CORRUPTION OF AESCHINES. 431 public respecting Philip's purposes, are plainly admitted by JEschines. 1 In regard to these public assurances given by JEschines about Philip's intentions, corrupt mendacity appears to me the only supposition admissible. There is nothing, even in his own ac- count, to explain how he came to be beguiled into such flagrant misjudgment ; while the hypothesis of honest error is yet farther refuted by his own subsequent conduct. "If (argues Demosthe- nes), JEschines had been sincerely misled by Philip, so as to pledge his own veracity and character to the truth of positive as- surances given publicly before his countrymen, respecting Philip's designs, then on finding that the result belied him. and that he had fatally misled those whom he undertook to guide, he would be smitten with compunction, and would in particular abominate the name of Philip as one who had disgraced him and made him an unconscious instrument of treachery. But the fact has been to- tally otherwise ; immediately after the peace, JEschines visited Philip to share his triumph, and has been ever since his avowed partisan and advocate."^ Such conduct is inconsistent with the supposition of honest mistake, and goes to prove, what the pro- ceedings of the second embassy all bear out, that JEschines was the hired agent ot Philip for deliberately deceiving his country- men with gross falsehood. Even as reported by himself, the lan- guage of JEschines betokens his ready surrender of Grecian freedom, and his recognition of Philip as a master ; for he gives not only his consent, but his approbation, to the entry of Philip within Thermopylae, 3 only exhorting him, when he comes there, to 1 .ZEschin. Fals. Leg. p. 43. c. 37. TOVTO OVK tntay/elhai, a i?a< fie <j>7ja'iv. Compare p. 43. c. 36. p. 46. c. 41. p. 52. c. 54 also p. 31-41 also the speech against Ktesiphon, p. 65. c. 30. wf ra^iara dau Ilvhuv irapr/h&e Kai Tf //ei> ev Qunevai iro/lftf 7rapat56wf uvaaTUTovf etc. 2 Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 373, 374. I translate the substance of the argu- ment, not the words. 3 JEschines, Fals. Leg. p. 43. c. 36. In rebutting the charge against him of having betrayed the Phokians to Philip, JLschines (Fals. Leg. p. 46, 47) dwells upon the circumstance, that none of the Phokian exiles appeared to assist in the accusation, and that some three or four Phokians and Bceo-
