. 2003. Il governo della città: Pericle nel pensiero antico. Naples. Bartsch, S. 2006. The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago. Beloch, K.J. 1922. Griechische Geschichte2 3.1. Berlin and Leipzig. Benveniste, E. 1969. Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Paris. Bissa, E. 2009. Governmental Intervention in Foreign Trade in Archaic and Classical Greece. Mnemosyne, Supplements, Volume 312. Leiden. Blass, F. 1887-98. Die Attische Beredsamkeit/ Abt. 3, Abschnitt 1: Demosthenes. Leipzig. Boegehold, A.L. and A.C. Scafuro (eds.) 1994. Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. Baltimore. 358 Borza, E.N. 1982. ‘The Natural Resources of Early Macedonia’, in W. L. Adams and E. N. Borza (eds.) Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian Heritage. Larnham. pp. 120. Borza, E.N. 1987. ‘Timber and Politics in the Ancient World. Macedon and the Greeks’, PAPhS 131, pp. 32-52. Borza, E.N. 1990. In the Shadow of Olynthus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Brady, A. and T. Schirato (eds.) 2011. Understanding Judith Butler. Los Angeles. Brun, P. 2015. Démosthène: Démosthene: Rhétorique, Pouvoir et Corruption. Paris Buckler, J. 1996. ‘Philip II’s Designs on Greece’, in W.R. Wallace and E.M. Harris (eds.) Transitions to Empire: Essays in Honour of E. Badian. Norman. pp. 77-97. Buckler, J. 2000. ‘Demosthenes and Aeschines’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator. London. pp. 79-84. Buckler, J. 2003. Aegean Greece in the Fourth Century BC. Leiden. Buckler, J. 2008. ‘Sphorias’ Raid and the Evolution of the Athenian League’, in J. Buckler and H. Beck (eds.) Central Greece and the Politics of Power in the Fourth Century BC. Cambridge. pp. 79-84. Buckler, J. 2008. ‘Philip II, the Greeks, and the King 346-336 B.C.’, in J. Buckler and H. Beck (eds.) Central Greece and the Politics of Power in the Fourth Century BC. Cambridge. pp. 233-253. Buckler, J. and Beck, H. (eds.) 2008. Central Greece and the Politics of Power in the Fourth Century BC. Cambridge. Bugh, G.R. 1988. The Horsemen of Athens. Princeton. Burke, E.M. 1990. ‘Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Restoration Efforts and the Role of Maritime Commerce’, CA 9, pp. 1-13. Burke, E.M. 2002. ‘The Early Political Speeches of Demosthenes: Elite Bias in the Response to Economic Crisis’, CA 21, pp. 165-193. Calhoun, G.M. 1933. ‘Demosthenes’ Second Philippic’, TAPhA 64, pp.1-17. Carawan, E. (ed.) 2007. The Attic Orators. Oxford. Carey, C. 2000. Aeschines. Austin. Carey, C. 2007. ‘Epideictic Oratory’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden. pp. 236-252. Cargill, J. 1981. The Second Athenian League. Berkeley. Carlier, P. 1990. Démosthène. Paris. 359 Carney, E. and D. Ogden. (eds.) 2010. Philip II and Alexander the Great: Lives and Afterlives. Oxford. Cartledge, P. 1987. Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta. London. Cartledge, P. 2002. The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others. Second Edition. Cambridge. Cartledge, P. 2002b. ‘Greek civilisation and Slavery’, in T.P Wiseman (ed.) Classics in Progress: Essays on ancient Greece and Rome. British Academy. Oxford. Cartledge, P. 2016. Democracy: A Life. Oxford. Cawkwell, G. L. 1960. ‘Aeschines and the Peace of Philocrates’, REG 73, pp. 416-438. Cawkwell, G.L. 1962. ‘The Defence of Olynthus’, CQ 12, pp. 122-140. Cawkwell, G.L. 1962.b. ‘Demosthenes and the Stratiotic Fund’, Mnemosyne 15 pp. 377-383. Cawkwell, G.L. 1962.c. ‘Notes on the Social War’, C&M 23, pp. 34-49. Cawkwell, G.L. 1963. ‘ “Demosthenes” Policy after the Peace of Philocrates I and II’, CQ 13, pp. 120-138 and 200-213. Cawkwell, G.L. 1973. ‘The Foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy’, CQ 23, pp. 56-70. Cawkwell, G.L. 1978. ‘The Peace of Philocrates Again’, CQ 28, pp. 93-104. Cawkwell, G.L. 1978b. Philip of Macedon. London. Cawkwell, G.L. 1980. ‘Philip and Athens’, in M.B. Hatzopoulos and L.D. Loukopoulos (eds.) Philip of Macedon. Athens. Cawkwell, G.L. 1981. ‘Notes on the Failure of the Second Athenian Confederacy’, JHS 101, pp. 40-54. Cawkwell, G.L. 1984. ‘Athenian Naval Power in the Fourth Century’, CQ 34, pp. 334-345. Cawkwell, G.L. 1996. ‘The End of Greek Liberty,’ in W.R. Wallace and E.M. Harris (eds.) Transitions to Empire: Essays in Honour of E. Badian. Norman pp. 98-121. Christ, M. R. 2006. The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge and New York. Clarke, K. 2008. Making Time for the Past: local history and the polis. Oxford. Clemeneau, G. 1926. Démosthène. Paris. Cloché, P. 1957. Démosthène et la fin de la démocratie athénienne. Paris. Cooper, C. 2000. ‘Philosophers, Politics, Academics: Demosthenes’ Rhetorical Reputation in Antiquity,’ in I. Worthington (ed.) Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator London. pp. 224245. Cooper, C. 2004. ‘Demosthenes: Actor on the Political and Forensic Stage’ in C.J. Mackie (ed.) Oral Performance and its Context. Leiden. pp. 145-161. 360 Cooper, C. 2007. ‘Forensic Oratory’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden. pp. 203-219. Croally, N. 2011. ‘Tragedy’, in N. Croally and R. Hyde (eds.) Classical Literature: An Introduction. New York. pp. 94-122. Croally, N. and R. Hyde (eds.) 2011. Classical Literature: An Introduction. New York. Curzer, H.J. 1995. ‘Aristotle’s Account of the Virtue of Justice’, in Apeiron, 28.3. p. 207238. Das, A. 2015. Medical Language in the Speeches of Demosthenes. Doctoral Thesis, University of Washington. Davies, J.K. 1994. ‘The Tradition about the First Sacred War’ in S. Hornblower (ed.) Greek Historiography. Oxford. pp. 193-212. de Bakker, M.P. 2010. ‘Demosthenes’, in I.J.F. de Jong (ed.) Space in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden. pp. 393-414. de Brauw, M. 2010. ‘The Parts of Speech’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden. pp. 187-202. de Jong, I.J.F. (ed.) 2010. Space in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden de. Ste. Croix, G.E.M. 1963. ‘The Alleged Secret Pact between Athens and Philip II Concerning Amphipolis and Pydna’, CQ 13, pp. 110-119. Devereaux, J. 2015. ‘Shared Psychology and the Rhetoric of Ancient Historiography’, presented at the Psychology and the Classics Conference. March 2015. Leuven. [Unpublished Paper]. Dickey, E. 1996. Greek Forms of Address: from Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford. Dorjahn, A.P. 1955. ‘A Fourth Study on Demosthenes’ Ability to Speak Extemporaneously’, CPh 50, pp. 191-193. Dorjahn, A.P. 1957. ‘Extemporaneous Elements in Certain Orations and the Prooemia of Demosthenes’, AJPh 78, pp. 287-296. Dover, K.J. 1974. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Indianapolis and Cambridge. Drougou, S. and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C. (eds.) 2008. Vergina: Wandering through the Archaeological Site. Athens. Easterling, P.E. 1999. ‘Actors and Voices: Reading between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes,’ in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds.) Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge. pp. 154-165. Edwards, M. 1994. The Attic Orators. Bristol. 361 Edwards, M. and Reid, C. (eds.) 2004. Oratory in Action. Manchester and New York. Efstathiou, A. 2004. ‘The Peace of Philocrates’: the Assemblies of 18 th and 19th Elaphebolion 346 BC’, Historia 53, pp. 385-407. Ehrenberg, V. 1937. ‘When did the Polis Rise?’, JHS 57, pp. 147-59. Ellis, J.R. 1966. ‘The Date of Demosthenes’ First Philippic’, REG 79, pp. 636-639. Ellis, J.R. 1967. ‘The Order of the Olynthiacs’, Historia 16, pp. 108-111. Ellis, J.R. 1973. ‘The Stepbrothers of Philip II’, Historia 22, pp. 350-354. Ellis, J.R. 1976. Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism. London. Ellis, J.R. 1977. ‘The Dynamics of Fourth-Century Macedonian Imperialism’, Ancient Macedonia 2 (Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki), pp. 103-114. Ellis, J.R. 1982. ‘Philip and the Peace of Philocrates’, in W.L. Adams and E.N. Borza (eds.) Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian Heritage. Larnham. pp. 43-59. Ellis, J. R. and R.D. Milns (eds.) 1970. The Spectre of Philip. Sydney. Emberley, J.V. 2014. The Testimonial Uncanny: Indigenous Storytelling, Knowledge, and Reparative Practices. New York. Engels, J. 2010. ‘Macedonians and Greeks’, in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds.) Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden. pp. 81-98. Enos, R.L. 2002. ‘Inventional Constraints on the Technographers of Ancient Athens: A Study of kairos’, in P. Sipiora and J.S. Baumlin (eds.) Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis. New York. pp. 77-88. Etzioni, A. 2001. The Monochrome Society. Princeton. Euben, P. (ed.) 1986. Greek Tragedy and Political Theory. Berkeley Fentress, J and Wickham, C. 1992. Social Memory. Oxford. Finley, M.I. 1981. ‘Politics’, in M.I. Finley (ed.) The Legacy of Greece: A New Appraisal. Oxford. pp. 22-36. Flower, M.A. 1994. Theopompus of Chios. Oxford. Flower, M.A. 2008. The Seer in Ancient Greece. Berkeley. Forsdyke, S. 2012. ‘ “Born of the Earth”: The Political Uses of An Athenian Myth’, Brill Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 12, pp. 119-141. Forsdyke, S. 2012. Slaves Tell Tales. Princeton. Foucault, M. 1983. (2001). Fearless Speech. Cambridge. MA. Fredricksmeyer, E.A. 1982. ‘On the Final Aims of Philip II’, in W.L. Adams and E.N. Borza (eds.) Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian Heritage. Lanham. pp. 85-98. 362 Fromentin, V. and S. Gotteland. 2015. ‘Thucydides’ Ancient Reception’, in C. Lee and N. Morley (eds.) A Handbook to the Reception of Thucydides. Oxford. pp. 11-25. Frontisi-Ducroux, F. and J-P. Vernant (eds.) 1997. Dans L’œil du Miroir. Paris. Frost Benedikt, A. 2002. ‘Doing the Right Thing at the Right Time: Towards an Ethics of Kairos’, in P. Sipiora and J.S. Baumlin (eds.) Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis. New York. pp. 226-236. Gabriel, R.A. 2010. Philip II of Macedon: Greater than Alexander. Washington. Gabrielsen, V. 1994. Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. Baltimore. Gagarin, M. 2002. Antiphon the Athenian: Oratory, Law and Justice in the Age of the Sophists. Austin. Gagarin, M. 2011. Demosthenes: Oxford bibliographies Online Research Guide. Oxford. Gehrke, H-J. 2001. ‘Mythos, History, and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and Beyond’, in N. Luraghi (ed). The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Oxford. pp. 286-313. Gehrke, H-J. 2003. ‘Marathon als Mythos: Von Helden und Barbaren’, in G. Krumeich and S. Brandt (eds.) Schlachtenmythen. Ereignis – Erzählung – Erinnerung. Cologne. pp. 19-32. Georgopoulou-D’amico, I. 2010. Network of Archaeological Sites of Macedonia. Athens. Gibson, C.A. 2002. Interpreting a Classic: Demosthenes and his Ancient Commentators. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Goldhill, S. 1986. Reading Greek Tragedy. Cambridge. Goldhill, S and R. Osborne (eds.) 1999. Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge. Goodwin, W.W. 1901. Demosthenes: On the Crown. Cambridge. Gray, B. 2015. Stasis and Stability: Exile, the Polis, and Political Thought c.404-146 BC. Oxford. Grethlein, J .2010. The Greeks and their Past. Poetry, Oratory and History in the FifthCentury BCE. Cambridge. Guth, D. 2015. ‘The King’s Speech: Philip’s Rhetoric and Democratic Leadership in the Debate over the Peace of Philocrates’, Rhetorica 33. 4. pp. 333-348. Hall, J.M. 2001. ‘Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Identity,’ in I. Malkin (ed.) Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity. Cambridge. pp. 159-186. Hamel, D. 1998. Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden. 363 Hamilton, C.D. 1979. Sparta’s Bitter Victories: Politics and Dipolmacy in the Corinthian War. New York. Hammond, N.G.L. 1972. A History of Macedonia I. Oxford. Hammond, N.G.L. 1994. ‘Literary Evidence for Macedonian Speech’, Historia 43, pp. 131142. Hammond, N.G.L. 1994. Philip of Macedon. London. Hammond, N.G.L. 1995. ‘Philip’s Innovations in Macedonian Economy’, SO 70, pp. 22-29. Hammond, N.G.L and G.T. Griffith. 1979. A History of Macedonia 2. Oxford. Hammond, N.G.L and F.W. Walbank. 1988. A History of Macedonia 3. Oxford. Hansen, M.H. 1976. ‘The Theoric Fund and the Graphe Paranomon against Apollodorus’, GRBS 17, pp. 235-246. Hansen, M.H. 1982. ‘The Athenian Assembly and the Assembly-Place on the Pnyx’, GRBS 23, pp. 241-249. Hansen, M.H. 1983. ‘Political Activity and Organisation of Attica in the Fourth Century B.C’, GRBS 24, pp. 227-238. Hansen, M.H. 1983. ‘‘The Athenian Politicians’ 403-322 B.C’, GRBS 24, pp. 33-55. Hansen, M.H. 1983. ‘Rhetores and Strategoi in Fourth-Century Athens’, GRBS 24, pp. 151180. Hansen, M.H. 1984. ‘The Number of Rhetores in the Athenian Ecclesia, 355-322 B.C.,’ GRBS 25, pp. 123-155. Hansen, M.H. 1984. ‘Two Notes of Demosthenes’ Symbouleutic Speeches’, C&M 35, pp. 57-70. Hansen, M. H. 1987. The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford. Hansen, M.H. 1999. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes 2. Norman. Hansen, M.H. and T.H. Nielsen (eds). 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford. Harding, P.E. 1987. ‘Rhetoric and Politics in Fourth-Century Athens’, Phoenix 41, pp. 25-39. Harding, P.E. 1995. ‘Athenian Foreign Policy in the Fourth Century’, Klio 77, pp.105-125. Harding, P.E. 2000. ‘Demosthenes in the Underworld: A Chapter in the Nachleben of a Rhetor,’ in I. Worthington (ed.) Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator. London. pp. 246-271. Harding, P.E. 2006. Didymus, On Demosthenes. Oxford. Harris, E.M. 1996. Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford. Harris, E.M. 1996. ‘Demosthenes and the Theoric Fund’, in W.R. Wallace and E.M. Harris (eds.) Transitions to Empire: Essays in Honour of E. Badian. Norman. pp. 57-76. 364 Harris, E.M. 2008. Demosthenes Speeches 20-22. Austin. Hartog, F. 1988. The Mirror of Herodotus: the representation of the other in the writing of history. Berkeley. Herman, G. 2006. Morality and Behaviour in Democratic Athens: a social history. Cambridge. Hernández-Muñoz, F.G. 2012. ‘Demosthenes, First Philippic: critical edition’, in F.G Hernández-Muñoz (ed.) La Tradición y la Transmisión de los Oradores y Rétores Griegos. Berlin. pp. 129-146. Hernández-Muñoz, F.G (ed.) 2012. La Tradición y la Transmisión de los Oradores y Rétores Griegos. Berlin. Hernández-Muñoz, F.G. 2013. Segunda Filípica: nueva edición critica. Madrid. Hernändez-Muñoz, F.G. 2013b. ‘Demóstenes versus Filipo: la democracia en juego. Un paseo por sus textos’, in Ciclo de conferencias “Enemistades peligrosas” de la delegación de Madrid (S.E.E.C.) Madrid. pp. 103-130. Hernández-Muñoz, F.G. 2014. ‘La Tercera Filípica demosténica : nueva edición crítica’, CFC (G) 24, pp. 369-292. Hernández-Muñoz, F.G. 2015. ‘La Cuarta Filípica de Demóstenes : nueva edición crítica’, CFC (G) 25, pp. 317-340. Hernández-Muñoz, F.G. 2015b. ‘Nueva edición crítica de la Primera Olintíaca demosténica’, in J. Ángel y Espinós, J.M. Floristán Imízcoz, F. García Romero, and M. López Salvá (eds.) Υγίεια καὶ γέλως : Homenaje a Ignacio Rodríguez Alfageme. Zaragoza. pp. 353-366. Hesk, J. 1999. ‘The rhetoric of anti-rhetoric in Athenian oratory’, in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds.) Performance Culture and Athenian democracy. Cambridge. pp. 201-230. Hesk, J. 2000. Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Hesk, J. 2013. ‘Leadership and Individuality in the Athenian Funeral Orations’ BICS 56, 1, pp. 49-65. Heskel, J. ‘Macedonia and the North, 400-335’, in L.A. Tritle (ed.) The Greek World in the Fourth Century: From the Fall of the Athenian Empire to the Successors of Alexander. Hornblower, S. 1987. Thucydides. London. Hornblower, S. 1995. ‘The Fourth-Century and Hellenistic Reception of Thucydides’, JHS 115, pp. 47-68. Hornblower, S. 2011. Thucydidean Themes. Oxford. Hunt, P. 1998. Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians. Cambridge. Hunt, P. 2010. War, Peace, and Alliance in Demosthenes’ Athens. New York. 365 Hunter, R.L. 2003. ‘Reflecting on Writing and Culture: Theocritus and the Style of Cultural Change’, in H. Yunis (ed.) Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. pp. 213-34. Jaeger, W. 1938. Demosthenes: The Origin and Growth of his Policy. Los Angeles. Janis, I.L 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos. Boston. Kagan, D. 1981. The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition. Ithaca. Kallet-Marx, L. 1994. ‘Institutions, Ideology and Political Consciousness in Ancient Greece: Some Recent Books on Athenian Democracy’, JHI 55, pp. 307-335. Karvounis, C. 2002. Demosthenes: Studien zu den Demegorien orr. XIV,XVI, XV, IV, I,II,III. Tübungen. Kennedy, C.R. 1967. ‘Demosthenes’ Use of History’ reprinted in J.J. Murphy (ed.) Demosthenes’ On the Crown: A Critical Case Study of a Masterpiece of Ancient Oratory. New York. pp. 145-156. Kennedy, G.A. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton. Kennedy, G.A. 1967. ‘The Oratorical Career of Demosthenes,’ in J.J. Murphy (ed.) Demosthenes’ On the Crown: A Critical Case Study of a Masterpiece of Ancient Oratory. New York. pp. 28-47. Kennedy, G.A. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton. Kinneavy, J. 2002. ‘Kairos in Classical and Modern Rhetorical Theory’, in P. Sipiora and J.S. Baumlin (eds.) Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis. New York. pp. 58-76. Knox, R.A. 1985. ‘ ‘So Mischievous a Beaste?’ The Athenian Demos and its Treatment of Politicians’, G&R 32, pp. 132-161. Konstan, D. 2003. ‘Shame in Ancient Greece’, Social Research: An International Quarterly, 70. 4, pp. 1031-1060. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch. 2011.‘Amphipolis’, in R. Lane-Fox (ed.) Brill Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Leiden. pp. 409-436. Kremmydas, C. 2013. ‘The Discourse of Deception and Characterisation in Attic Oratory’, GRBS 53. pp. 51-89. Lambert, S.D. 2012. Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1-322/1BC: Epigraphical Essays. Leiden. Lane Fox, R. 1997. ‘Demosthenes, Dionysius, and the Dating of Six Early Speeches’, C&M 48, pp. 167-203. 366 Lape, S. 2010. Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy. Cambridge. Lausberg, H. 1998. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Leiden. Lintott, A. 2012. Plutarch, Demosthenes and Cicero: Oratory and Political Failure. Oxford. Livingstone, N.R. 1998. ‘The voice of Isocrates and the dissemination of cultural power’, in N. R. Livingstone and Y.L. Too (eds.) Pedagogy and Power: rhetorics of classical learning. Cambridge. pp. 263-281. Livingstone, N.R. 2001. A Commentary of Isocrates’ Busiris. Leiden. Leopold, J.W. 1981. ‘Demosthenes on Distrust of Tyrants’, GRBS 22, pp. 227-246. Leopold, J.W. 1987. ‘Demosthenes’ Strategy in the First Philippic, ‘An Away Match with Macedonian Cavalry?’, AncW 16, pp. 59-69. Loraux, N. 1981. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Cambridge. MacDowell, D.M. 1978. The Law in Classical Athens. London. MacDowell, D.M. 2009. Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford. MacGregor, J.M. 1950. The Olynthiac Speeches of Demosthenes. Cambridge. Mack, W. 2015. Proxeny and Polis: Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World. Oxford. Mader, G. 2003. ‘Quantum mutate ab illis…: Satire and Displaced Identity in Demosthenes’ First Philippic’, Philologus 147, pp.56-69. Mader, G. 2004. ‘Praise, Blame and Authority: some Strategies of Persuasion in Demosthenes, Philippic 2,’ Hermes 132, pp.56-69. Mader, G. 2005. ‘Pax Duello Mixta: Demosthenes and the Rhetoric of War and Peace,’ CJ 101. 1. pp.11-35. Mader, G. 2006. ‘Fighting Philip with Decrees: Demosthenes and the Syndrome of Symbolic Action’, AJPh 127. 3. pp. 367-386. Mader, G. 2007. ‘Dramatising Didaxis: Aspects of Demosthenes’ “Periclean” Project’, CPh 102. 2. pp. 155-179. Mader, G. 2007b. ‘Foresight, Hindsight, and the rhetoric of Self-fashioning in Demosthenes’ Philippic Cycle’, Rhetorica 25. 4. pp. 339-360. Meiggs, R. The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Milns, R.D. 2000. ‘The Public Speeches of Demosthenes’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator. London. pp. 205-223. Misztal, B. 2003. Theories of Social Remembering. Maidenhead. 367 Močnik, R. 2013. ‘Ideological Interpellation: identification and subjectivation’, in K. Diefenback, S.R. Farris, G. Kim and P.D. Thomas (eds) Encountering Althusser: Politics and Materialism in Contemporary Radical Thought. London. Montgomery, H. 1983. The Way to Chaeronea. Oslo. Montiglio, S. 2000. Silence in the Land of Logos. Princeton. Moreno, A. 2007. Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC. Oxford. Morrison, J.S. 1987. ‘Athenian Sea-Power in 323/2 B.C: Dream and Reality’, JHS 107, pp. 88-97. Morstein-Marx, R. 2004. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge. Mosley, D.J. 1971. ‘Athens’ Alliance with Thebes 339 B.C.’, Historia 20, pp. 508-10. Müller, S. 2010. ‘Philip II’ in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds.) Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden. pp. 166-185. Munn, M. 2006. ‘The Occasion of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War’, in Faris, S.B. and L.E. Lundeen (eds.) Ten Years of the Agnes Kirsopp Lake Michels Lectures at Bryn Mawr College. Bryn Mawr. pp. 179-202. Nietzsche, F. 1887 (1956). The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals. New York. Nouhaud, M. 1982. L’Utilisation de l’histoire par les orateurs attiques. Paris. Ober, J. 1989. Mass and elite in Democratic Athens: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory. Princeton. Ober, J. 1989b. ‘Public Speech and the Power of the People in Democratic Athens’, in J. Ober (ed.) The Athenian Revolution: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory. Princeton. pp. 18-31. Ober, J. 1994. ‘Civic Ideology and Counterhegemonic Discourse: Thucydides on the Sicilian Debate’, in A.L. Boegehold and A.C. Scafuro (eds.) Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology. Baltimore. pp. 102-26. Ober, J. 1996. The Athenian Revolution: Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory. Princeton. Ober, J. 2001. Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Culture. Princeton. Ober, J. 2008. Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton. Olson, S.D. 2007. Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy. Oxford. 368 Olson, S.D. 2014. Ancient Comedy and Reception: Essays in Honour of Jeffrey Henderson. Freiburg. Papageorgiou, V. 2010. Here, and Here: Essays on Affirmation and Tragic Awareness. Newcastle. Papillon, T. 1998. Rhetorical Studies in the Aristocratea of Demosthenes. New York. Papillon, T. 2007. ‘Isocrates’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden. pp. 58-74. Pappas, N and M. Zelcer (eds.) 2015. Politics and Philosophy in Plato’s Menexenus: education and rhetoric, myth and history. London and New York. Parker, R. 1983. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion. Oxford. Parry, A. 1957. Logos and Ergon in Thucydides. Harvard. Pearson, L. 1976. The Art of Demosthenes. Meisenheim am Glan. Peltonen, M. 2013. Rhetoric, Politics and Popularity in Pre-revolutionary England. Cambridge. Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1970. Traité de l’argumentation: La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Brussels. Perlman, S. 1961. ‘The Historical Example, Its Use and Importance as Political Propaganda in the Attic Orators’, SH 7, pp. 158-166. Pernot, L. 2006. L’Ombre du Tigre: Recherches sur la reception de Démosthène. Naples. Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. 1914. Demosthenes and the Last Days of Greek Freedom 384-322 BC. London. Pritchett, W.K. 1974. The Greek State at War Part II. Berkeley. Psoma, S. 2011. ‘The Kingdom of Macedonia and the Chalcidic League’, in R. Lane-Fox (ed.) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon. Leiden. pp. 113-135. Quiroga Puertas, A. 2015. ‘Demosthenes’ Legal and Moral Arguments in Libanius’ Declamations’, in E. Amato, F.Y. Citti, and B. Huelsenbeck (eds.) Ethics and Law in Greek and Roman Declamation. Berlin. pp 287-306. Raaflaub, K. 2004. The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece. Chicago and London. Race, W.H. 1981. ‘The Word Kairos in Greek Drama’, in TAPhA III. pp. 197-213. Rehmann, J. 2013. Theories of Ideology: The Powers of Alienation and Subjection. Leiden. Reynolds, L.D and N.G. Wilson. 2013. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Fourth edition. Oxford. Rhodes, P.J. 1980. ‘Athenian Democracy after 403 B.C.’, CJ 75, pp. 305-323. 369 Richard, C.J. 2009. Greeks and Romans Bearing Gifts: How the Ancients Inspired the Founding Fathers. Lanham. Riginos, A.S. 1994. ‘The Wounding of Philip II of Macedon: Fact and Fabrication’, JHS 114, pp. 103-119. Roark, T. 2011. Aristotle on Time: A study of the Physics. Cambridge. Roisman, J. 2004. ‘Speaker-Audience Interaction in Athens: A Power Struggle’, in Sluiter, I and R.M. Rosen (eds.) Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Mnemosyne. Brill. Roisman, J. 2006. The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Roisman, J. 2010. ‘Classical Macedonia to Perdiccas III’, in J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds.) Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden. pp. 145-165. Romilly, J. 1976. Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Roochnik, D. 2013. Retrieving Aristotle in an Age of Crisis. New York. Roselli, D.K. 2009. ‘Theorika in Fifth-Century Athens’, GRBS 49, pp. 5-30. Rostagni, A. 2002. ‘A New Chapter in the History of Rhetoric and Sophistry’, trans, P. Sipiora, in P. Sipiora and J.S. Baumlin (eds.) 2002. Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis. New York. pp. 23-45. Rowe, G.O. 1968. ‘Demosthenes’ First Philippic: The Satiric Mode’, TAPhA 99, pp. 361374. Ryder, T.T.B. 1976. ‘Demosthenes and Philip’s Peace of 338/7 BC’, CQ 26, pp.85-87. Ryder, T.T.B. 1994. ‘The Diplomatic Skills of Philip II’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Ventures into Greek History: Essays in Honour of H.G.L. Hammond. Oxford. pp. 228-257. Ryder, T.T.B. 2000. ‘Demosthenes and Philip II’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator. London. pp. 45-89. Sandys, J.E. 1900. Demosthenes: On the Peace, Second Philippic, On the Chersonesus and Third Philippic. Cambridge. Sandys, J.E. 1910. The First Philippic and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes. Cambridge. Sandys, J.E. ‘Blass on Demosthenes’, CR, pp. 465. Sawada, N. ‘A reconsideration of the Peace of Philocrates’, Kodai 4, pp. 21-50. Schacter, D.L. 2001. The Seven Sins of Memory: how the mind forgets and remembers. Boston and New York. Schaefer, A. 1885-87. Demosthenes und seine Zeit, 3 vols. Leipzig. Schofield, M. and T. Griffith. Plato: Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras. Cambridge and New York. 370 Schuppert, V. 2016. ‘Speech and Silence in the Spotlight: the Intersection of the Tragic and the Comic Tereus in Aristophanes' Birds’, presented at the Classical Association Conference. 7th April 2016, Edinburgh. [Unpublished Paper]. Schwarz, E. 1893. ‘Demosthenes’ erste Philippika,’ in P. Jors, E. Schwartz and R. Reitzenstein (eds.) Festschrift Theodor Mommsen zum fünfzigjährigen Doctorjubiläum. Marburg. Sealey, R. 1955. 1955. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Some Demosthenic Dates’, REG 68, pp.77-120. Sealey, R. 1993. Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford. Shrimpton, G.S. 1991. Theopompus the Historian. Montreal. Sidebottom, H. & M. Whitby (eds.) 2014. Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Ancient Battles. Malden. Sinclair, R.K. 1988. Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge. Sipiora, P. and J.S. Baumlin (eds.) 2002. Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis. New York. Slater, W.J. 1988. ‘The Epiphany of Demosthenes’, Phoenix 42, pp.126-130. Sluiter, I and I.M. Rosen (eds.) 2004. Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Leiden. Smith, J. E. 2002. ‘Time and Qualitative Time’, in P. Sipiora and J.S. Baumlin (eds.) 2002. Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis. New York. pp. 46-57. Smith, A.C. 2011. Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art. Leiden. Sorg, T. 2015. ‘Agyrrhios beyond Attica : tax-farming and imperial recovery in the Second Athenian League’, Historia 64. 1. pp. 49-76. Steinbock, B. 2013. Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Uses and Meanings of the Past. Ann Arbor. Sundahl, M.J. 2003. ‘The Rule of Law and the Nature of the Fourth-Century Athenian Democracy’, C&M 54, pp.127-156. Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50-250. Oxford. Taddeo, D.H. 1971. Signs of Demosthenes in Cicero’s Philippics. Tarnopolsky, C.H. 2010. Prudes, Perverts and Tyrants: Plato’s Gorgias and the Politics of Shame. Princeton. Thomas, R. 1989. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Thomas, R. 1992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. 371 Thomas, R. 2002. Herodotus in Context: Enthography, Science and the Art of Persuasion. Cambridge. Tiverios, M. 2008. ‘Greek Colonisation of the Northern Aegean’, in G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.) Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonise and Other Settlements Overseas. Vol 2. Mnemosyne. Brill. Leiden. Todd, S.C. 1990. ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover and the Attic Orators: the Social Composition of the Athenian Juries’, JHS 110, pp. 146-73. Todd, S.C. 1993. The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford. Todd, S.C. 2000. ‘How to Execute People in Fourth-Century Athens’, in J. Edmonson and V. Hunter (eds.) Law and Social Status in Classical Athens. Too, Y.L. 1995. The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Pedagogy, Power. Cambridge. Trampedach, K. 1994. Platon, die Akademie und die zeitgenössiche Politik. Stuttgart. Trevett, J. 1996, ‘Did Demosthenes Publish His Deliberative Speeches?’, Hermes 124, pp. 425-444. Trevett, J. 2011. Demosthenes, Speeches 1-17. Austin. Tuplin, C. 1998. ‘Demosthenes’ Olynthiacs and the Character of the Demegoric Corpus’, Historia 47, pp. 276-320. Turner, A. 2015. ‘Two plus Two equals Five: Thucydides, Groupthink and the Sicilian Expedition Fiasco’, presented at the Psychology and the Classics Conference. 27 th March 2015. Leuven. [Unpublished Paper]. Tyrrell, W. and L.J. Bennett. 1998. Recapturing Sophocles' Antigone. Lanham. Usher, S. 1999. Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality. Oxford. Usher, S. 2004. ‘Kairos in fourth-century oratory’, in M. Edwards and C. Reid (eds.) Oratory in Action. Manchester. pp 53-61. Usher, S. 2010. ‘Symbouleutic Oratory’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden. pp. 220-235. Van Alphen, E. M. Bal and C. Smith. (eds.) 2008. The Rhetoric of Sincerity. Stanford. Vince, J.H. 1986. Demosthenes [Loeb 3]. Cambridge and London. Valesio, P. 1980. Novantiqua: Rhetoric as a Contemporary Theory. Bloomington. Wallace, R. W. 2004. ‘The Power to Speak – and Not to Listen – in Ancient Athens’, in I. Sluiter and R.M. Rosen (eds.) Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Mnemosyne. Brill. pp. 221232. Weil, H. 1912. Les harangues de Démosthène. Paris West, A.B. 1918. The History of the Chalcidic League. Madison. 372 Whitehead, D. 1993. ‘Cardinal Virtues: The Language of Public Approbation in Democratic Athens’, C&M 44, pp. 37-75. Wiseman, T.P. (ed.) 2002. Classics in Progress: Essays on ancient Greece and Rome. British Academy, Oxford. Wohl, V. 1998. Intimate Commerce: Exchange, Gender, and Subjectivity in Greek Tragedy. Austin. Wooten, C.W. 1983. Cicero’s Philippics and their Demosthenic Model. Chapel Hill. Wooten, C.W 2008. A Commentary on Demosthenes’ Philippic I. Oxford. Worthington, I. 1991. ‘Greek Oratory, Revision of Speeches and the Problem of Historical Reliability’, C&M 42, pp. 55-74. Worthington, I. 1991. ‘The Authenticity of Demosthenes’ Fourth Philippic’, Mnemosyne 44, pp. 425-428. Worthington, I. 1992. A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor. Worthington, I. 1995. On Usher 1993. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 95.02.16 Worthington, I. 1994. ‘History and Oratorical Exploitation,’ in I. Worthington (ed.) Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action. London. Worthington, I. 1994. Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action. London. I. Worthington (ed.). 1994. Ventures into Greek History: Essays in Honour of N.G.L. Hammond. Oxford. Worthington, I. 2000. Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator. London. Worthington, I. 2001. Worthington on Wooten on Worthington. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2001.09.15. Worthington, I. 2004. ‘Oral Performance in the Athenian Assembly and the Demosthenic Prooemia’, in C.M. Mackie (ed.), Oral Performance and Its Context. Leiden. pp. 124-144. Worthington, I. 2007. ‘Rhetoric and Politics in Classical Greece: Rise of the Rhêtores’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden. pp. 255-271. Worthington, I. (ed.). 2007. Blackwell Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden. Worthington, I. 2008. ‘IG ii2 236 and Philip’s Common Peace of 337’, in L.G. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein (eds.) Greek Epigraphy and History: Essays in Honour of P.J. Rhodes. Swansea. pp. 213-223. Worthington, I. 2008. Philip II of Macedonia. New Haven and London. Worthington, I. and J. Roisman (eds.) 2010. Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Oxford. 373 Worthington, I. 2010b. ‘Why We Have Demosthenes’ Symbouleutic Speeches: A Note’, in F.C. Gabaudan and J.V.M. Dosuna (eds.) Dic mihi, Musa, virum: Homenaje al professor Antonio López Eire. Salamaca. Worthington, I. 2013. Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece. Oxford. Worthington, I. 2014. By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire. Oxford. Yunis, H. 1996. Taming Democracy: Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens. Ithica. Yunis, H. 2001. Demosthenes, On the Crown. Cambridge. Yunis, H. 2005. Demosthenes, Speeches 18 and 19. Austin. Yunis, H. 2007. ‘Politics as Literature: Demosthenes and the Burdern of the Athenian Past’, in E. Carawan (ed.) Oxford Readings in the Attics Orators. Oxford. pp. 372-390. Zeitlin, F.I. 1986. ‘Thebes: Theatre of Self and Society in Athenian Drama,’ in P. Euben (ed.) Greek Tragedy and Political Theory. Berkeley. pp. 101-141. 374