SCO HISTOKY OF GREECE, ly put forward, by Pctrenz, p. 11 : " Quid ! quod ipsorura Olynthio rum hac quidem in causa tantum uno loco facta mentio est ut uno illo versiculo sublato, vix ex ipsa oratione, qua in causa es et habita, certis rationibus evinci posset." How are we to explain the absence of all reference to Olynthus ? According to Petrenz, it is because the orator had already, in his former harangue, said all that could be neces- sary in respect to the wants of Olynthus, and the necessity of upholding that city even for the safety of Athens ; he might now therefore calcu- late that his first discourse remained impressed on his countrymen, and that all that was required was, to combat the extraordinary fear of Philip which hindered them from giving effect to a resolution already taken to assist the Olynthians. In this hypothesis I am unable to acquiesce. It may appear natural to a reader of Demosthenes, who passes from the first printed discourse to the second without any intervening time to forget what he has just read. But it will hardly fit the case of a real speaker in busy Athens. Neither Demosthenes in the fluctuating Athenian assembly nor even any orator in the more fixed English Parliament or American Congress could be rash enough to calculate that a discourse delivered some time before had remained engraven on the minds of his audience. If Demosthenes had previously addressed the Athenians with so strong a conviction of the distress of Olynthus, and of the motives for Athens to assist Olynthus, as is embodied in the first discourse if his speech, however well received, was not acted upon, so that in the course of a certain time he had to address them again for the same purpose I cannot believe that he would allude to Olynthus only once by the by, and that he would merely dilate upon the general chances and conditions of the war between Athens and Philip. However well calculated the second Olynthiac may be " ad concitandos exacerbandosque civium ani- mos" (to use the words of Petrenz), it is not peculiarly calculated to procure aid to Olynthus. If the orator had failed to procure such aid by a discourse like the first Olynthiac, he would never resort to a dis- course like the second Olynthiac to make good the deficiency ; would repeat anew, and more impressively than before, the danger of Olyn- thus, and the danger to Athens herself if she suffered Olynthus to fall. This would be the way to accomplish his object, and at the same time to combat the fear of Philip in the minds of the Athenians. According to my view of the subject, the omission (or mere single passing notice of Olynthus clearly shows that the wants of that city, and the urgency of assisting it, were not the main drift of Demosthenes in the second Olynthiac. His main drift is, to encourage and stimulate his countrymen in their general war against Philip ; taking in, thank- fully, the new ally Olynthus, whom they have just acquired but taking her only as a valuable auxiliary (in nQoad't'i'/.i]^ ^U'OH), to co- operate yriMi Athens against Philip as well as to receive aid from Athena
