Certainly the whole reasoning of Demosthenes proceeds upon the assumption that all this is right. If you deny his principle, there is an end of the whole argument, for one of the first rules of logic is, that there is no disputing with him that questions principles.* How should you prove to a Quaker, that any war was just, or necessary, or glorious? How could Sir John's argument on the point of honor be refuted to the satisfaction of a jury of Falstaffs? If Lord Brougham does not feel and acknowledge the force of the precedent, as he seems not to do, then he is no fit judge of Demosthenes or his reasoning-the whole matter is to him coram non judice. But if he admits the premises of the orator, his conclusion is irresistible; and the verdict of the only tribunal competent to do it full justice-the people of Athens - has settled the question for ever. Nor, indeed, do we envy him that reads this wonderful oration-wonderful in every thing that can enter into the composition of a perfect speech, but most of all in the heroical elevation of sentiment without feeling it to be true that the motives, the conduct, the spirit oft he contest, were those of Salamis and Artemisium-that this spirit had moved the mighty orator from the beginning, as it did to the end of his great and tragical career -had made him throw himself into the breach on the memorable occasion, painted in all its terrors (in this very speech), of the sudden capture of Elateia by Philip, when no other public man durst utter an opinion or propose a measure - had dictated his immortal manifesto, as full of statesmanlike wisdom and high patriotism, as of matchless eloquencet -had gone with him on his embassy to Thebes, and there armed him with invincible might, and insured him a complete triumph over every difficulty of sloth, and fear, and rooted prejudice, and over the most formidable opposition from the partisans of Philip—and was now, in this last solemn account of his stewardship, by the lofty tones in which the examples of the past were invoked to justify his measures, attesting in the most unequivocal manner their moral identity. As to his failure in the great result, we shall say more of that hereafter, but the orator has not left us to conjecture the disadvantages under which he labored in his contest with Philip. In a passage of this very speech, they are most clearly and forcibly summed up.‡ * Contra negantem principia non est disputandum. But we have already, perhaps, dwelt too long upon this part of the subject, and we must hasten to another. The second volume at the head of this article, is one of many contributions to the literature of Demosthenes which Professor Westermann has made within a few years past. This little volume contains his remarks upon the causes which the orator argued himself, in contradistinction to those wherein he furnished arguments to others. These were the Lis Tutoria, or his action of account against his guardiansthe Lis Midiana, or his action against Midias for a ruffianly assault upon him, of which we have already spoken - the two contests with Aschines on the Embassy and the Crownthe Lis Aristogeitonia, two declamatory pieces, certainly not genuine and the Lis Harpalica, involving the famous charge of corruption against him, for extending his protection to the fugitive treasurer of Alexander, and sharing in the fruits of his famous embezzlement. The book closes with an epimetrum, in which the author treats of the repetitions that occur in the orations of Demosthenes, and animadverts upon certain critical remarks of Lord Brougham in regard to them. We shall take notice of these, if our space admit of it, by and by. 1. The two speeches against Aphobus were delivered when Demosthenes was only eighteen or twenty years of age; the third is condemned as spurious. Crassus, in the Dialogue de Oratore,* mentions his appearing before the public, on an important occasion, at almost as early an age. In the case of Demosthenes, the wonder is greatly increased by the extreme maturity of thought and style that distinguishes these speeches. This was, indeed, so remarkable, that his master Isæus was charged with having helped him in the composition of them. The only difficulty in the way of that supposition is, that they happen to be better than any thing the said master has done for himself. The peroration of the first is extremely pathetic, and there is one point in it (§ 13) that is particularly well reasoned. The speech is in other respects a dry matter of account, which he states, item by item, with the precision of a master in chancery. He appears, however, to make out his case very clearly, and the judgment of the court shows that his evidence was as strong as his statement was plain. It seems that he was left at his * L. 3, c. 20. father's death a boy of seven years old, with a sister two years younger, and a fortune, the bulk of which had been bequeathed to him, of fourteen talents, which properly managed would have increased, by the time he was of age, to thirty (about £7,250). Instead of this opulent estate, (for so it was then,) he received from his guardians only a house, fourteen slaves, and thirty minæ (£120) in money. This was the beginning of his misfortunes, and, according to some of his biographers, of his greatness. Facit indignatio versus. To be revenged on these wicked men, they suppose him to have devoted himself to the study of eloquence-as if the orator, par excellence, of all time, was a creature of accident or art, or as if any body can be eloquent, after the manner of Demosthenes, without a physical organization of a most peculiar kind. But it deserves to be mentioned, that if Demosthenes afterwards wrote, as we have seen he did, many speeches for money, this humiliating necessity was imposed upon one born for better things, by the profligate mismanagement of others. The profession of a feed advocate, or logograph, at Athens, was regarded with extreme disfavor. Demosthenes himself informs us, it was generally admitted that the worst class in the community were those who wrote and spoke for money. There is a terrible picture, though in very exaggerated colors, in the oration against Aristogeiton, of the vast influences, as well as of the detestable practices, of the orators in general, but especially the venal sycophants brokers in iniquity, as they are called, who traffic in their influence with the people, and live on the terrors of the rich.t The speeches against Aphobus, we may add here, stand at the head of those composed for private causes. These are a curious variety of the Demosthenic style, and strikingly illustrate its wonderful versatility, so much extolled by Cicero and Dionysius. It is equally perfect, that is, fit and appropriate, on all subjects, from the highest to the lowest. There was no imaginable sort of speaking in which he did not excel -observing every where the cardinal rule of Roscius, which that great actor declared it was so difficult to practiseCaput est artis decere. One of the false ideas which writers * Cont. Aristocrat. § 36. Cf. Midiana, § 52. make me odious." Timocrat. § 17. "Have no "He will call me orator, to pity for him, he writes for pay." † Aristogeit. §§ 9-11. "The dogs of Demus." Passages, these, certainly not of Demosthenes. like Blair, and even Lord Brougham, instil into the minds of youth, is that this wonderful artist is a sort of tragedy-hero always in buskins and "sceptred pall"—the Toraywriting of oratory, as he calls Eschines or worse yet, as if he were always, as Bottom says, "playing Ercles-or a part to tear a cat in to make all split." Nothing can be farther from the true conception of a style of which the peculiar characteristic is decorum, as nothing, indeed, could be more insane than such uniform, unremitting vehemence. There is one class of these private causes which are reduced to some single point or exception beside the merits, and take the tone of an argument in our courts on a demurrer or a special plea. Think of Demosthenes the special pleader! But though in general they are distinguished by any thing rather than the ranting vein ascribed to their author, his great power occasionally displays itself in no equivocal manner. Thus the first speech against Stephanus for perjury is admirable throughout, and contains some tremendous peals of denunciation. So the speech against Olympiodorus for damages (62a6ns) is exceedingly fine. That against Polycles is full of instructive matter about the trierarchy, sailors' wages, the corn trade, etc. In short, these arguments embrace a great variety of questions in Attic law, and are well worthy the attention of all who are curious about comparative jurisprudence. One other remark, altogether characteristic of Demosthenes, we will make in reference to these speeches, and that is, that like his arguments in matters of public law, they are, with but a single exception, every one of them for the plaintiff, or prosecutor. These causes were all restrained within certain limits as to time, varying, apparently, according to circumstances, and measured by a proportional allowance of water in the clepsydra. It is no uncommon thing for the orator to say, "I have a good deal more to add, but I see the water running short," or to find him crying out, when he called for the reading of a law or document by the clerk, (as was the usage,) "stop the water." The first maxim of Attic taste in all things is, ne quid nimis, (ovdev ayar) — when shall we learn, in this most long-winded of all countries, to imitate at least the Atticism of brevity? The second of the causes in which Demosthenes appears in proper person, according to Professor Westermann's ar * § 23, cf. § 10. rangement, is the Lis Midiana. This case, of which we have already said something, is very illustrative, both of the state of manners at Athens, and of the character of Demosthenes himself. It grew out of the cause against his guardians, in which Midias interfered to protect the latter, by procuring the orator to be charged with an oppressive liturgy - and when he declined it, offering him, according to the Athenian law, an exchange of fortunes, by means of which Aphobus would have been at once discharged from all farther liability. It seems that in offering this antidosis, (such was the technical term,) the conduct of Midias was excessively brutal. From this source flowed a most malignant and mischievous personal grudge on the part of the unprovoked offender, against the youth he had wronged; and many years after, when Demosthenes, as Choregus of his tribe, was making preparations for an exhibition of his chorus at one of the great public festivals, this ruffian (one of the principal people of Athens,) committed a series of outrages, ending with a box on the ear, inflicted upon the young orator in public. The people, indignant at such brutality, insisted that the offender should be brought to condign punishment, and accordingly measures were taken to effect that object. Among other things Demosthenes composed, but it is said did not deliver, his celebrated speech-having compromised his suit with his formidable adversary for thirty minæ (£120). Why did he receive this hush-money? Plutarch regards it as a proof, that although he was at that time thirty-two years of age, and had delivered one at least of his harangues in the assembly of the people, not to mention the four admirable speeches in state trials already adverted to, he had as yet too little political influence to venture upon so unequal a contest. He is led to ascribe the compromise to some such motive, from the irascible and vindictive (?) character of Demosthenes. Be that as it may, the compounding of this prosecution, together with a similar occurrence between him and one of his relatives, was matter of much pungent waggery. Eschines' sarcastic remark, that his head was a treasure to him,t shows at least the on-dits of the day. His determination to drop the prosecution was no doubt prompted, in some degree, by an indictment for desertion, * § 22. + More literally, a capital”—not κεφαλη, but κεφαλαιον, is a conjectural reading approved by Bekker. |