PROBABLL COURSE OF THE AFFAIR. 309 Now it is impossible to suppose that all this time could have been spent in the investigation of facts — and if it had been, the report when published would have contained some trace of these facts, instead of embodying a mere list of names and sums. The prob- ability is, that their time was passed quite as much in paity- discussions as in investigating fjtcts ; that dissentient parties were long in coming to an agreement whom they should sacrifice ; and that when they did agree, it was a political rather than a ju- dicial sentence, singling out Demosthenes as a victim highly ac- ceptable to Alexander, and embodying Demades also, by Avay of compromise, in the same list of delinquents — two opposite poli- ticians, both at the moment obnoxious. I have already observed that Demosthenes was at that time unpopular with both tlie reigning parties : with the philo-Macedonians, from long date,
d not without sufficient reason ; with the anti-Macedonians, be- cause he had stood prominent in opposing Harpalus. His ac- cusers count upon the hatred of the former against him, as a mat- ter of course ; they recommend him to the hatred of the latter, as a base creature of Alexander. The Dikasts doubtless included men of both parties ; and as a collective body, they might prob- ably feel, that to ratify the list presented by the Areopagus was the only way of finally closing a subject replete with danger and discord. Such seems the probable history of the Harpalian transactions. It leaves Demosthenes innocent of coiTupt profit, not less than Phokion ; but to the Athenian politicians generally, it is noway creditable ; while it exhibits the judicial conscience of Athens as under pressure of dangers from without, worked upon by party- intrigues within.' During the half-year and more which elapsed between the ar- rival of Harpalus at Athens, and the trial of Demosthenes, one event at least of considerable moment occuiTcd in Greece. Alex- 1 We read in Pausanias (ii. 33,4) that the Macedonian admiral Philoxe- iius, having afterwards seized one of the slaves of Harpalus, learnt from him the names of those Athenians whom his master had corrupted ; and that Demosthenes was not among them. As far as this statement goes, it serves ro exculpate Demosthenes. Yet I cannot assign so much importance to it as Bishop Tiiirlwall seems to do. His narrative of the Harpalian trans- actions is able and discriminating (Hist. vol. vii. ch. 56. p. 170 se^y.).
