280 HISTORY OF GREECE. in one very significant fact. The indictment, against Ktesiphon'g motion for crowning Demosthenes, was instituted by ^schines, and official entry made of it, before the death of Philip — which event occurred in August 336 B. c. Yet uEschines did not ven ture to bring it on for trial until August 330 b. c, after Antipa ter had subdued the ill-fated rising of the Lacedaemonian king Agis ; and even at that advantageous moment, when the macedon- izers seemed in full triumph, he signally failed. We thus per- ceive, that though Phokion and Demades were now the leaders of Athenian affairs, as representing a policy which every one felt to be unavoidable — yet the preponderant sentiment of the peo- ple went with Demosthenes and Lykurgus. In fact, we shall see that after the Lamian war, Antipater thought it requisite to subdue or punish this sentiment by disfranchising or deporting two-thirds of the citizens.* It seems however that the anti-Mace- donian statesmen were very cautious of giving offence to Alex- ander, between 334 and 330 B. c. Ktesiphon accepted a mis- sion of condolence to Kleopatra, sister of Alexander, on the death of her husband Alexander of Epirus ; and Demosthenes stands accused of having sent humble and crouching letters to Alexan- der (the Great) in Phenicia, during the spring of 331 B. c. This assertion of -S^schines, though not to be trusted as correct, indicates the general prudence of Demosthenes as to his known and formidable enemy .2 Plutarch, Phokion, 28. ' ^schiacs (adv. Ktesiph. p. 635) mentions this mission of Ktesiphon to Kleopatra. He also (in the same oration, p. 550) charges Demosthenes with having sent letters to Alexander, soliciting pardon and favor. He states that a young man named Aristion, a friend of Demosthenes, was much about the person of Alexander, and that through him the letters were sent. He cites as his authority the seamen of the public Athenian vessel called Paraltis, and the Athenian envoys who went to Alexander in Phe- nicia in the spring or summer of 331 b. c. (compare Arrian, iii. 6, 3). Hypcrides also seems to have advanced the like allegation against Demos- thenes — see Harpokration, v. ^ApiaTiov. The fragments of the oration of Hyperides in defence of Euxenippus (recently published by Mr. Churchill Babington), delivered at some period during the reign of Alexander, give general evidence of the wide-spread feeling of jealous aversion to the existing Macedonian ascendency. Euxe-. Qippus had been accused o' devotion to Macedonia; Hyperides strenuously..
