On The Naval Boards   

ON THE NAVAL BOARDS


[_Introduction_. The speech was delivered in 354 B.C. News had been brought to
Athens that the Persian King Artaxerxes Ochus was making great military and
naval preparations, and though these were, in fact, directed against his own
rebellious subjects in Egypt, Phoenicia, and Cyprus, the Athenians had some
ground for alarm: for, two years before this, Chares, in command of an Athenian
fleet, had given assistance to Artabazus, Satrap of Ionia, who was in revolt
against the king. The king had made a protest, and (late in 355) Athens had
ordered Chares to withdraw his aid from Artabazus. A party in Athens now wished
to declare war on Persia, and appealed strongly to Athenian traditions in favour
of the proposal. Demosthenes opposes them, on the ground that it was not certain
that the king was aiming at Athens at all, and that the disunion of the Hellenic
peoples would render any such action unsafe: Athens had more dangerous enemies
nearer home, and her finances were not in a condition for such a campaign. But
he takes advantage of the interest aroused, to propose a reform of the
trierarchic system, designed to secure a more efficient navy, and to remedy
certain abuses in the existing method of equipping vessels for service.

In earlier times, the duty of equipping and commanding each trireme was laid
upon single citizens of means, the hull and certain fittings being found by the
state. When, early in the fourth century, the number of wealthy men had
diminished, each ship might be shared by two citizens, who commanded in turn. In
357 a law was passed, on the proposal of Periander, transferring the
responsibility from individuals to 'Symmories' or Boards. (The system had been
instituted in a slightly different form for the collection of the war-tax in the
archonship of Nausinicus, 378-7 B.C.) The collection of the sums required became
the work of twenty Boards, formed by the subdivision of the 1,200 richest
citizens: each contributor, whatever his property, paid the same share. The
richer men thus got off with the loss of a very small proportion of their
income, as compared with the poorer members of the Boards, and in managing
the business of the Boards they sometimes contrived to exact the whole sum from
their colleagues, and to escape payment themselves. At the same time the duties
of the several Boards and their members were not allocated with sufficient
precision to enable the responsibility to be brought home in case of default;
and the nominal Twelve Hundred had fallen to a much smaller number, on whom the
burden accordingly fell with undue weight. Demosthenes' proposal provided for
the distribution of the responsibility of equipping the vessels and providing
the funds, in the most detailed manner, with a view to preventing all evasion;
but it was not carried. In fact, it was not until 340 that he succeeded in
reforming the trierarchy, and he then made the burden vary strictly with
property. The proposal, however, to declare war upon Persia went no further.

While, in this speech, Demosthenes is in accord with the policy of Eubulus, so
far as concerns the avoidance of war with Persia, his proposals of financial
reform would not be viewed with favour by the wealthy men who were Eubulus' firm
supporters. Some of the themes which recur continually in later speeches are
prominent in this--the futility of rhetorical appeals to past glories, without
readiness for personal service, and the need of a thorough organization of the
forces. While the speech shows rather too strongly the marks of careful
preparation, and seldom rises to eloquence--the style, indeed, is often rather
cramped and stiff, and the sentiments, especially at the beginning, artificially
phrased--it is moderate and practical in tone, and shows a characteristic
mastery of minute detail.]


{1} Those who praise your forefathers,[n] men of Athens, desire, no doubt, to
gratify you by their speeches; and yet I do not think that they are acting in
the interests of those whom they praise. For the subject on which they attempt
to speak is one to which no words can do justice; and so, although they thus win
for themselves the reputation of capable speakers, the impression which they
convey to their hearers of the merit of our forefathers is not adequate to our
conception of it. For my part I believe that their highest praise is constituted