378 HISTORY OF GREECE. The maintenance of freedom in the Hellenic world agaiust th extra- Hellenic invader, now turned once more upon the pass of Thermopylae ; as it had turned one hundred and thirty-three years before, during the onward march of the Persian Xerxes. To Philip, that pass was of incalculable importance. It was his only road into Greece ; it could not be forced by any land- army ; while at sea the Athenian fleet was stronger than his. In spite of the general remissness of Athens in warlike undertakings, she had now twice manifested her readiness for a vigorous effort to maintain Thermopylae against him. To become master of the position, it was necessary that he should disarm Athens by con- cluding peace, keep her in ignorance or delusion as to his real purposes, prevent her from conceiving alarm or sending aid to Thermopylfe, and then overawe or buy off the isolated Pho- kians. How ably and cunningly his diplomacy was managed for this purpose, will presently appear. 1 1 It is at this juncture, in trying to make out the diplomatic transactions between Athens and Philip, from the summer of 347 to that of 346 B. c., that we find ourselves plunged amidst the contradictory assertions of the two rival orators, Demosthenes and JEschines ; with very little of genu- ine historical authority to control them. In 343-342 B. c., Demosthenes im- peached JEschines for corrupt betrayal of the interest of Athens in the second of his three embassies to Philip (in 346 B. c.). The long harangue (De Falsa Legatione), still remaining, wherein his charge stands embodied, enters into copious details respecting the peace with its immediate antece- dents and consequents. We possess also the speech delivered by ^Eschines in his own defence, and in counter-accusation of Demosthenes ; a speech going over the same ground, suitably to his own purpose and point of view. Lastly, we have the two speeches, delivered several years later (in 330 B. c.), of .^Eschines in prosecuting Ktesiphon, and of Demosthenes in defending him; wherein the conduct of Demosthenes as to the peace of 346 B. c. again becomes matter of controversy. All these harangues are interesting, not merely as eloquent compositions, but also from the striking conception which they impart of the living sentiment and controversy of the time. But when we try to extract from them real and authentic matter of history, they become painfully embarrassing ; so glaring are the contradictions not cnly between the two rivals, but also between the earlier and later dis- courses of the same orator himself, especially ^Eschines ; so evident is the spirit of perversion, so unscrupulous are the manifestations of hostile feel- ing, on both sides. We can place little faith in the allegations of either orator against the other, except where some collateral grounds of fact or probability can be adduced in confirmation. But the allegations of ?ich
