400 HISTORY OF GREECE. the natural authority for the people to rely upon. In this case the deceptions found easier credence and welcome because they were in complete harmony with the wishes and hopes of Athens, and with the prevalent thirst for peace. To betray allies like the Phokians appeared of little consequence, when once it became a settled conviction that the Phokians themselves would be no losers by it. But this plea, though sufficient as a tolerable excuse for the Athenian people, will not serve for a statesman like De- mosthenes; who, on this occasion (as far as we can make out even from his own language), did not enter any emphatic protest against the tacit omission of the Phokians, though he had opposed the clause (in the motion of Philokrates) which formally omittic, them by name. Three months afterwards, when the ruin of th isolated Phokians was about to be consummated as a fact, we shal' find Demosthenes earnest in warning and denunciation ; but thar^ is reason to presume that his opposition 1 was at best only faint, when the positive refusal of Antipater was first proclaimed againsf that acquiescence on the part of Athens, whereby the Phokians were really surrendered to Philip. Yet in truth this was the great diplomatic turning-point, from whence the sin of Athens, against duty to allies as well as against her own security, took its rise. It was a false step of serious magnitude, difficult, if not im- possible, to retrieve afterwards. Probably the temper of the Athenians, then eager for peace, trembling for the lives of their captives, and prepossessed with the positive assurances of JEschi- nes and Philokrates, would have heard with repugnance stay 1 Demosthenes speaks of the omission of the Phokians, in taking the oaths at Athens, as if it were a matter of small importance (Fals.Leg. p. 387, 388; compare p. 372) ; that is, on the supposition that the promises made by JEs- chines turned out to be realized. In his speech De Pace (p. 59), he takes credit for his protests on behalf of the Phokians ; but only for protests made after his return from the second embassy not for protests made when Antipater refused to admit the Pho- kians to the oaths. Westermann (De Litibus quas Demosthenes oravit ipse, p. 48) suspects that Demosthenes did not see through the deception of JEschines until the Phokians were utterly ruined. This, perhaps, goes beyond the truth ; but at the time when the oaths were exchanged at Athens, he either had not clearly detected the consequences of that miserable shuffle into which Ath- ens was tricked by Philokrates, etc. or he was afraid to proclaim then, emphatically.
