392 HISTORY OF GREECE. thereby altered the temper of the assembly. 1 In spite, however, of the discredit thus thrown by JEschines upon his own denial, I do not believe the sudden change of speech in the assembly, ascribed to him by Demosthenes. It is too unexplained, and in itself too improbable, to be credited on the mere assertion of a rival. But I think it certain that neither he, nor Demosthenes, can have advocated the recommendations of the synod, though both profess to have done so, if we are to believe the statement of jEschines (we have no statement from Demosthenes), as to the tenor of those recommendations For the synod (according to JEschines had recommended to await the return of the absent envoys before the question of peace was debated. Now this proposition was impracticable under the circumstances; since it amounted to nothing less than an indefinite postponement of the question. But the Macedonian envoys, Antipater and Parmenio, were now in Athens, and actually present in the assembly ; hav- ing come, by special invitation, for the purpose either of con- cluding peace or of breaking off the negotiation ; and Philip had agreed (as ^schines 2 himself states), to refrain from all attack on the Chersonese, while the Athenians were debating about peace. Under these conditions, it was imperatively necessary to give some decisive and immediate answer to the Macedonian envoys. To tell them " We can say nothing positive at present ; you must wait until our absent envoys return, and until we ascertain how many Greeks we can get into our alh'ance, " would have been not only in itself preposterous, but would have been construed by able men like Antipater and Parmenio as a mere dilatory ma- noeuvre for breaking off the peace altogether. Neither Demosthe- nes nor jEschines can have really supported such a proposition, whatever both may pretend three years afterwards. For at that time of the actual discussion, not only ./Eschines himself, but the general public of Athens were strongly anxious for peace ; while Demosthenes, though less anxious, was favorable to it. 3 Neither 1 JEschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 63, 64.
- ./Eschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39.
3 From the considerations here stated, we can appreciate the charges of JEschines against Demosthenes, even on his own shewing; though th precise course of either is not very clear. He accuses Demosthenes of having sold himself tc I hilip (adv. Ktca. p
