their obstinacy in persisting in the struggle with Sparta, when they might have put an end to it on moderate terms- the destruction of their walls, the overthrow of the democracy, the despotism of the thirty tyrants, and the execution of fifteen hundred citizens without a trial. It seems to us very conceivable, considering the situation of Greece at that time, (of which we shall presently say more,) that Æschines might have been governed by such views, and honestly advised peace, and all the measures which subsequently led to the ruin of his country. That he had been captivated by the plausible professions and amiable manners of Philip, during his first embassy, is very evident; why should he not have been his dupe? M. Westermann seems to think he had deliberately conspired with that prince to overthrow the liberty of Greece. Does he suppose so crafty a politician as Philip let an Athenian, an orator, a babbler by profession, into the secrets of his ambition? The only argument of any force against this view of the matter, is that pressed by Demosthenes in his speech on the Embassy. "Had he not sold himself, I should expect to hear him say something to this effect: Men of Athens, do with me as you please; I believed, I was imposed upon, I have erred, I confess. But be on your guard, Athenians, against that man; he is faithless, perfidious, wicked-do ye not see how he has used me, how grossly he has deceived me?' But I hear nothing of the kind from him, nor you neither. Why? Because he spoke under no error, or delusion, but for the wages of his treachery, acting the part of a good and faithful mercenary, but of a traitor ambassador and citizen, and deserving to die for it, not once, but three times over." This is specious, yet a political party has seldom been known to change its ground on a discovery of its error, and still more rarely to confess its shame when it has been disgracefully duped. The Whigs under the lead of Mr. Fox in 1793 and in 1803, were in precisely the same predicament in regard to the French Revolution, as that in which Eschines stood in relation to Philip and they were as far as he from making any confession or retraction. After the failure of this attempt upon the head of the peace party, we hear no more of conflicts between the great rivals until the last and decisive one. So far Eschines had been * De fals. Legat. § 109. completely triumphant in defending himself. He had destroyed Timarchus, and driven back his great colleague himself, foiled and discomfited. But he had not supplanted this latter in the affections of the people. Very far from it. Events had occurred since that contest which had given to Demosthenes all the credit of sagacity and patriotism. Philip, taking advantage of a second Holy War, set on foot by Eschines, though it is very possible he might have been actuated by motives which, at any former period, would undoubtedly have led the Amphictyons to adopt the same measures, pounced suddenly upon Elatea, and revealed, even to the blindest, his ulterior projects against Greece. Demosthenes, as we have seen, nothing daunted by this sudden and imminent peril, roused up Thebes to an alliance with Athens against him, and the fatal battle of Cheronea fulfilled the worst forebodings of the patriot orator. His country was fallen for ever from her political pre-eminence, but Philip was excessively ambitious of her praises. "Grecian, too, with all his vices." He wanted her for his theatre, and her wits and artists for his spectators, in the great part which he fully intended to perform, of Conqueror of Persia. He left her nominally an independent democracy. She still retained. her darling nagénoia. The orators might still speak-of the past and the last appearance of Demosthenes was on the occasion on which we have already dwelt, of Ctesiphon's motion to reward him with a crown. He comes forward now no longer as a counsellor, but as a historian, to justify his whole political course. It is the grandest piece of egotism on record-Milton's, perhaps, excepted. Yet is the subject so dexterously, or rather, we should say, so simply, so sincerely, so sublimely managed, that you forget the orator in the statesman, the statesman in the patriot, the patriot in his country, which seems to have engrossed, penetrated, transformed and elevated his whole being. Surely it is not to be wondered at that this defence was triumphant. It was impossible it should fail were the laws ever so express against the honor proposed - were the calamities brought upon Greece by resistance to the conqueror worse even than they were represented to be by the adversaries of the orator. The democracy, except the name, was gone, but it had died on the bed of glory. The achievements which Herodotus records in a simple tale of wonder were not more worthy to be had in honor among men, were in no thing but in good fortune and in military skill superior to the last struggle to emulate them. But it was all over with popular government - Alexander had trodden out the first sparks of insurrection in Greece- he had effaced the antique and myth-honored Thebes from the map-he had demanded of the Athenians that their orators, and especially their great orator, should be delivered up to him to be put to death. He was pacified by Demades and did not press this demand. But the proscription of a patriot is his apotheosis in the eyes of those for whom he suffers, and whatever influence may be ascribed to his matchless genius and eloquencematchless then and for ever-it is certain that through all his subsequent life-even when, under duress, they voted his banishment, nay, when they afterwards voted his deathhe was without a rival in the affections of the people of Athens. It was impossible, therefore, that Æschines should have triumphed, had he even made, as he did, on the subject of the embassy, a better speech than his rival, instead of being, as he was, hopelessly eclipsed. The Macedonian influence on which he is supposed, and with good reason, to have counted, was not strong enough at the moment to have any effect on the issue of such a discussion. It served, on the contrary, to render him more odious-he was identified, like the Bourbons, with the conquest of his country and hatred for the foreigner. The relative positions of the orators with regard to the audience reversed their nominal parts. The prosecutor is plainly on the defensive throughout-the accused attacks with ferocity. The cause had been pending, according to the common account, eight years. M. Westermann thinks he has proved the delay was only half that time. The difference is unimportant for any practical purpose. This solemn note of preparation, the reputation of the speakers, their inveterate hostility personal and political, the memory of their former contests and of the tragical end of Timarchus, the fact that one of the champions was backed by the Macedonian interest, while the other was cheered by the sympathy of a people as true to him in defeat and disaster as they had been in the day of triumph, the renowned democracy of two hundred years lifting up, for the last time, its spirit-stirring voice in the midst of a world doomed to hear it no more; the past, the present, the dark and hopeless future every thing conspired to give to this immortal contest -- a character and an interest altogether unique in the history of the human mind. The eloquence of Eschines is of a brilliant and showy character, running occasionally, as we have said, though very rarely, into a Ciceronian declamation. In general, however, his taste is unexceptionable-clear in statement, close and cogent in argument, lucid in arrangement, remarkably graphic and animated in style, and full of spirit and pleasantry, without the least appearance of emphasis or effort. He is particularly successful in description and the portraiture of character. We have spoken of the ridiculous light in which he places the behavior of Demosthenes on the first embassy, and the miserable failure of the great orator in his attempt to address Philip. His delivery seems to have been fine, though, perhaps, somewhat theatrical. Demosthenes alludes repeatedly to his musical and powerful voice, in comparison with his own rather feeble one,* as he contrasts his boldness and composure in speaking, with his own nervousness and timidity. His well known ridicule of some of the strong phrases in which the passion of Demosthenes sometimes (we must suppose extemporaneously) vented itself, shows him to have been a very Athenian for fastidiousness of taste. The reply of the great orator to this criticism is characteristic both of the man and the speaker-who are, indeed, inseparable -that to be sure, it signified a great deal to the welfare of the Greeks whether he used one phrase rather than another, or stretched out his arm thus or thus. His high opinion of his rival, however, is sufficiently betrayed by his frequent admonitions to the assembly to remember that their debates are no theatrical exhibitions of voice and oratory, but deliberations involving the safety of their country. His bitterest scoffs, too, against Æschines, have reference to his former profession of an actor, in which he generally had the "tyrant's part."§ (zayoigns.) He tells them it is very strange that the same audience that had hissed and almost stoned him, when he attempted to play Thyestes, so that he abandoned the stage in despair, should listen to him with so much complaisance when he took it upon him to counsel them about the * De fals. Legat. § 61. p0eyycobaι pey1505. + Ibid. I who am before great multitudes as you say dedos, as I cf. Ib. § 64. * Dionys. Halicarn. T. r. λ. A. devoritos says it is a false charge. § De fals. Legat. 69. 71. Creon Eschines, etc. say ευλαβης. the gravest matters. If you were choosing a crier, it would be of some importance to know what sort of a voice he had, but what does it signify in a statesman, and what eloquence or ability can recommend so bad a man? In his speech on the Crown his invective is nothing less than gigantic-- he throws whole heaps of ribaldry and vituperation upon his adversary with "jaculation dire"-and if Eschines occasionally, though certainly not to the same extent, uses the same weapon, he may plead a provocation sufficient to excuse, or even to justify any retaliation. His piquant and graceful satire, however, is too light for such warfare. What did the eloquence of Æschines want to make it perfect? That which distinguishes the eloquence of Demosthenes, above all other, ancient or modern,-earnestness, conviction, the power to persuade that belongs to a strong and deep persuasion felt by the speaker. The old question so much discussed among the rhetoricians, whether a great orator (we do not say speaker, merely) must be a good man, must undoubtedly be answered sub modo in the affirmative. He must be honest, at least quoad hoc. He must believe in the cause he pleads. Milton, in a passage a part of which has been cited above, says, "true eloquence I find to be none but the serious and hearty love of truth" or more properly, what the speaker believes to be the truth. This sentence ought to be engraved on the mind of every young aspirant. It is the great cardinal principle of all sound rhetoric, and is worth more than all Quintilian's twelve books put together. Faith, hope, love-the three Christian graces-are indispensable to excellence in any art-but of all arts, in oratory most. It is given to no man, be his genius or accomplishments what they may, to sway, with a real empire, great masses, with any other voice than that of faith, animated by hope, but, above all, inflamed with zeal in his cause, and with "dearest charity," to impress his convictions on others. Do you expect to be eloquent? Say nothing you do not believe -the voice never lies-the slightest tone of nature will pierce and penetrate ten thousand bosoms as if with an electrical spark, but the least falseness or coldness, and still worse, affectation, there, is fatal. It is for this reason that the weak things of this world so often confound the wise, in this kind. It is a maxim in the Church, that no heresiarch |