CONDUCT OF THE TWO ORATORS. 393 of them were at all disposed to frustrate the negotiatioua by in- sidious delay; nor, if they had been so disposed, would the Athenian public have tolerated the attempt. On the best conclusion which I can form, Demosthenes sup- ported the motion of Philokrates (enacting both peace and alli- ance with Philip), except only that special clause which excluded both the Phokians and the town of Halus, and which was ulti- 63, 64) ; a charge utterly futile and incredible, refuted by the whole con- duct of Demosthenes, both before and after. Whether Demosthenes re- ceived bribes from Harpalus or from the Persian court will be matter of future inquiry. But the allegation that he had been bribed by Philip is absurd. ^Eschines himself confesses that it was quite at variance with the received opinion at Athens (adv. Ktes. p. 62. c. 22). He accuses Demosthenes of having, under the influence of these bribes, opposed and frustrated the recommendation of the confederate synod of having hurried on the debate about peace at once and of having thus prevented Athens from waiting for the return of her absent envoys, which would have enabled her to make peace in conjunction with a powerful body of cooperating Greeks. This charge is advanced by ./Eschines, first in the speech De Fals. Leg. p. 36 next, with greater length and emphasis, in the later speech, adv. Ktesiph. p. 63, 64. Prom what has been said in the text, it will be seen that such indefinite postponement, when Antipate* and Parmenio were present in Athens by invitation, was altogether impos- sible, without breaking off the negotiation. Not to mention, that Eschi- nes himself affirms, in the strongest language, the ascertained impossibility of prevailing upon any other Greeks to join Athens, and complains bitterly of their backward dispositions (Fals. Leg. p. 38. c. 25). In this point De- mosthenes perfectly concurs with him (De Corona, p. 231, 232). So that even if postponement could have been had, it would have been productive of no benefit, nor of any increase of force, to Athens, since the Greeks were not inclined to cooperate with her. The charge of jEschines against Demosthenes is thus untenable, and suggests its own refutation, even from the mouth of the accuser himself. Demosthenes indeed replies to it in a different manner. When JEschinea says "You hurried on the discussion about peace, without allowing Athens to await the return of her envoys, then absent on mission " De- mosthenes answers " There were no Athenian envoys then absent on mission. All the Greeks had been long ago detected as incurably apathetic. (De Corona, p. 233). This is a slashing and decisive reply, which it might perhaps be safj for Demosthenes to hazard, at an interval of thirteen years after the events. But it is fortunate that another answer can be provided for I conceive the assertion to be neither correct in point of fact, nor con- sistent with the statements of Demosthenes himself in the speech De FalsJ Legatione
