986 DEMOSTHENES. neia, and that the fnneml feast was celebrated in his house. (Dem. de Curon. p. 320, &c ) But the fury of the Macedonian party and of his personal enemies gave full vent to itself; they made all possible efforts to humble or annihilate the man who had brought about the alliance with Thebes, and Athens to the verge of destruction. Accusa- tions were brought against him day after day, and at first the most notorious sycophants, such as Sosicles, Diondas, Melanthus, Aristogeiton, and others, were employed by his enemies to crush him (Dem. de Coron. p. 310) ; but the more noto- rious they were, the easier was it for Demosthenes to unmask them before the people. But matters soon began to assume a more dangerous aspect when Aeschines, the head of the Macedonian party, and the most implacalile opponent of Demosthenes, came forward against him. An opportunity offered soon after the battle of ("haeroneia, when Ctesiphon proposed to reward Demosthenes with a golden crown for the conduct he had shewn during his public career, and more especially for the patriotic disinterestedness with which he had acted during the preparations which the Athenians made after the battle of Chaeroncia, when Philip was expected at the gates. (Dem. de Coron. p. 26b'.) Aeschines attacked Ctesiphon for the proposal, and tried to shew that it was not only made in an illegal form, but that the conduct of Demosthenes did not give him any claim to the public gratitude and such a distinction. This atUick, however, was not aimed at Ctesiphon, who was too insignificant a person, but at Demosthenes, and the latter took up the gaunt- let with the greater readiness, as he now had an opportunity of justifying his whole politicjil C(mduct before his countr}'men. Reasons which are un- known to us delayed the decision of the question for a number of years, and it was not till B. c. 330 (Plut. Dent. 24) that the trial was proceeded with. Demosthenes on that occasion delivered his oration on the crown {irtpl (TTfifKivov). Aeschines did not obtain the fifth part of the votes, and was obliged to quit Athens and spend the remainder of his life abroad. All Greece had been looking forward with the most intense interest to the issue of this contest, though few can have entertained any doubt as to which would carry the victory. The oration on the crown was, in all probability, like that of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, revised and altered at a later period. Greece had in the mean time been shaken by new storms. The death of Philip, in B. c. 336', had revived among the Greeks the hope of shaking off the Macedonian yoke. All Greece rose, and especially Athens, where Demosthenes, although weighed down by domestic grief, was the first joyfully to proclaim the tidings of the king's death, to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength against Macedonia, and to form new connexions in Asia. (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschiii, c. Clesiph. § 161 ; Diod. xvii. 3.) But the sudden appearance of young Alexander with an army ready to fight, damped the enthusiasm, and Athens sent an em- bassy to him to sue for peace. Demosthenes was one of the ambassadors, but his feelings against the Macedonians were so strong, that he would rather expose himself to the ridicule of his enemies by returning after having gone half way, than act the part of a suppliant before the youthful king. (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. CU'slph. ^ 161.) But no sooner had Alexander set out for the north to DEMOSTHENES, chastise the rebellious neighbours of Macedonia, than a false report of his death called forth another insurrection of the Greeks. Thebes, which had suffered most severely, was foremost ; but the in- surrection spread over Arcadia, Argos, Elis. and Athens. However, with the exception of Thebes, there was no energy anywhere. Demosthenes carried indeed a decree that succours should be sent to Thebes, but no efforts were made, and De mosthenes alone, and at his own expense, sent a supply of arms. (Diod. xvii. 8.) The second sud- den arrival of Alexander, and his destruction of Thebes, in B. c. 335, put an end to all further attempts of the Greeks. Athens submitted to ne- cessity, and sent Demades to the king as mediator. Alexander demanded that the leaders of the popu- lar party, and among them Demosthenes, should I be delivered up to him ; but he yielded to the iii- treaties of the Athenians, and did not persist in his demand. Alexander's departure for Asia is the beginning of a period of gloomy tranquillity for Greece ; but party hatred continued in secret, and it required only some spark from without to make it blaze forth again in undiminished fury. This spark came from Harpalus, who had been left by Alex- ander at Babylon, while the king proceeded to India. When Alexander had reached the eastern- most point of his expedition, Harpalus with the treasures entrusted to his care, and with 6000 mercenaries, fled from Babylon and came to Greece. In B. c. 325 he arrived at Athens, and purchased the protection of the city by distributing his gold among the most influential deuiagogues. The reception of such an open rebel could not be viewed by the Macedonian party otherwise than as an act of hostility towards Macedonia itself; and it w;u, probably at the instigation of that party, that Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, and Olympias called upon the Athenians to deliver up the rebel and the money they had received of him, and to put tu trial those who had accepted his bribes. Harpalus was allowed to escape, but the investiga- tion concerning those who had been bribed by him was instituted, and Demosthenes was among the * persons suspected of the crime. The accounts of his conduct during the presence of Harpalus at Athens are so confused, that it is almost impossible to arrive at a certain conclusion. Theopompus (a/). Plut. Dem. 25, comp. Vit. X Orat. p. 846) and Deinarchus in his oration against Demosthenes state, that Demosthenes did accept the bribes of Harpalus ; but Pausanias (ii. 33. § 4) expressly acquits him of the crime. The authority of his accusers, however, is very questionable, for in the first place they do not agree in the detail of their statements, and secondly, if we consider the con- duct of Demosthenes throughout the disputes about Harpalus, if we remember that he opposed the re- ception of the rebel, and that he voluntarily of- fered himself to be tried, we must own that it is at least highly improbable that he should have been guilty of common bribery, and that it was not his guilt which caused his condemnation, but the implacable hatred of the Macedonian party, which eagerly seized this favourable opportuiiit}' to rid itself of its most formidable opponent, who was at that time abandoned by his own friends from sheer timidity. Demosthenes defended him- self in an oration which Athenaeus (xiii. p.592) calls Trepl Tov xpucn'ou, and which is probably the same
