On the False Embassy and On the Crown are Demosthenes’ two most important speeches, both on a personal and political level. In the former, he accused his political enemy Aeschines of treason deserving the death penalty; in the latter, he defended his own political career against the accusations of Aeschines. Suffice to say, there was no love lost between these two gentlemen. Of all the legal and political battles Demosthenes fought in his life, I suspect these were the ones which he would have given all to win.
There are interesting contrasts between these two cases. Demosthenes’ failure in the former and success in the latter are a reflection of his relative strength and weakness as a statesman. Demosthenes is at his best when he captures and magnifies the virtues of the ancient Greeks in his speech and in his person. It is that quality which makes On the Crown arguably the greatest speech ever made. By contrast, in a case such as On the False Embassy, which requires sound and impartial legal reasoning on the part of the orator, Demosthenes falls a little short of the mark.
Reasonable Doubt
As an orator, Demosthenes is an expert at mastering the timeline of relevant historical events, and presenting the audience a plausible intrerpretioan of the causal chain of events. As a prosecutor, however, he fails to show impartiality in examining the evidence. but seems to operate in a way that suits his political purpose, if not personal vendetta.
For example, he accuses Aeschines of accepting bribe from Philip, but can produce neither eyewitness nor physical evidence of the alleged bribery. If Aeschines was indeed susceptible to bribery, it is very likely that he accepted bribes more than once, from other people, as well as Philip. Venality is a disease with identifiable symptoms. It should have been possible for Demosthenes to find evidence of Aeschines’ venality to bolster his case, but he couldn’t find any, certainly not for lack of trying.
Demosthenes never gives Aeschines the benefit of the doubt, but always interprets the latter’s actions and motives in the most unfavorable light. It was not enough for him to show that Aeschines was ignorant, incompetent or negligent, but he strained to persuade the jury that Aeschines was a traitor. His charge of treason against Aeschines is based solely on his interpretation of the events, which an impartial observer could very well interpret in a very different light, even without hearing from the defendant.
Related Posts:
References:
- Demosthenes. Orations, Volume II: Orations 18-19: De Corona, De Falsa Legatione. Translated by C. A. Vince, J. H. Vince. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926.
- Demosthenes. On the False Embassy. Perseus Digital Library. Accessed September 9, 2019. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0072:speech=19