Orators -- Greece; Oratory, Ancient; Speeches, addresses, etc., Greek -- History and criticism
There is a marked difference in tone between the first two speeches and
the third. In the former Demosthenes insists that everything is still to
be done, but he points out that there are many weak points in Philip’s
armour, and a vigorous and united policy may still defeat him. In the
third he makes it clear that the opportunity is past, and the lost ground
can only be recovered by desperate measures. He openly advocates the
conversion of the Festival Fund into a military chest, and this is the
main theme of the oration, to which every argument in turn leads up.[312]
The efforts of Athens were dilatory and insufficient; Olynthus and
the other cities of the Chalcidian League fell in the following year
(349 B.C.); they were destroyed, and all the inhabitants made slaves.
Attempts to unite the Peloponnesian States against the common enemy were
futile, and negotiations were begun between Philip and Athens. They were
conducted at first informally by private persons, but in 347 B.C., on
the proposal of Philocrates, an embassy was sent to Philip. Philip’s
answer, received in 346 B.C., demanded that Phocis and Halus should be
excluded from the proposed treaty. Demosthenes contested this point, but
Aeschines carried it. A second embassy was sent, and the discreditable
Peace of Philocrates was signed. The result was the ruin of Phocis.
Although Demosthenes disapproved of the peace, later in the year, in his
speech _On the Peace_, he urged Athens to keep its conditions, arguing
that to break it would bring upon them even greater disaster.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account