crowned at the Dionysia. But before the proposal could be brought before
the Assembly, Aeschines indicted Ctesiphon for its alleged illegality. The
trial did not take place until late in the summer of 330. We do not know
the reason for so long a delay, but probably the events of the intervening
time were such as to render the state of public feeling unfavourable to
Aeschines. In 336 Philip was assassinated, and was succeeded by Alexander.
In 335 Alexander destroyed Thebes, which had revolted, and sold its
inhabitants into slavery. He also demanded from Athens the surrender of
Demosthenes and other anti-Macedonian politicians and generals, but was
persuaded to be content with the banishment of Charidemus and Ephialtes,
and the promise of the prosecution of Demosthenes for using subsidies from
Persia to help Thebes--a prosecution which was allowed to drop. From 334
onwards Alexander was pursuing his conquests in the East, and we know
practically nothing of the history of Athens until the trial of Ctesiphon
came on in 330.

Aeschines alleged against Ctesiphon (1) that it was illegal to propose to
crown any one who had not passed his examination before the Board of
Auditors at the end of his term of office; and that Demosthenes, who had
been Commissioner of Fortifications and Controller of the Festival Fund,
was still in this position: (2) that it was illegal to proclaim the grant
of a crown at the Dionysia, except in the case of crowns conferred by
foreign states: (3) that it was illegal to insert untrue statements in the
public records, and that the language in which Ctesiphon's decree
described the political career of Demosthenes was untrue. On the first
point Aeschines was almost certainly right: Demosthenes' defence is
sophistical, and all that could really be said was that the rule had often
been broken before. On the second point, certainty is impossible: the most
probable view (though it also has its difficulties) is that there were two
inconsistent laws, and that one of them permitted the proclamation in the
theatre, if expressly voted by the people; but the alleged illegality had
certainly been often committed. The third point, which raised the question
of the value to Athens of Demosthenes' whole political life, was that upon
which the case really turned; and it is to this that Demosthenes devotes
the greater part of his speech, breaking up his reply into convenient
stages by discussions (of a far less happy description) of the other
counts of the indictment, and of the character and career of Aeschines. As
in the Speech on the Embassy, certain facts are misrepresented, and there
are passages which are in bad taste; but Demosthenes proves beyond doubt
his unswerving loyalty to the high ideal of policy which he had formed for
his country, and it is with good reason that parts of this speech have
always been felt to reach a height of eloquence which has never been
surpassed.

The jury acquitted Ctesiphon: and Aeschines, failing to obtain a fifth
part of the votes, and thus incurring a heavy fine and the loss of some of
the rights of a citizen, left Athens, and lived most of the remainder of
his life at Rhodes.

The following is an analysis of the speech in outline:--


I. Introduction (Sec.Sec. 1-8).
II. Defence against charges irrelevant to the indictment (Sec.Sec. 9-52).
(1) Introduction (Sec. 9).
(2) Postponement of reply to charges against his private life
(Sec.Sec. 10, 11).
(3) Reply to charges against his public life (Sec.Sec. 12-52).
(a) Criticism of Aeschines' method of attack (Sec.Sec. 12-16).
(b) Reply in reference to the Peace of Philocrates (Sec.Sec. 17-52).
III. Defence against the indictment itself (Sec.Sec. 53-125).
(1) Introduction (Sec.Sec. 53-9).
(2) Defence of his policy B.C. 346-340 (Sec.Sec. 60-109).
(3) The alleged illegality of crowning him before he had passed