Demosthenes. Taylor, however, goes too far in treating the first as a miserable declamation, (declamatiuncula.) There are passages in it which are very good imitations of Demosthenes, though surrounded with others full of exaggeration and bombast, and which he could not have spoken without ceasing to be himself.* The second division of judicial speeches, are those written (with some exceptions) to be delivered by others as their own, in private causes, (dixaı.). It is not necessary to say more of them in this connection, than that they are as many as thirty in number, of which, four have been rejected as spurious, and some others are questioned.

The panegyrical orations are only two-the funeral oration and the Aoyos sQwrixos, both of them unquestionably supposititious, as Dionysius pronounces them.

Upon this formidable array, which will show the general reader at a glance, how voluminous are the remains of Demosthenes, the question will at once present itself to him, why it is he has scarcely ever heard of any but the Philippics and the speeches for the Crown and on the Embassy, and even of the last, but rarely? It seems very evident to us, for example, that Lord Brougham, though he does occasionally allude to the speeches in public or state trials, such as those against Aristocrates and against Leptines, has confined his attention, for any purpose of critical examination, exclusively to the famous harangues just mentioned. Now, we take it upon us in limine to pronounce, that no one can pretend to know what manner of speaker Demosthenes is, who has not-we will not say attentively read, butthoroughly studied the judicial orations, especially those in public causes. These are, as we have seen, against Leptines, Androtio, Aristocrates, Timocrates, and Midias. The speeches here enumerated, together with the most famous of them all, that de Corona, and its fellow the one on the Embassy, were regarded by ancient critics as his master-pieces. Theo of Alexandria says so in words which, with a view to some of our subsequent remarks, it is important to notice. "The best of his public speeches are those containing an examination of some law or decree of the assembly or the senate."+ The long and elaborate speech against Midias—a tremen

* For instance, § 14 is very good, and § 16 is very bad, as also § 17. Wester mann says Demosthenes might sleep sometimes but not snore outright. + Theo Sophist. p. 5, Elzev. 1626.

dous réquisitoire—in which he prosecutes a man of condition, who was to him what Clodius was to Cicero, for one of the greatest outrages, or rather, for a series of the greatest outrages that ever disgraced even a Greek city-was celebrated among the ancients. It is said, whether justly or not, to have been made the subject of a special commentary by more than one of them, especially by Longinus. Yet, though mentioned as a model of its kind by Photius, others have imagined it imperfect, because it was never delivered. The oration against Leptines is still more remarkable. It shows none of the derons of its author. It is written, as Cicero observes, altogether in the style for which Lysias was so much distinguished - simple, natural, flowing, equable, and above all, exquisitely elegant. F. A. Wolf says of it, that by reason of its high finish, none but a thoroughpaced critic is competent fully to appreciate its graces. Mere amateurs, as we are, we are thus to take the pleasure, great as it is, which we have derived from it, as only an antepast and earnest of that which will reward more profound studies. Of the class to which it belongs, Wolf thinks none but the speech against Androtio will bear a comparison with it. It is not, perhaps, less on account of this wonderful perfection of style, than for its being replete with the most important and instructive matter, that the great scholar just mentioned chose it for the subject of a particular commentary, and by a learned edition of it in 1789, (says Becker), rendered as great a service to philology as by his famous prolegomena to Homer. But there is another remarkable feature in this speech, which commends it more highly than any other work of Demosthenes, to the acceptance of a modern reader -its moderate, decorous and well-bred tone. It was made a theme of constant reproach to him, by his contemporaries, that his maternal grandmother was a Scythiant - as foul a stain in an Attic pedigree, as M. de Beaumont represents the smallest mixture of African blood to be in America. Diogenes the Cynic is said to have characterized him as Scythian in words, and civil (aouxos) in battle. And it is true that his eloquence, with all its unrivalled power and beauty, breathes in general a spirit of rudeness, ferocity and violence,‡

* Orat. 31.

+ Esch.

Since writing the above, we remark that Dionysius says his only defect is want of χαρις οι ευτραπέλεια,

that contrasts singularly, (let German critics say what they please,) with the politeness of Eschines, whose occasional ribaldry seems to us aliquid coronæ datum and mere retaliation. Be that as it may, there is nothing at all Scythian in his oration against Leptines. Whether it was that Leptines was an object of particular consideration to Demosthenes, or to whatever cause we are to ascribe it, certain it is, that numberless objections are urged against his system in the best possible temper. Some passages are distinguished by a striking degree of urbanity ;* those upon Conon and Chabrias are splendid compliments. But, above all this, the argument is conducted with consummate ability. The subject, indeed, as Wolf justly remarks, is placed in every possible light and completely exhausted, and the speech deserves to be regarded as a master-piece of forensic disputation.

Inferior to the oration against Leptines only in tone and diction, not at all less important, (if not more important still,) for the matter it contains, and rising occasionally into far higher strains of eloquence, and even into the regions of the sublime, the speech against Aristocrates has attracted, both from ancient and modern critics, quite as much attention as the master-piece just mentioned. Indeed, we doubt whether there is any other single production of Demosthenes which deserves so much to be studied with a view to the matter, and especially which throws so much light upon the theory of the Athenian constitution, and the whole system of legislation established by Solon. It has, accordingly, been very much commented upon with a view to these subjects by learned men, such as Salmasius and Heraldus. It is remarkable for the harmony of its periods-and yet, strange to say, all this pains was bestowed upon a piece written to be delivered as his own by one Eutyches, who is only remembered for having pronounced it. The oration against Androtio is, as we have seen, in F. A. Wolf's opinion, the nearest approach in point of exquisite finish, to the perfection of the oration against Leptines. As Androtio the defendant, was a pupil of Isocrates, and a man of great forensic experience and celebrity, Demosthenes is supposed by critics to have bestowed, in a spirit of emulation, more even than his usual pains upon the composition of this speech. The oration against Timocrates belongs to the same cate

gory, and is altogether worthy to take its place by the side of the master-pieces just mentioned. It excels in the same features of close argument, acute and searching analysis, condensed and powerful summing up of topics. It deserves to be mentioned, that these orations, so admirable in every point of view, were all composed by Demosthenes when he was a young man of only eight-and-twenty or thirty years, and like his arguments against Aphobus, when he was still a mere youth in his teens, indicate, by their faultless correctness and elegance, an extraordinary precociousness of mind. Wonderful that, beginning thus, he so completely surpassed himself by his subsequent efforts, that the author of the orations against Androtio and Leptines, is forgotten in the transcendant glory of the crowning speech! But one of his peculiarities as an artist was, that his whole life was progress; and it was progress, because it was study. He never put out his lamp, according to the tradition, until he was fifty, and his best speech was his very last-the ripest as the latest fruit of the autumn of life.

It is obvious to observe that the speeches to which we have just called the attention of our readers, reveal the powers of Demosthenes in quite a different light from that in which even our best English writers, Hume, for instance, have been accustomed to contemplate them. They are all (except that against Midias), to all intents and purposes, arguments, as we should call them, on points of constitutional law, as much so as any ever delivered in the supreme court of the United States by the Pinkneys and the Wirts. The mover of a decree either in the senate or the assembly (nqioua) which was supposed to violate one of the fundamental laws, was liable to be impeached for it by any public-spirited citizen, before one of the tribunals of the Heliasts. The only restraint upon this power of impeachment was the provision that imposed a fine of a thousand drachmas upon the accuser in case he failed to obtain one-fifth of the voices of the jury, as happened to Eschines in the affair of the Crown. This prosecution of an unconstitutional law (roan лαдаνоμш) was the palladium of Solon's legislation, yet in most cases it served only to show how wide the difference was between the theory and the practice of the government. We have endeavored to demonstrate in a former articlet in this journal, how little

1. e. g. § 24 cf. § 19, § 25 and 26, are admirable for alvorns. ↑ N. Y. Review, No. XIII.

security there was, in that practice, under the abuses of a degenerate democracy, for either life, liberty, or property. A reader of the speeches in question would be inclined to question the accuracy of the opinion there expressed. They place, it must be owned, in a very striking point of view the wisdom of the lawgiver, or rather (since wisdom ought to be more practical) his knowledge of the sins that most easily beset democratic government, and of the restraints necessary to prevent abuses of power under it. But in truth, whatever of seeming paradox there may be in the opinions referred to, is explained by the fact, visible in every page of these speeches, without going any farther, that the constitution of Solon was become in fact the cobweb it was from the first wittily pronounced to be by one of the Seven wise men. The laws were a mere name. They were treated as obsolete. The orators the representatives by profession of the arbitrary will of the people-denied their authority in argument with as little reserve as they trampled upon their precepts in practice. Your laws are superseded, says Eschines, by detestable psephisms-and he might have added by a still more detestable judicature. There never was a clearer case in point, as we shall have to observe hereafter, than the result of his own accusation of Ctesiphon, who had plainly violated the law by his motion, and who was almost unanimously acquitted by the judges, to the confusion and ruin of the prosecutor. The will of the demagogue for the time being, was the law of the land; and even in reading these orations, a man of any experience is enabled sufficiently to discern the true state of facts. The very attempts made to enforce the laws in their pristine severity show how frequently, how easily, and how glaringly they were violated with impunity.t

So much for the matter of these admirable speeches. The reader will perceive that it is difficult to overrate their importance to a philosophical student of the history of governments. But the point of view in which we now wish to present them to him, is exclusively philological. It is plain from

Eschin, c. Timarch. § 35.

"I know he will say the law is obsolete," is a common form of anticipating the reply of the adversary.

Who cares about your old laws, the psephism is a good' one, c. Aristocr. § 14, cf. Ibid. § 26. The senate is bound by the law and the oath, but the tribunals are omnipotent, c. Timocrat. § 34. And look at the summing up in that speech, and in the oration against Androtio, for the multitude of laws violated without scruple by occasional psephisms.