DEMOSTHENES 51 will, which is further attested by his self-discipline in mastering his chosen art. What, after all, speaks .ne most strongly for the orator's character is the serious moral tone of his orations. This cannot have been simulated, and hence cannot have proceeded from a man with a vicious nature. The esteem in which Demosthenes was held at Athens is seen in what oc- curred soon after the battle of Chaeronea, an event which led to Demosthenes' greatest oratorical effort. One Ctesiphon had proposed that the people reward Demosthenes' public services by the gift of a golden crown, and the senate had passed a bill to this effect, for submission to the vote of the assembly. ./Eschines denied that the orator's conduct gave him any right to be thus honored, and prosecuted ICtesiphon for bringing forward an unconstitutional measure. After years of delay, the trial came on in B.C. 330, ^Eschines delivering his famous ad- dress against Ctesiphon, really an adverse critical review of Demosthenes's pub- lic and private life to that time, to which Demosthenes replied by his immortal Oration on the Crown. Demosthenes gained a surprising victory. Although the judges were nearly all of the Macedonian party, ^Eschines did not secure for his cause a fifth part of their votes, a fact which, according to Athenian law, sub- jected him to a fine of a thousand drachmas for provoking the litigation. He at once left Athens and never returned. The most recent judgment of Demosthenes as a statesman differs much from that in which nearly all the standard English and American authorities since Grote agree. Till lately it has been c6mmon to think of Athens as a real democracy, favorable to freedom, the bulwark of liberty then for Greece and the world. Philip has been deemed a mere barbarian, whose victory was certain to be, and was, the death of Grecian liberty. This being so, Demosthenes, in op- posing Philip and his son Alexander, was not only a sincere patriot but a wise one. This is the view of Greek politics then which one gets from Demosthenes himself. Readers of his masterly orations insensibly adopt it, without due re- flection upon the evidence now available to substantiate a different one. Demos- thenes is understood to argue for a constitutional form of government, which, to all lovers of such, is an additional reason for siding with him. Grote's history urges the same view in a most enthusiastic and unhesitating way, and' has had enormous influence in disseminating it. Thucydides, the original Greek historian most read in our time, makes the fate of everything good in Greece turn upon that of Athens. This great author so trains us in his manner of thought as to disqualify us from coolly considering the question whether the fortunes of Greece might not have risen or fallen in some other way. The present writer believes the above theory to be almost entirely an error. Doubtless Demosthenes was honest, but he was mistaken in his views of what was best for Greece and even for Athens. Philip and Alexander, however self- ish, were neither in purpose nor in fact so hostile to Greek freedom as the mighty orator makes out. Inordinate ambition possessed both. In this they are to be ranked with Napoleon and Julius Caesar rather than with Washington. They, however, clearly saw the vanity of the old Greek regime, the total useless-
