text:
Demosthenes

Demosthenes (Δημοσθένης; ; 384 – 12 October 322 BC) was a Greek statesman and orator in ancient Athens. His orations constitute a significant expression of contemporary Athenian intellectual prowess and provide insight into the politics and culture of ancient Greece during the 4th century BC. Demosthenes learned rhetoric by studying the speeches of previous great orators. He delivered his first judicial speeches at the age of 20, in which he successfully argued that he should gain from his guardians what was left of his inheritance. For a time, Demosthenes made his living as a professional speechwriter (logographer) and a lawyer, writing speeches for use in private legal suits.

Demosthenes grew interested in politics during his time as a logographer, and in 354 BC he gave his first public political speeches. He went on to devote his most productive years to opposing Macedon's expansion. He idealized his city and strove throughout his life to restore Athens' supremacy and motivate his compatriots against Philip II of Macedon. He sought to preserve his city's freedom and to establish an alliance against Macedon, in an unsuccessful attempt to impede Philip's plans to expand his influence southward, conquering the Greek states.

After Philip's death, Demosthenes played a leading part in his city's uprising against the new king of Macedonia, Alexander the Great. However, his efforts failed, and the revolt was met with a harsh Macedonian reaction. To prevent a similar revolt against his own rule, Alexander's successor in this region, Antipater, sent his men to track Demosthenes down. Demosthenes killed himself to avoid being arrested by Archias of Thurii, Antipater's confidant.

The Alexandrian Canon, compiled by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus of Samothrace, called Demosthenes one of the ten greatest Attic orators and logographers. Longinus likened Demosthenes to a blazing thunderbolt and argued that he had "perfected to the utmost the tone of lofty speech, living passions, copiousness, readiness, speed." Quintilian extolled him as lex orandi ("the standard of oratory"). Cicero said of him that inter omnis unus excellat ("one exceeds among all"), and also praised him as "the perfect orator" who lacked nothing.

Family and personal life
Demosthenes was born in 384 BC, during the last year of the 98th Olympiad or the first year of the 99th Olympiad. His father—also named Demosthenes—who belonged to the local tribe, Pandionis, and lived in the deme of Paeania in the Athenian countryside, was a wealthy sword-maker. Aeschines, Demosthenes' greatest political rival, maintained that his mother Kleoboule was a Scythian by blood —an allegation disputed by some modern scholars. He was also the uncle of the Athenian Orator Demochares Demosthenes was orphaned at the age of seven. Although his father provided for him well, his legal guardians, Aphobus, Demophon and Therippides, mishandled his inheritance.

Demosthenes started to learn rhetoric because he wished to take his guardians to court and because he was of "delicate physique" and could not receive gymnastic education, which was customary. In Parallel Lives, Plutarch states that Demosthenes built an underground study where he practised speaking and shaving one half of his head so that he could not go out in public. Plutarch also states that he had "an inarticulate and stammering pronunciation" that he overcame by speaking with pebbles in his mouth and by repeating verses when running or out of breath. He also practised speaking in front of a large mirror.

As soon as Demosthenes came of age in 366 BC, he demanded his guardians render an account of their management. According to Demosthenes, the account revealed the misappropriation of his property. Although his father left an estate of nearly fourteen talents (equivalent to about 220 years of a labourer's income at standard wages, or 11 million dollars in terms of median U.S. annual incomes). Demosthenes asserted his guardians had left nothing "except the house, and fourteen slaves and thirty silver minae" (30 minae = ½ talent). At the age of 20 Demosthenes sued his trustees to recover his patrimony and delivered five orations: three Against Aphobus during 363 and 362 BC and two Against Onetor during 362 and 361 BC. The courts fixed Demosthenes' damages at ten talents. When all the trials came to an end, he only succeeded in retrieving a portion of his inheritance.

According to Pseudo-Plutarch, Demosthenes was married once. The only information about his wife, whose name is unknown, is that she was the daughter of Heliodorus, a prominent citizen. Demosthenes also had a daughter, "the only one who ever called him father", according to Aeschines in a trenchant remark. His daughter died young and unmarried a few days before Philip II's death.

In his speeches, Aeschines uses pederastic relations of Demosthenes as a means to attack him. In the case of Aristion, a youth from Plataea who lived for a long time in Demosthenes' house, Aeschines mocks the "scandalous" and "improper" relation. In another speech, Aeschines brings up the pederastic relation of his opponent with a boy called Cnosion. The slander that Demosthenes' wife also slept with the boy suggests that the relationship was contemporary with his marriage. Aeschines claims that Demosthenes made money out of young rich men, such as Aristarchus, the son of Moschus, whom he allegedly deceived with the pretence that he could make him a great orator. Apparently, while still under Demosthenes' tutelage, Aristarchus killed and mutilated a certain Nicodemus of Aphidna. Aeschines accused Demosthenes of complicity in the murder, pointing out that Nicodemus had once pressed a lawsuit accusing Demosthenes of desertion. He also accused Demosthenes of having been such a bad erastes to Aristarchus so as not even to deserve the name. His crime, according to Aeschines, was to have betrayed his eromenos by pillaging his estate, allegedly pretending to be in love with the youth so as to get his hands on the boy's inheritance. Nevertheless, the story of Demosthenes' relations with Aristarchus is still regarded as more than doubtful, and no other pupil of Demosthenes is known by name.

Education
Between his coming of age in 366 BC and the trials that took place in 364 BC, Demosthenes and his guardians negotiated acrimoniously but were unable to reach an agreement, for neither side was willing to make concessions. At the same time, Demosthenes prepared himself for the trials and improved his oratory skill. According to a story repeated by Plutarch, when Demosthenes was an adolescent, his curiosity was noticed by the orator Callistratus, who was then at the height of his reputation, having just won a case of considerable importance. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philologist and philosopher, and Constantine Paparrigopoulos, a major modern Greek historian, Demosthenes was a student of Isocrates; according to Cicero, Quintillian and the Roman biographer Hermippus, he was a student of Plato. Lucian, a Roman-Syrian rhetorician and satirist, lists the philosophers Aristotle, Theophrastus and Xenocrates among his teachers. These claims are nowadays disputed. According to Plutarch, Demosthenes employed Isaeus as his master in rhetoric, even though Isocrates was then teaching this subject, either because he could not pay Isocrates the prescribed fee or because Demosthenes believed Isaeus' style better suited a vigorous and astute orator such as himself. Curtius, a German archaeologist and historian, likened the relation between Isaeus and Demosthenes to "an intellectual armed alliance".

It has also been said that Demosthenes paid Isaeus 10,000 drachmae (somewhat over 1½ talents) on the condition that Isaeus withdraw from a school of rhetoric he had opened and instead devote himself wholly to Demosthenes, his new pupil. Another version credits Isaeus with having taught Demosthenes without charge. According to Sir Richard C. Jebb, a British classical scholar, "the intercourse between Isaeus and Demosthenes as teacher and learner can scarcely have been either very intimate or of very long duration". Konstantinos Tsatsos, a Greek professor and academician, believes that Isaeus helped Demosthenes edit his initial judicial orations against his guardians. Demosthenes is also said to have admired the historian Thucydides. In the Illiterate Book-Fancier, Lucian mentions eight beautiful copies of Thucydides made by Demosthenes, all in Demosthenes' own handwriting. These references hint at his respect for a historian he must have assiduously studied.

Speech training
According to Plutarch, when Demosthenes first addressed himself to the people, he was derided for his strange and uncouth style, "which was cumbered with long sentences and tortured with formal arguments to a most harsh and disagreeable excess". Some citizens, however, discerned his talent. When he first left the ekklesia (the Athenian Assembly) disheartened, an old man named Eunomus encouraged him, saying his diction was very much like that of Pericles. Another time, after the ekklesia had refused to hear him and he was going home dejected, an actor named Satyrus followed him and entered into a friendly conversation with him.

As a boy Demosthenes had a speech impairment: Plutarch refers to a weakness in his voice of "a perplexed and indistinct utterance and a shortness of breath, which, by breaking and disjointing his sentences much obscured the sense and meaning of what he spoke." There are problems in Plutarch's account, however, and it is probable that Demosthenes actually suffered from rhotacism, mispronouncing ρ (r) as λ (l). Aeschines taunted him and referred to him in his speeches by the nickname "Batalus", apparently invented by Demosthenes' pedagogues or by the little boys with whom he was playing —which corresponded to how someone with that variety of rhotacism would pronounce "Battaros," the name of a legendary Libyan king who spoke quickly and in a disordered fashion. Demosthenes undertook a disciplined programme to overcome his weaknesses and improve his delivery, including diction, voice and gestures. According to one story, when he was asked to name the three most important elements in oratory, he replied "Delivery, delivery and delivery!" It is unknown whether such vignettes are factual accounts of events in Demosthenes' life or merely anecdotes used to illustrate his perseverance and determination.

Legal career
To make his living, Demosthenes became a professional litigant, both as a "logographer" (λογογράφος, logographos), writing speeches for use in private legal suits, and as an advocate (συνήγορος, sunégoros) speaking on another's behalf. He seems to have been able to manage any kind of case, adapting his skills to almost any client, including wealthy and powerful men. It is not unlikely that he became a teacher of rhetoric and that he brought pupils into court with him. However, though he probably continued writing speeches throughout his career, he stopped working as an advocate once he entered the political arena.

Judicial oratory had become a significant literary genre by the second half of the fifth century, as represented in the speeches of Demosthenes' predecessors, Antiphon and Andocides. Logographers were a unique aspect of the Athenian justice system: evidence for a case was compiled by a magistrate in a preliminary hearing and litigants could present it as they pleased within set speeches; however, witnesses and documents were popularly mistrusted (since they could be secured by force or bribery), there was little cross-examination during the trial, there were no instructions to the jury from a judge, no conferencing between jurists before voting, the juries were huge (typically between 201 and 501 members), cases depended largely on questions of probable motive, and notions of natural justice were felt to take precedence over written law—conditions that favoured artfully constructed speeches.

Since Athenian politicians were often indicted by their opponents, there was not always a clear distinction between "private" and "public" cases, and thus a career as a logographer opened the way for Demosthenes to embark on his political career. An Athenian logographer could remain anonymous, which enabled him to serve personal interests, even if it prejudiced the client. It also left him open to allegations of malpractice. Thus for example Aeschines accused Demosthenes of unethically disclosing his clients' arguments to their opponents; in particular, that he wrote a speech for Phormion (350 BC), a wealthy banker, and then communicated it to Apollodorus, who was bringing a capital charge against Phormion. Plutarch much later supported this accusation, stating that Demosthenes "was thought to have acted dishonourably" and he also accused Demosthenes of writing speeches for both sides. It has often been argued that the deception, if there was one, involved a political quid pro quo, whereby Apollodorus secretly pledged support for unpopular reforms that Demosthenes was pursuing in the greater, public interest (i.e. the diversion of Theoric Funds to military purposes).

Early political activity
Demosthenes was admitted to his dêmos (δῆμος) as a citizen with full rights probably in 366 BC, and he soon demonstrated an interest in politics. In 363 and 359 BC, he assumed the office of the trierarch, being responsible for the outfitting and maintenance of a trireme. He was among the first ever volunteer trierarchs in 357 BC, sharing the expenses of a ship called Dawn, for which the public inscription still survives. In 348 BC, he became a choregos, paying the expenses of a theatrical production. Between 355 and 351 BC, Demosthenes continued practising law privately while he was becoming increasingly interested in public affairs. During this period, he wrote Against Androtion and Against Leptines, two fierce attacks on individuals who attempted to repeal certain tax exemptions. In Against Timocrates and Against Aristocrates, he advocated eliminating corruption. All these speeches, which offer early glimpses of his general principles on foreign policy, such as the importance of the navy, of alliances and of national honour, are prosecutions (γραφὴ παρανόμων, graphē paranómōn) against individuals accused of illegally proposing legislative texts.

In Demosthenes' time, different political goals developed around personalities. Instead of electioneering, Athenian politicians used litigation and defamation to remove rivals from government processes. Often they indicted each other for breaches of the statute laws (graphē paranómōn), but accusations of bribery and corruption were ubiquitous in all cases, being part of the political dialogue. The orators often resorted to "character assassination" tactics (δῐᾰβολή, diabolḗ; λοιδορία, loidoría), both in the courts and in the Assembly. The rancorous and often hilariously exaggerated accusations, satirised by Old Comedy, were sustained by innuendo, inferences about motives, and a complete absence of proof; as J. H. Vince states "there was no room for chivalry in Athenian political life". Such rivalry enabled the demos ("citizen-body") to reign supreme as judge, jury and executioner. Demosthenes was to become fully engaged in this kind of litigation and he was also to be instrumental in developing the power of the Areopagus to indict individuals for treason, invoked in the ekklesia by a process called ἀπόφασις (apóphasis).

In 354 BC, Demosthenes delivered his first political oration, On the Navy, in which he espoused moderation and proposed the reform of the symmoriai (boards) as a source of funding for the Athenian fleet. In 352 BC, he delivered For the Megalopolitans and, in 351 BC, On the Liberty of the Rhodians. In both speeches he opposed Eubulus, the most powerful Athenian statesman of the period 355 to 342 BC. The latter was no pacifist but came to eschew a policy of aggressive interventionism in the internal affairs of the other Greek cities. Contrary to Eubulus' policy, Demosthenes called for an alliance with Megalopolis against Sparta or Thebes, and for supporting the democratic faction of the Rhodians in their internal strife. His arguments revealed his desire to articulate Athens' needs and interests through a more activist foreign policy, wherever opportunity might provide.

Although his early orations were unsuccessful and reveal a lack of real conviction and of coherent strategic and political prioritisation, Demosthenes established himself as an important political personality and broke with Eubulus' faction, of which a prominent member was Aeschines. He thus laid the foundations for his future political successes and for becoming the leader of his own "party" (the issue of whether the modern concept of political parties can be applied in the Athenian democracy is hotly disputed among modern scholars).

First Philippic and the Olynthiacs (351–349 BC)
Most of Demosthenes' major orations were directed against the growing power of King Philip II of Macedon. Since 357 BC, when Philip seized Amphipolis and Pydna, Athens had been formally at war with the Macedonians. In 352 BC, Demosthenes characterised Philip as the very worst enemy of his city; his speech presaged the fierce attacks that Demosthenes would launch against the Macedonian king over the ensuing years. A year later he criticised those dismissing Philip as a person of no account and warned that he was as dangerous as the king of Persia.

In 352 BC, Athenian troops successfully opposed Philip at Thermopylae, but the Macedonian victory over the Phocians at the Battle of Crocus Field shook Demosthenes. In 351 BC, Demosthenes felt strong enough to express his view concerning the most important foreign policy issue facing Athens at that time: the stance his city should take towards Philip. According to Jacqueline de Romilly, a French philologist and member of the Académie française, the threat of Philip would give Demosthenes' stances a focus and a raison d'être. Demosthenes saw the King of Macedon as a menace to the autonomy of all Greek cities and yet he presented him as a monster of Athens's own creation; in the First Philippic he reprimanded his fellow citizens as follows: "Even if something happens to him, you will soon raise up a second Philip [...]".

The theme of the First Philippic (351–350 BC) was preparedness and the reform of the Theoric fund, a mainstay of Eubulus' policy. In his rousing call for resistance, Demosthenes asked his countrymen to take the necessary action and asserted that "for a free people there can be no greater compulsion than shame for their position". He thus provided for the first time a plan and specific recommendations for the strategy to be adopted against Philip in the north. Among other things, the plan called for the creation of a rapid-response force, to be created cheaply with each ὁπλῑ́της (hoplī́tēs) to be paid only ten drachmas per month (two obols per day), which was less than the average pay for unskilled labourers in Athens—implying that the hoplite was expected to make up the deficiency in pay by looting.

From this moment until 341 BC, all of Demosthenes' speeches referred to the same issue, the struggle against Philip. In 349 BC, Philip attacked Olynthus, an ally of Athens. In the three Olynthiacs, Demosthenes criticised his compatriots for being idle and urged Athens to help Olynthus. He also insulted Philip by calling him a "barbarian". Despite Demosthenes' strong advocacy, the Athenians would not manage to prevent the falling of the city to the Macedonians. Almost simultaneously, probably on Eubulus' recommendation, they engaged in a war in Euboea against Philip, which ended in a stalemate.

Case of Meidias (348 BC)
In 348 BC a peculiar event occurred: Meidias, a wealthy Athenian, publicly slapped Demosthenes, who was at the time a choregos at the Greater Dionysia, a large religious festival in honour of the god Dionysus. Meidias was a friend of Eubulus and supporter of the unsuccessful excursion in Euboea. He also was an old enemy of Demosthenes; in 361 BC he had broken violently into his house, with his brother Thrasylochus, to take possession of it.

Demosthenes decided to prosecute his wealthy opponent and wrote the judicial oration Against Meidias. This speech gives valuable information about Athenian law at the time and especially about the Greek concept of hybris (aggravated assault), which was regarded as a crime not only against the city but against society as a whole. He stated that a democratic state perishes if the rule of law is undermined by wealthy and unscrupulous men, and that the citizens acquire power and authority in all state affairs due "to the strength of the laws". There is no consensus among scholars either on whether Demosthenes finally delivered Against Meidias or on the veracity of Aeschines' accusation that Demosthenes was bribed to drop the charges.

Peace of Philocrates (347–345 BC)
In 348 BC, Philip conquered Olynthus and razed it to the ground; then conquered the entire Chalcidice and all the states of the Chalcidic federation that Olynthus had once led. After these Macedonian victories, Athens sued for peace with Macedon. Demosthenes was among those who favoured compromise. In 347 BC, an Athenian delegation, comprising Demosthenes, Aeschines and Philocrates, was officially sent to Pella to negotiate a peace treaty. In his first encounter with Philip, Demosthenes is said to have collapsed from fright.

The ekklesia officially accepted Philip's harsh terms, including the renouncement of their claim to Amphipolis. However, when an Athenian delegation arrived at Pella to put Philip under oath, which was required to conclude the treaty, he was campaigning abroad. He expected that he would hold safely any Athenian possessions that he might seize before the ratification. Being very anxious about the delay, Demosthenes insisted that the embassy should travel to the place where they would find Philip and swear him in without delay. Despite his suggestions, the Athenian envoys, including himself and Aeschines, remained in Pella, until Philip successfully concluded his campaign in Thrace.

Philip swore to the treaty, but he delayed the departure of the Athenian envoys, who had yet to receive the oaths from Macedon's allies in Thessaly and elsewhere. Finally, peace was sworn at Pherae, where Philip accompanied the Athenian delegation, after he had completed his military preparations to move south. Demosthenes accused the other envoys of venality and of facilitating Philip's plans with their stance. Just after the conclusion of the Peace of Philocrates, Philip passed Thermopylae, and subdued Phocis; Athens made no move to support the Phocians. Supported by Thebes and Thessaly, Macedon took control of Phocis' votes in the Amphictyonic League, a Greek religious organisation formed to support the greater temples of Apollo and Demeter. Despite some reluctance on the part of the Athenian leaders, Athens finally accepted Philip's entry into the Council of the League. Demosthenes was among those who adopted a pragmatic approach, and recommended this stance in his oration On the Peace. For Edmund M. Burke, this speech heralds a maturation in Demosthenes' career: after Philip's successful campaign in 346 BC, the Athenian statesman realised that, if he was to lead his city against the Macedonians, he had "to adjust his voice, to become less partisan in tone".

Second and Third Philippics (344–341 BC)
In 344 BC Demosthenes travelled to the Peloponnese, to detach as many cities as possible from Macedon's influence, but his efforts were generally unsuccessful. Most of the Peloponnesians saw Philip as the guarantor of their freedom and sent a joint embassy to Athens to express their grievances against Demosthenes' activities. In response, Demosthenes delivered the Second Philippic, a vehement attack against Philip. In 343 BC Demosthenes delivered On the False Embassy against Aeschines, who was facing a charge of high treason. Nonetheless, Aeschines was acquitted by the narrow margin of thirty votes by a jury which may have numbered as many as 1,501.

In 343 BC, Macedonian forces were conducting campaigns in Epirus and, in 342 BC, Philip campaigned in Thrace. He also negotiated with the Athenians an amendment to the Peace of Philocrates. When the Macedonian army approached Chersonese (now known as the Gallipoli Peninsula), an Athenian general named Diopeithes ravaged the maritime district of Thrace, thereby inciting Philip's rage. Because of this turbulence, the Athenian Assembly convened. Demosthenes delivered On the Chersonese and convinced the Athenians not to recall Diopeithes. Also in 342 BC, he delivered the Third Philippic, which is considered to be the best of his political orations. Using all the power of his eloquence, he demanded resolute action against Philip and called for a burst of energy from the Athenian people. He told them that it would be "better to die a thousand times than pay court to Philip". Demosthenes now dominated Athenian politics and was able to considerably weaken the pro-Macedonian faction of Aeschines.

Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)
In 341 BC Demosthenes was sent to Byzantium, where he sought to renew its alliance with Athens. Thanks to Demosthenes' diplomatic manoeuvres, Abydos also entered into an alliance with Athens. These developments worried Philip and increased his anger at Demosthenes. The Assembly, however, laid aside Philip's grievances against Demosthenes' conduct and denounced the peace treaty; so doing, in effect, amounted to an official declaration of war. In 339 BC Philip made his last and most effective bid to conquer southern Greece, assisted by Aeschines' stance in the Amphictyonic Council. During a meeting of the council, Philip accused the Amfissian Locrians of intruding on consecrated ground. The presiding officer of the council, a Thessalian named Cottyphus, proposed the convocation of an Amphictyonic Congress to inflict a harsh punishment upon the Locrians. Aeschines agreed with this proposition and maintained that the Athenians should participate in the Congress. Demosthenes however reversed Aeschines' initiatives and Athens finally abstained. After the failure of a first military excursion against the Locrians, the summer session of the Amphictyonic Council gave command of the league's forces to Philip and asked him to lead a second excursion. Philip decided to act at once; in the winter of 339–338 BC, he passed through Thermopylae, entered Amfissa and defeated the Locrians. After this significant victory, Philip swiftly entered Phocis in 338 BC. He then turned south-east down the Cephissus valley, seized Elateia, and restored the fortifications of the city.

At the same time, Athens orchestrated the creation of an alliance with Euboea, Megara, Achaea, Corinth, Acarnania and other states in the Peloponnese. However the most desirable ally for Athens was Thebes. To secure their allegiance, Demosthenes was sent by Athens, to the Boeotian city; Philip also sent a deputation, but Demosthenes succeeded in securing Thebes' allegiance. Demosthenes' oration before the Theban people is not extant and, therefore, the arguments he used to convince the Thebans remain unknown. In any case, the alliance came at a price: Thebes' control of Boeotia was recognised, Thebes was to command solely on land and jointly at sea, and Athens was to pay two thirds of the campaign's cost.

While the Athenians and the Thebans were preparing themselves for war, Philip made a final attempt to appease his enemies, proposing in vain a new peace treaty. After a few trivial encounters between the two sides, which resulted in minor Athenian victories, Philip drew the phalanx of the Athenian and Theban confederates into a plain near Chaeronea, where he defeated them. Demosthenes fought as a mere hoplite. Such was Philip's hatred for Demosthenes that, according to Diodorus Siculus, the King after his victory sneered at the misfortunes of the Athenian statesman. However, the Athenian orator and statesman Demades is said to have remarked: "O King, when Fortune has cast you in the role of Agamemnon, are you not ashamed to act the part of Thersites [an obscene soldier of the Greek army during the Trojan War]?" Stung by these words, Philip immediately altered his demeanour.

Confrontation with Alexander
After Chaeronea, Philip inflicted a harsh punishment upon Thebes, but made peace with Athens on very lenient terms. Demosthenes encouraged the fortification of Athens and was chosen by the ekklesia to deliver the Funeral Oration. In 337 BC, Philip created the League of Corinth, a confederation of Greek states under his leadership, and returned to Pella. In 336 BC, Philip was assassinated at the wedding of his daughter, Cleopatra of Macedon, to King Alexander of Epirus. The Macedonian citizens swiftly proclaimed Alexander III of Macedon, then twenty years old, as the new King of Macedon. Greek cities like Athens and Thebes saw in this change of leadership an opportunity to regain their full independence. Demosthenes celebrated Philip's assassination and played a leading part in his city's uprising. According to Aeschines, "it was but the seventh day after the death of his daughter, and though the ceremonies of mourning were not yet completed, he put a garland on his head and white raiment on his body, and there he stood making thank-offerings, violating all decency." Demosthenes also sent envoys to Attalus, whom he considered to be an internal opponent of Alexander. Nonetheless, Alexander moved swiftly to Thebes, which submitted shortly after his appearance at its gates. When the Athenians learned that Alexander had moved quickly to Boeotia, they panicked and begged the new King of Macedon for mercy. Alexander admonished them but imposed no punishment.

In 335 BC Alexander felt free to engage the Thracians and the Illyrians, but, while he was campaigning in the north, Demosthenes spread a rumour—even producing a bloodstained messenger—that Alexander and all of his expeditionary force had been slaughtered by the Triballians. The Thebans and the Athenians rebelled once again, financed by Darius III of Persia, and Demosthenes is said to have received about 300 talents on behalf of Athens and to have faced accusations of embezzlement. Alexander reacted immediately and razed Thebes to the ground. He did not attack Athens, but demanded the exile of all anti-Macedonian politicians, Demosthenes first of all. According to Plutarch, a special Athenian embassy led by Phocion, an opponent of the anti-Macedonian faction, was able to persuade Alexander to relent.

According to ancient writers, Demosthenes called Alexander "Margites" (Μαργίτης) and a boy. Greeks used the word Margites to describe foolish and useless people, on account of the Margites.

Delivery of On the Crown
Despite the unsuccessful ventures against Philip and Alexander, most Athenians still respected Demosthenes, because they shared his sentiments and wished to restore their independence. In 336 BC, the orator Ctesiphon proposed that Athens honour Demosthenes for his services to the city by presenting him, according to custom, with a golden crown. This proposal became a political issue and, in 330 BC, Aeschines prosecuted Ctesiphon on charges of legal irregularities. In his most brilliant speech, On the Crown, Demosthenes effectively defended Ctesiphon and vehemently attacked those who would have preferred peace with Macedon. He was unrepentant about his past actions and policies and insisted that, when in power, the constant aim of his policies was the honour and the ascendancy of his country; and on every occasion and in all business he preserved his loyalty to Athens. He finally defeated Aeschines, although his enemy's objections, though politically-motivated, to the crowning were arguably valid from a legal point of view.

Case of Harpalus and death
In 324 BC Harpalus, to whom Alexander had entrusted huge treasures, absconded and sought refuge in Athens. The Assembly had initially refused to accept him, following Demosthenes' and Phocion's advice, but finally Harpalus entered Athens. He was imprisoned after a proposal of Demosthenes and Phocion, despite the dissent of Hypereides, an anti-Macedonian statesman and former ally of Demosthenes. Additionally, the ekklesia decided to take control of Harpalus' money, which was entrusted to a committee presided over by Demosthenes. When the committee counted the treasure, they found they only had half the money Harpalus had declared he possessed. When Harpalus escaped, the Areopagus conducted an inquiry and charged Demosthenes and others with mishandling twenty talents.

Among the accused, Demosthenes was the first to be brought to trial before an unusually numerous jury of 1,500. He was found guilty and fined 50 talents. Unable to pay this huge amount, Demosthenes escaped and only returned to Athens nine months later, after the death of Alexander. Upon his return, he "received from his countrymen an enthusiastic welcome, such as had never been accorded to any returning exile since the days of Alkibiades." Such a reception, the circumstances of the case, Athenian need to placate Alexander, the urgency to account for the missing funds, Demosthenes' patriotism and wish to set Greece free from Macedonian rule, all lend support to George Grote's view that Demosthenes was innocent, that the charges against him were politically-motivated, and that he "was neither paid nor bought by Harpalus."

Mogens Hansen, however, notes that many Athenian leaders, Demosthenes included, made fortunes out of their political activism, especially by taking bribes from fellow citizens and such foreign states as Macedonia and Persia. Demosthenes received vast sums for the many decrees and laws he proposed. Given this pattern of corruption in Greek politics, it appears likely, writes Hansen, that Demosthenes accepted a huge bribe from Harpalus, and that he was justly found guilty in an Athenian People's Court.

After Alexander's death in 323 BC, Demosthenes again urged the Athenians to seek independence from Macedon in what became known as the Lamian War. However, Antipater, Alexander's successor, quelled all opposition and demanded that the Athenians turn over Demosthenes and Hypereides, among others. Following his order, the ekklesia had no choice but to reluctantly adopt a decree condemning the most prominent anti-Macedonian agitators to death. Demosthenes escaped to a sanctuary on the island of Kalaureia (modern-day Poros), where he was later discovered by Archias, a confidant of Antipater. He died by suicide before his capture by taking poison out of a reed, pretending he wanted to write a letter to his family. When Demosthenes felt that the poison was working on his body, he said to Archias: "Now, as soon as you please you may commence the part of Creon in the tragedy, and cast out this body of mine unburied. But, O gracious Neptune, I, for my part, while I am yet alive, arise up and depart out of this sacred place; though Antipater and the Macedonians have not left so much as the temple unpolluted." After saying these words, he passed by the altar, fell down and died. Years after Demosthenes' suicide, the Athenians erected a statue to honour him and decreed that the state should provide meals to his descendants in the Prytaneum.

Political career
Plutarch lauds Demosthenes for not being of a fickle disposition. Rebutting historian Theopompus, the biographer insists that for "the same party and post in politics which he held from the beginning, to these he kept constant to the end; and was so far from leaving them while he lived, that he chose rather to forsake his life than his purpose". On the other hand, Polybius, a Greek historian of the Mediterranean world, was highly critical of Demosthenes' policies. Polybius accused him of having launched unjustified verbal attacks on great men of other cities, branding them unjustly as traitors to the Greeks. The historian maintains that Demosthenes measured everything by the interests of his own city, imagining that all the Greeks ought to have their eyes fixed upon Athens. According to Polybius, the only thing the Athenians eventually got by their opposition to Philip was the defeat at Chaeronea. "And had it not been for the King's magnanimity and regard for his own reputation, their misfortunes would have gone even further, thanks to the policy of Demosthenes". Paparrigopoulos extols Demosthenes' patriotism, but criticises him as being short-sighted. According to this critique, Demosthenes should have understood that the ancient Greek states could only survive unified under the leadership of Macedon. Therefore, Demosthenes is accused of misjudging events, opponents and opportunities and of being unable to foresee Philip's inevitable triumph. He is criticised for having overrated Athens's capacity to revive and challenge Macedon. His city had lost most of its Aegean allies, whereas Philip had consolidated his hold over Macedonia and was master of enormous mineral wealth. Chris Carey, a professor of Greek in UCL, concludes that Demosthenes was a better orator and political operator than strategist. Nevertheless, the same scholar underscores that "pragmatists" like Aeschines or Phocion had no inspiring vision to rival that of Demosthenes. The orator asked the Athenians to choose that which is just and honourable, before their own safety and preservation. The people preferred Demosthenes' activism and even the bitter defeat at Chaeronea was regarded as a price worth paying in the attempt to retain freedom and influence. According to Professor of Greek Arthur Wallace Pickarde, success may be a poor criterion for judging the actions of people like Demosthenes, who were motivated by the ideals of democracy political liberty. Athens was asked by Philip to sacrifice its freedom and its democracy, while Demosthenes longed for the city's brilliance. He endeavoured to revive its imperilled values and, thus, he became an "educator of the people" (in the words of Werner Jaeger).

The fact that Demosthenes fought at the battle of Chaeronea as a hoplite indicates that he lacked any military skills. According to historian Thomas Babington Macaulay, in his time the division between political and military offices was beginning to be strongly marked. Almost no politician, with the exception of Phocion, was at the same time an apt orator and a competent general. Demosthenes dealt in policies and ideas, and war was not his business. This contrast between Demosthenes' intellectual prowess and his deficiencies in terms of vigour, stamina, military skill and strategic vision is illustrated by the inscription his countrymen engraved on the base of his statue: "Had you for Greece been strong, as wise you were, the Macedonian would not have conquered her."George Grote notes that already thirty years before his death, Demosthenes "took a sagacious and provident measure of the danger which threatened Grecian liberty from the energy and encroachments of Philip." Throughout his career "we trace the same combination of earnest patriotism with wise and long-sighted policy." Had his advice to the Athenians and other fellow Greeks been followed, the power of Macedonia could have been successfully checked. Moreover, says Grote, "it was not Athens only that he sought to defend against Philip, but the whole Hellenic world. In this he towers above the greatest of his predecessors." "The sentiments to which Demosthenes appeals throughout his numerous orations, are those of the noblest and largest patriotism; trying to inflame the ancient Grecian sentiment of an autonomous Hellenic world, as the indispensable condition of a dignified and desirable existence."

Oratorical skill

In Demosthenes' initial judicial orations, the influence of both Lysias and Isaeus is obvious, but his marked, original style is already revealed. Most of his extant speeches for private cases—written early in his career—show glimpses of talent: a powerful intellectual drive, masterly selection (and omission) of facts, and a confident assertion of the justice of his case, all ensuring the dominance of his viewpoint over his rival. However, at this early stage of his career, his writing was not yet remarkable for its subtlety, verbal precision and variety of effects.

According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek historian and teacher of rhetoric, Demosthenes represented the final stage in the development of Attic prose. Both Dionysius and Cicero assert that Demosthenes brought together the best features of the basic types of style; he used the middle or normal type style ordinarily and applied the archaic type and the type of plain elegance where they were fitting. In each one of the three types he was better than its special masters. He is, therefore, regarded as a consummate orator, adept in the techniques of oratory, which are brought together in his work.

According to the classical scholar Harry Thurston Peck, Demosthenes "affects no learning; he aims at no elegance; he seeks no glaring ornaments; he rarely touches the heart with a soft or melting appeal, and when he does, it is only with an effect in which a third-rate speaker would have surpassed him. He had no wit, no humour, no vivacity, in our acceptance of these terms. The secret of his power is simple, for it lies essentially in the fact that his political principles were interwoven with his very spirit." In this judgement, Peck agrees with Jaeger, who said that the imminent political decision imbued Demosthenes' speech with a fascinating artistic power. From his part, George A. Kennedy believes that his political speeches in the ekklesia were to become "the artistic exposition of reasoned views".

Demosthenes was apt at combining abruptness with the extended period, brevity with breadth. Hence, his style harmonises with his fervent commitment. His language is simple and natural, never far-fetched or artificial. According to Jebb, Demosthenes was a true artist who could make his art obey him. For his part, Aeschines stigmatised his intensity, attributing to his rival strings of absurd and incoherent images. Dionysius stated that Demosthenes' only shortcoming is the lack of humour, although Quintilian regards this deficiency as a virtue. In a now lost letter, Cicero, though an admirer of the Athenian orator, claimed that occasionally Demosthenes "nods", and elsewhere Cicero also argued that, although he is pre-eminent, Demosthenes sometimes fails to satisfy his ears. The main criticism of Demosthenes' art, however, seems to have rested chiefly on his known reluctance to speak ex tempore; he often declined to comment on subjects he had not studied beforehand. However, he gave the most elaborate preparation to all his speeches and, therefore, his arguments were the products of careful study. He was also famous for his caustic wit.

Besides his style, Cicero also admired other aspects of Demosthenes' works, such as the good prose rhythm, and the way he structured and arranged the material in his orations. According to the Roman statesman, Demosthenes regarded "delivery" (gestures, voice, etc.) as more important than style. Although he lacked Aeschines' charming voice and Demades' skill at improvisation, he made efficient use of his body to accentuate his words. Thus he managed to project his ideas and arguments much more forcefully. However, the use of physical gestures was not an integral or developed part of rhetorical training in his day. Moreover, his delivery was not accepted by everybody in antiquity: Demetrius Phalereus and the comedians ridiculed Demosthenes' "theatricality", whilst Aeschines regarded Leodamas of Acharnae as superior to him.

Demosthenes relied heavily on the different aspects of ethos, especially phronesis. When presenting himself to the Assembly, he had to depict himself as a credible and wise statesman and adviser to be persuasive. One tactic that Demosthenes used during his philippics was foresight. He pleaded with his audience to predict the potential of being defeated, and to prepare. He appealed to pathos through patriotism and introducing the atrocities that would befall Athens if it was taken over by Philip. He was a master at "self-fashioning" by referring to his previous accomplishments, and renewing his credibility. He would also slyly undermine his audience by claiming that they had been wrong not to listen before, but they could redeem themselves if they listened and acted with him presently.

Demosthenes tailored his style to be very audience-specific. He took pride in not relying on attractive words but rather simple, effective prose. He was mindful of his arrangement, he used clauses to create patterns that would make seemingly complex sentences easy for the hearer to follow. His tendency to focus on delivery promoted him to use repetition, this would ingrain the importance into the audience's minds; he also relied on speed and delay to create suspense and interest among the audience when presenting the most important aspects of his speech. One of his most effective skills was his ability to strike a balance: his works were complex so that the audience would not be offended by any elementary language, but the most important parts were clear and easily understood.

Rhetorical legacy
Demosthenes is widely considered one of the greatest orators of all time, and his fame has continued down the ages. Authors and scholars who flourished at Rome, such as Longinus and Caecilius, regarded his oratory as sublime. Juvenal acclaimed him as "largus et exundans ingenii fons" (a large and overflowing fountain of genius), and he inspired Cicero's speeches against Mark Antony, also called the Philippics. According to Professor of Classics Cecil Wooten, Cicero ended his career by trying to imitate Demosthenes' political role. Plutarch drew attention in his Life of Demosthenes to the strong similarities between the personalities and careers of Demosthenes and Marcus Tullius Cicero:

"The divine power seems originally to have designed Demosthenes and Cicero upon the same plan, giving them many similarities in their natural characters, as their passion for distinction and their love of liberty in civil life, and their want of courage in dangers and war, and at the same time also to have added many accidental resemblances. I think there can hardly be found two other orators, who, from small and obscure beginnings, became so great and mighty; who both contested with kings and tyrants; both lost their daughters, were driven out of their country, and returned with honour; who, flying from thence again, were both seized upon by their enemies, and at last ended their lives with the liberty of their countrymen."

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Demosthenes had a reputation for eloquence. He was read more than any other ancient orator; only Cicero offered any real competition. French author and lawyer Guillaume du Vair praised his speeches for their artful arrangement and elegant style; John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, and Jacques Amyot, a French Renaissance writer and translator, regarded Demosthenes as a great or even the "supreme" orator. For Thomas Wilson, who first published translation of his speeches into English, Demosthenes was not only an eloquent orator, but, mainly, an authoritative statesman, "a source of wisdom".

In modern history, orators such as Henry Clay would mimic Demosthenes' technique. His ideas and principles survived, influencing prominent politicians and movements of our times. Hence, he constituted a source of inspiration for the authors of The Federalist Papers (a series of 85 essays arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution) and for the major orators of the French Revolution. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau was among those who idealised Demosthenes and wrote a book about him. For his part, Friedrich Nietzsche often composed his sentences according to the paradigms of Demosthenes, whose style he admired.

Works and transmission
The "publication" and distribution of prose texts was common practice in Athens by the latter half of the fourth century BC and Demosthenes was among the Athenian politicians who set the trend, publishing many or even all of his orations. After his death, texts of his speeches survived in Athens (possibly forming part of the library of Cicero's friend, Atticus, though their fate is otherwise unknown), and in the Library of Alexandria.

The Alexandrian texts were incorporated into the body of classical Greek literature that was preserved, catalogued and studied by the scholars of the Hellenistic period. From then until the fourth century AD, copies of Demosthenes' orations multiplied and they were in a relatively good position to survive the tense period from the sixth until the ninth century AD. In the end, sixty-one orations attributed to Demosthenes survived till the present day (some however are pseudonymous). Friedrich Blass, a German classical scholar, believes that nine more speeches were recorded by the orator, but they are not extant. Modern editions of these speeches are based on four manuscripts of the tenth and eleventh centuries AD.

Some of the speeches that comprise the "Demosthenic corpus" are known to have been written by other authors, though scholars differ over which speeches these are. Irrespective of their status, the speeches attributed to Demosthenes are often grouped in three genres first defined by Aristotle:
 * Symbouleutic or political, considering the expediency of future actions—sixteen such speeches are included in the Demosthenic corpus;
 * Dicanic or judicial, assessing the justice of past actions—only about ten of these are cases in which Demosthenes was personally involved, the rest were written for other speakers;
 * Epideictic or sophistic display, attributing praise or blame, often delivered at public ceremonies—only two speeches have been included in the Demosthenic corpus, one a funeral speech that has been dismissed as a "rather poor" example of his work, and the other probably spurious.

In addition to the speeches, there are fifty-six prologues (openings of speeches). They were collected for the Library of Alexandria by Callimachus, who believed them genuine. Modern scholars are divided: some reject them, while others, such as Blass, believe they are authentic. Finally, six letters also survive under Demosthenes' name and their authorship too is hotly debated.

Later honours
The Demosthenian Literary Society, founded in 1803 at the University of Georgia, was named in honor of Demosthenes. In 1936, an American botanist Albert Charles Smith named a genus of shrubs in the family Ericaceae, which were native to south America, as Demosthenesia in honour of Demosthenes.

Primary sources (Greeks and Romans)

 * Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Aeschines, Against Timarchus. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Aeschines, The Speech on the Embassy. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae. Translated into English by Charles Duke Yonge.
 * Cicero, Brutus. See the original text in the Latin Library
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Cicero, De Oratore. See original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Cicero, Orator. See the original text in the Latin Library.
 * Demades, On the Twelve Years. See original text in Perseus program.
 * Demosthenes, Against Aphobus 1. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Demosthenes, Against Aphobus 3. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Demosthenes, Against Aristocrates. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Demosthenes, Against Meidias. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Demosthenes, Against Zenothemis. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, First Olynthiac.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, First Philippic.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, For the Freedom of the Rhodians
 * Demosthenes, Fourth Philippic. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Demosthenes (or Hegesippus), On Halonnesus. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, On the Crown.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, On the False Embassy.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, On the Peace.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, Second Olynthiac.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, Second Philippic.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, Third Olynthiac.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Demosthenes, Third Philippic.
 * Dinarchus, Against Demosthenes. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Diodorus Siculus, Library. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On the Admirable Style of Demosthenes.
 * Hypereides,Against Demosthenes. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library
 * Juvenal, Saturae. See original text in the Latin Library . Translated into English by M. Madan
 * Longinus, On the Sublime. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts
 * Lucian, Demosthenes, An Encomium. Translated in Sacred Texts
 * Lucian, The Illiterate Book-Fancier. Translated in Sacred Texts
 * Pausanias, Description of Greece. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Plutarch, Cicero. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Plutarch, Demosthenes. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * [[Image:wikisource-logo.svg|15px]] Plutarch, Phocion. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library.
 * Polybius, Histories. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library
 * Pseudo-Plutarch, Aeschines. See Charles Barcroft's translation.
 * Pseudo-Plutarch, Demosthenes. See Charles Barcroft's translation.
 * Quintilian, Institutiones. See the original text in Perseus Digital Library and the Latin Library.

title: Demosthenes


text:
Talk:Darius

Removed text
Removed following pseudohistory. -- Aprilyo

Shortly after his rout of Egypt, madness came upon the Persian king Cambyses, and he died, having committed many crimes, among which was the slaying of his brother Smerdis. And there rose up one among the Magi who pretended to be Smerdis, and was proclaimed king. But this false Smerdis was one whose ears had been cut off, and he was thus found out by one of his wives, the daughter of a Persian nobleman, Otanes. Then seven nobles conspired together, since they would not be ruled over by one of the Magi; and having determined that it was best to have one man for ruler, rather than the rule of the people or of the nobles, they slew Smerdis and made Darius, the son of Hystaspes, their king. Then Darius divided the Persian empire into twenty satrapies, whereof each one paid its own tribute, save Persia itself, and he was lord of all Asia, and Egypt also.

In the days of Cambyses, Polycrates was despot of Samos, being the first who ever thought to make himself a ruler of the seas. And he had prospered marvellously. But Oroetes, the satrap of Sardis, compassed his death by foul treachery, and wrought many other crimes; whom Darius in turn put to death by guile, fearing to make open war upon him. And not long afterwards, he sent Otanes to make conquest of Samos. And during the same days there was a revolt of the Babylonians; and Darius went up against Babylon, yet for twenty months he could not take it.

Howbeit, Babylon was taken by the act of Zopyrus, who, having mutilated himself, went to the Babylonians and told them that Darius had thus evilly entreated him, and so, winning their trust, he made easy entry for the Persian army, and so Babylon was taken for the second time.

Now, Darius was minded to make conquest of the Scythians-concerning which people, and the lands beyond those which they inhabit, there are many marvels told, as of a bald-headed folk called Argippaei; and the Arimaspians or one-eyed people; and the Hyperborean land where the air is full of feathers. Of these lands are legends only; nothing is known. But concerning the earth's surface, this much is known, that Libya is surrounded by water, certain Phoenicians having sailed round it. And of the unknown regions of Asia much was searched out by order of Darius. Darius deloache attends hopewells middle school

The Scythians themselves have no cities; but there are great rivers in Scythia, where of the Ister is the greatest of all known streams, being greater even than the Nile, if we reckon its tributaries. The great god of the Scythians is Ares; and their war customs are savage exceedingly, and all their ways barbarous. Against this folk Darius resolved to march.

His plan was to convey his army across the Bosporus on a bridge of boats, while the Ionian fleet should sail up to the Ister and bridge that and await him. So he crossed the Bosporus and marched through Thrace, subduing on his way the Getae, who believe that there is no true death.

But when he passed the Ister, he would have taken the Ionians along with him; but by counsel of Coes of Mitylene, he resolved to leave them in charge of the bridge, giving order that, after sixty days, they might depart home, but no sooner.

THEN the Scythians, fearing that they could not match the great king's army, summoned the other barbaric peoples to their aid; among whom were the Sauromatians, who are fabled to be the offspring of the Amazons. And some were willing, but others not. Therefore the Scythians retired before Darius, first towards those peoples who would not come to their help; and so enticed him into desert regions, yet would in no wise come to battle with him.

Now, at length, Darius found himself in so evil a plight that he began to march back to the Ister. And certain Scythians came to the Ionians and counselled them to destroy the bridge, the sixty days being passed. And this Miltiades, the Athenian despot of the Chersonese, would have had them do, so that Darius might perish with all his army; but Histiaeus of Miletus dissuaded them, because the rule of the despots was upheld by Darius. And thus the Persian army was saved, Megabazus being left in Europe to subdue the Hellespontines. When Megabazus had subdued many of the Thracian peoples, who, indeed, lack only union with each other to make them the mightiest of all nations, he sent an embassy to Amyntas, the king of Macedon, to demand earth and water. But because those envoys insulted the ladies of the court, Alexander, the son of Amyntas, slew them all, and of them or all their train naught was heard more.

Now Darius, with fair words, bade Histiaeus of Miletus abide with him at the royal town of Susa. Then Aristagoras, the brother of Histiaeus, having failed in an attempt to subdue Naxos, and fearing both Artaphernes, the satrap of Sardis, and the Persian general Megabazus, with whom he had quarrelled, sought to stir up a revolt of the Ionian cities; being incited thereto by secret messages from Histiaeus.

To this end he sought alliance with the Lacedaemonians; but they would have nothing to do with him, deeming the venture too remote. Then he went to Athens, whence the sons of Pisistratus had been driven forth just before. For Hipparchus had been slain by Harmodius and Aristogiton, and afterwards Hippias would hardly have been expelled but that his enemies captured his children and so could make with him what terms they chose. But the Pisistratidae having been expelled, the city grew in might, and changes were made in the government of it by Clisthenes the Alcmaeonid. But the party that was against Clisthenes got aid from Cleomenes of Sparta; yet the party of Clisthenes won.

Then, since they reckoned that there would be war with Sparta, the Athenians had sought friendship with Artaphernes at Sardis; but since he demanded earth and water they broke off. But because Athens was waxing in strength, the Spartans bethought them of restoring the despotism of the Pisistratidae. But Sosicles, the Corinthian, dissuaded the allies of Sparta from taking part in so evil a deed. Then Hippias sought to stir up against the Athenians the ill-will of Artaphernes, who bade them take back the Pisistratidae, which they would not do.

Therefore, when Aristagoras came thither, the Athenians were readily persuaded to promise him aid. And he, having gathered the troops of the Ionians, who were at one with him, marched with them and the Athenians against Sardis and took the city, which by a chance was set on fire. But after that the Athenians refused further help to the Ionians, who were worsted by the Persians. But the ruin of the Ionians was at the sea-fight of Lade, where the men of Chios fought stoutly; but, they of Samos and Lesbos deserting, there was a great rout.

Minor Edit: Updated Kasparitis
Darius Kasparitis is not currently in the NHL. I've updated the disambiguation page to show this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.167.219.97 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Darius the Mede
Darius the Mede currently redirects here. But does Darius the Mede need disambiguation at all? Is there any other Darius the Mede other than the one in the Book of Daniel? Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rabbit
Why nothing about Darius the 4-foot-something, 50-pound rabbit? --92.19.13.126 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical?
The section "Modern" seems to have a half hearted attempt to be alphabetical... but should be re-edited if that is the desired result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.106.116 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dario in languages
There is no Dario/Darijo name in slavic people other than Croats (which aquired it from Italians). It is common name in Croatia, and well, if there is any other Dario in slavic country other than Croatia, it must be as often as in non-slavic countries where name is NOT common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic
I suggest moving this page to Darius (disambiguation) so that Darius I of Persia can be made WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (pending the outcome of this discussion). He is the only individual on this list who can reasonably be designated simply as "Darius" on first reference, and this is in fact his usual designation. Kauffner (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I oppose this move on the grounds that Darius III is not much less well-known. I woiuld be interested to see which shources refer to him as simply Darius on first mention, and in what context (e.g. are there no works on Alexander the Great which refer to Darius III as Darius on first mention?).  I went into this on the other page.  I am getting confused about where we are having these discussion, tried following the links but just went round in circles. PatGallacher (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * In Marathon 490 BC: the first Persian invasion of Greece, the first Darius is given simply as "Darius" 16 times, never as "Darius I" or "Darius the Great." In Alexander the Great by Richard Stoneman, the first mention of the third Darius is "Darius III" (p. 16). In Britannica, the article for Darius I is 1,300 words long; The one for Darius III is 300 words. If you look at this ngram, you'll see that vastly more books give "Darius" than give "Darius III" or are any of the other elaborations that struck me as plausible. Obviously, a hit for "Darius III" is also a hit for "Darius." But even if you subtract the elaborations from the number of books containing "Darius", it is clear that most authors use just plain "Darius" and do not elaborate even at first mention. Nearly half the "Darius" hits on Google Books are Persian related, so this gap cannot be explained by modern celebrities named Darius. At most, the modern celebrities can explain the rise in the use of "Darius" since 2000. Kauffner (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Kaufner, so are you saying that we should ignore 2500 years of literature and history books and base this discussion on a single book that you found about the Battle of Marathon which you claim never mentions "the Great"? Why?Ordibehesht22 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 * This discussion is about the primary topic issue, i.e. when a reader types in simply "Darius" as a search term, who is he likely to be referring to? If you want to comment on "the Great" issue, there is a separate discussion here. Also take a look at this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was highly improper to move this page without going through a proper move request, given that this was clearly controversial. I will reply to the other points later. PatGallacher (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just possibly I am getting confused here, although at present I doubt it. There was no point moving "Darius" to "Darius (disambiguation)" unless the intention was to move "Darius I of Persia" to "Darius", the former move without the latter would not make sense, it is irrelevant that there was a speedy deletion request, admins are not obliged to accept these requests. If people want to make Darius I the primary meaning of Darius so be it, but this is a controversial move request which should be taken through the proper channels, surely the status quo applies until then. PatGallacher (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * After PatGallacher objected to my honoring the CSD request and then making the move, I have re-examined this and I agree that the move was incorrect without a proper move discussion - as there are so many possible "Darius" targets, I don't think it is clear cut that Darius I of Persia is an uncontroversial primary target. As PatGallacher has already reverted the move, I have now also reverted several redirects so they are also back the way they were. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I requested that Darius (disambiguation) be speedy deleted so that it would be possible to move the DAB there without further administer involvement should that be the outcome of the discussion here. The move itself was a part that action, not something I specifically requested. The DAB remained the primary topic throughout this episode and I did not change that. I have already voted against moving Darius I of Persia on that page. The name of the Darius I article will be determined by an admin based on the vote on that page. I am assuming that the new name will not be "Darius", as that would make any discussion here pointless. "Primary topic" means that "Darius" would be a redirect to "Darius I of Persia." I certainly didn't expected any of this to be controversial, although now it looks like a formal move request will be necessary. Kauffner (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd just like to point out that the singer Darius Campbell is, to many, known just as Darius, and he used a mononym to release his music. – anemone projectors – 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'd like to confirm that the decision to do the move was mine (and that mistake was mine). However, the reason given for the deletion of the target was that it was holding up a page move, and had that move not already been agreed, there was actually no justification for deleting the target page - if a move is not agreed, the target should not be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and concerning ""Primary topic" means that "Darius" would be a redirect to "Darius I of Persia."", I don't think that's valid - I might be wrong, but I don't see how a primary topic can be a redirect - something gets to be a primary topic if it is a natural candidate for an article by that actual name. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "The primary topic for "Danzig" is the former German city of that name, but the article on that city is titled Gdańsk. Therefore Danzig redirects to Gdańsk". So the issue here is whether 'Darius I of Persia' is the primary topic of 'Darius', while the issue of the article title can be discussed separately. Kauffner (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Ah yes, that's true. In the case of 'Darius', I don't think it's at all obvious that 'Darius I of Persia' would be considered the primary topic - so I would have to oppose the move -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The Google rankings show Darius I/Darius the Great as topic No. 1, Darius Campbell as No. 2 (some Scottish boy toy, apparently), and no other Darius that is even in the running. Kauffner (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Google rankings aren't sufficient - "Primary topic" does not mean "most common topic". What we need is evidence that a particular topic is usually associated with that name by most people, and I just don't think that is the case with "Darius". As an example, ask 100 people what "Danzig" is and what "Darius" is - I expect a lot will tell you that Danzig is a city, but very few will have any clue about Darius I. Also, the more alternatives there are in the disambig page, the less likely it is that there's a clear Primary topic. As it says at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it has to be "the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". In the case of "Darius", I really don't think we have that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Darius → Darius (disambiguation) – This move would allow Darius to become a redirect with Darius the Great as the primary topic. There is a very long list of entries on this DAB, but the overwhelming majority are people here only because their given name is "Darius" (or even "Dario"), which is not necessarily the same as being commonly designated "Darius," e.g. George Washington isn't listed in George. Google rankings suggest that Darius the Great/Darius I/Darius I Hystaspes is the No 1 topic for this word. The other topics that come up are non-educational: Darius Campbell and Darius Henderson. (The ranking of the latter is tied strictly to current news.) Some editors have suggested that Darius III is also notable, and you can compare the traffic here and here. Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Kauffner's sound reasoning that Darius I is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jenks24 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose Darius III is not much less well-known than Darius I, and we also have Darius Campbell, sometimes known as plain Darius. PatGallacher (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gallacher, III is also quite well known. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to go the third page of Darius Web hits to find even one result that referred to Darius III. As for Darius Campbell, he is barely mentioned on Google books. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Campbell is also known by the name Darius Danesh, you'd probably find more under that name. Also, as he's been just known as Darius, many sources don't include his surname. Try searching 'Darius "Pop Idol"' or 'Darius Popstars' (the two shows that made him famous). – anemone projectors – 09:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose, what PatGallacher said, and previous discussion above. – anemone projectors – 09:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Darius, son of Artaxerxes II is missing. He was Co Ruler with his father and had a son Arbupales, who was killed in battle 335 at Granicud against Alexander III of Macedonia.
Can someone edit Darius the crown Prince of Artaxerxes II, who was Co Ruler with his father and killed so that Artaxerxes III Ochus could become king. His son Arbupales fought at Granicus 335 against Alexander III of Macedon. 2003:E7:F703:EAB5:DD47:65E7:ABBA:1C65 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Darius


text:
Catiline

Lucius Sergius Catilina (c. 108 BC – January 62 BC), known in English as Catiline, was a Roman politician and soldier, best known for instigating the Catilinarian conspiracy, a failed attempt to violently seize control of the Roman state in 63 BC.

Born to an ancient patrician family, he joined Sulla during Sulla's civil war and profited from Sulla's purges of his political enemies, becoming a wealthy man. In the early 60s BC, he served as praetor and then as governor of Africa (67 – 66 BC). Upon his return to Rome, he attempted to stand for the consulship but was rebuffed; he then was beset with legal challenges over alleged corruption in Africa and his actions during Sulla's proscriptions (83 – 82 BC). Acquitted on all charges with the support of influential friends from across Roman politics, he twice stood for the consulship in 64 and 63 BC.

Defeated in the consular comitia, he concocted a violent plot to take the consulship by force, bringing together poor rural plebs, Sullan veterans, and other senators whose political careers had stalled. Crassus revealed the coup attempt – which involved armed uprisings in Etruria – to Cicero, one of the consuls, in October 63 BC, but it took until November before evidence of Catiline's participation emerged. Discovered, he left the city to join his rebellion. In early January 62 BC, at the head of a rebel army near Pistoria (modern-day Pistoia in Tuscany), Catiline fought a battle against republican forces. He was killed and his army annihilated.

Catiline's name became a byword for doomed and treasonous rebellion in the years after his death. Sallust, in his monograph on the conspiracy, Bellum Catilinae, painted Catiline as a symbol of the republic's moral decline.

Family background
Catiline was a member of an ancient patrician family, the gens Sergia, who claimed descent from Sergestus, a Trojan companion of Aeneas. While Sallust says he was one of the nobiles, which implies a consular heritage, the specifics are unclear: no member of the gens Sergia had held the consulship since the second consulship of Gnaeus Sergius Fidenas Coxo in 429 BC; a few other Sergii had served in the consular tribunate, but the last was in 380 BC.

The exact year of Catiline's birth is unknown. From the offices he held it can be deduced that he was born no later than 108 BC, or 106 BC if patricians enjoyed a right to hold magistracies two years earlier than plebeians. Catiline's parents were Lucius Sergius Silus and Belliena. His father was poor by the standards of the aristocracy. His maternal uncle had served as praetor in 105 BC; earlier, Catiline's great-grandfather – Marcus Sergius Silus – had served with distinction as praetor in 197 BC during the Second Punic War.

Early career
During the Social War, Catiline served under Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, along with Strabo's son – the more famous Pompey – and Cicero. His specific title was not recorded. This is recorded on the Asculum Inscription, a bronze tablet which was once nailed to the wall of an unknown public building in Rome, which records the names of Pompeius Strabo's council (consilium) when he granted citizenship to several auxiliaries in his army; a Lucius Sergius is mentioned there, almost certainly Catiline.

He married a woman named Gratidia, one of Gaius Marius's nieces. During Sulla's civil war, Catiline joined with the Sullans in 82 BC and served as a lieutenant. According to many of the ancient sources, he made himself wealthy during the Sullan proscriptions by killing his brother and two of his brothers-in-law (one brother of his wife and one husband of his sister). Cicero accused him of helping Quintus Lutatius Catulus avenge himself upon Catiline's wife's brother, Marcus Marius Gratidianus, the prosecutor who had caused the death of Catulus' father. Cicero's account – given in a campaign speech attacking Catiline, who was a rival candidate for the consulship of 63 BC, – has Catiline beheading Gratidianus and then carrying the head through the city from the Janiculum to Sulla at the Temple of Apollo; later accounts embellish the tale, describing Catiline as engaging in gratuitous cruelties against Gratidianus, as described in later sources such as Livy, Valerius Maximus, Lucan, and Florus. Some modern historians doubt Catiline was involved in Gratidianus' death except perhaps in an auxiliary role, placing blame instead on Catulus and attributing the story of Catiline's involvement to Ciceronean political slander. Regardless, Catiline did engage in profiteering from the Sullan proscriptions, likely purchasing estates for fractions of their true value, and by the end of Sulla's dictatorship, he had become a rich man.

In 73 BC, he may have been prosecuted for adultery – apud pontifices (before a panel of pontiffs as judges) – with a Vestal Virgin named Fabia, a half-sister of Cicero's wife Terentia. While evidence for Fabia's prosecution is clear, only Orosius mentions Catiline's prosecution. Conviction would have led to execution for sacrilege. Catiline's friend Catulus – probably the president of the court and definitely one of the pontiffs – and other former consuls rallied to help Fabia, and possibly Catiline if he too was prosecuted, securing their acquittals. Catiline and Cicero "must have been relieved"; Catiline, for his part, regarded himself in Catulus' debt.

Attempts at the consulship
Catiline served as praetor some time before 68 BC; T. R. S. Broughton in Magistrates of the Roman Republic dates the praetorship exactly to 68 BC. He then served as propraetorian governor of Africa for two years (67–66 BC).

Some time in the mid-60s BC, Catiline married the wealthy and beautiful Aurelia Orestilla, daughter of the consul of 71 BC, Gnaeus Aufidius Orestes; this was his second marriage. Sallust relates that he did so not out of money, but only due to her good looks, something which Romans believed to be discreditable. Cicero later claimed in his Catilinarians that Catiline murdered his first wife and Orestilla's son to make way for the match; he also claimed in In toga candida that Orestilla was Catiline's own illegitimate daughter. Cicero's allegations "cannot be taken at face value and reveal more about typical themes and slanders found in Roman invective than they do about Catiline's domestic history".

Elections of 66 BC and trial
Upon his return to Rome in 66 BC, embassies from Africa protested his maladministration. Catiline also attempted to stand for the consulship, but his candidacy was rejected by the presiding magistrate. Sallust and Cicero attribute the rejection to an imminent extortion trial, but this decision may have been made in terms of the contested elections for the consulship of 65 BC: before Catiline's return to Rome, the first consular elections were held but both men elected were deposed after they were both convicted of bribery; the second elections, after Catiline's return, were held with the same candidates – the two convicts excepted – returning two different consuls. Catiline's candidacy could have been rejected not due to expectations of an extortion trial, but rather for the mere fact that he was not a candidate in the first election.

Following the elections, early in 65 BC, the ancient sources give contradictory descriptions of what is called a "First Catilinarian conspiracy" in which Catiline (except in Suetonius' narrative) conspired with the deposed consular candidates from the first election to recover the consulship by force. In some tellings, Catiline himself was to assume the consulship. Regardless, the supposed date of this alleged conspiracy, 5 February, came and went without incident. Modern scholars overwhelmingly believe that this "First Catilinarian conspiracy" is fictitious.

Later that year, in the second half of 65 BC (some time after 17 July), Catiline was brought to trial for corruption during his governorship. The prosecution was led by Publius Clodius Pulcher, but Catiline was defended by many influential former consuls, including one of the consuls of 65 BC (who had won in the second election; that consul also disavowed Catiline's rumoured involvement in the alleged putsch). Clodius, prosecuting, may have helped Catiline out by selecting a favourable jury that would be impressed by the consulares coming to Catiline's aid. But scholarly opinion on whether Clodius purposefully manipulated the proceedings for acquittal is divided. In the end, the jury – composed of senators, equites, and the tribuni aerarii – divided: the senators voted for conviction, the latter two panels for acquittal. Cicero, not yet having broken with Catiline, considered defending Catiline at this trial, but eventually decided not to; Catiline's advocate is unknown.

Consular elections of 64 BC
Catiline's candidacy at the consular elections in 64 BC was accepted. Also standing for the consulship that year were Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida; the three were the only candidates with a realistic chance of winning. Catiline, bankrolled by Caesar and Crassus, distributed large bribes; after a bill against electoral bribery was defeated, Cicero gave In toga candida, a speech full of invective attacking Catiline and Antonius. Antonius and Catiline were allies during the election and attempted to beat Cicero. Their strategy, however, was unsuccessful. Cicero was carried unanimously and Antonius narrowly defeated Catiline.

This was also the year that Gaius Julius Caesar was president of the standing court on assassinations. His willingness – along with Cato the Younger in the treasury demanding repayment of loans from the civil wars – to pursue the beneficiaries of the Sullan civil war may have swayed voters away from supporting Catiline. This may also have been reinforced by timely conviction of Catiline's maternal uncle on charges of murder during the proscriptions. After the consular elections, Catiline was brought up on charges of murdering people during the proscriptions, perhaps of Gratidianus. Prosecuted by Lucius Lucceius or possibly Caesar, Catiline was again acquitted when a number of former consuls spoke in his defence. There is no evidence that Caesar affected Catiline's acquittal.

Catilinarian conspiracy
Antonius, Catiline's ally in the elections of 64 BC, joined with Cicero in a deal where he would take the wealthy and exploitable province of Macedonia (which Cicero had been given) in exchange for cooperation; he therefore broke with Catiline early in the year. In early 63 BC, there no indications that Catiline was involved in a conspiracy. He was still, however, nursing hopes of an eventual consulship that would be both his birth-right and necessary for his career.

Consular elections

The events of the year 63 BC were not amenable for civil harmony, no matter how much Cicero as consul had been preaching it to the people. Early in the year, a proposal came before the plebs to redistribute lands; it was a proposal that would have alleviated great hardship in a time of economic hardship. Cicero spoke out against it, warning of tyrannical land commissioners and painting the project as selling out the people to the beneficiaries of the Sullan proscriptions. "The coming of ... the [Catilinarian] conspiracy in the months [after its defeat] was no coincidence".

A trial that year for one Gaius Rabirius for the murder of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus in 100 BC, almost forty years earlier, was possibly a signal from Caesar to the senate against use of the senatus consultum ultimum (a declaration of emergency which gave the consuls political cover to break laws in suppressing civil unrest). Rabirius was convicted by Caesar ("not an impartial judge") by means of an archaic procedure before appealing and then being acquitted by a similarly archaic loophole. A later proposal to overturn Sulla's civil disabilities for the sons of the victims of the proscriptions also was defeated with Cicero's help; Cicero argued that repeal would cause political upheaval. This failure "drove some of the men concerned into supporting Catiline" in his conspiracy.

That summer, Catiline stood again for the consulship in 63 BC; his candidacy was accepted by Cicero. Against him were three other major candidates: Decimus Junius Silanus, Lucius Licinius Murena, and Servius Sulpicius Rufus. Cicero supported Sulpicius' bid as a friend and fellow lawyer, which directly harmed Catiline's chances, since both men were patricians and therefore were legally barred from both holding the consulship. Bribery was again rampant, after the senate moved again to pass legislation to stamp it out, Cicero and Antonius as consuls were successful in moving the lex Tullia increasing penalties and enumerating forbidden electoral practices.

Just before the elections, Cicero alleges Catiline engaged in demagoguery and attempted to build up his bona fides with the poor and dispossessed men of Rome and Italy, including himself among their number, advocating the wholesale abolition of all existing debts (tabulae novae). At the electoral comitia, Cicero presided, surrounded by a bodyguard and wearing an ostentatious cuirass to signal his belief that Catiline posed a threat to his person and public safety. Sallust reports that Catiline promised his supporters that he would kill the rich but this supposed promise is likely ahistorical. No contemporary source indicates that Catiline supported land reform. The comitia returned as consuls-designate Decimus Junius Silanus and Lucius Licinius Murena. After his second defeat, Catiline seems to have run out of money and must have been abandoned by his former supporters such as Crassus and Caesar.

Conspiracy
On 18 or 19 October, Crassus and two other senators visited Cicero's house on the Oppian Hill (near the ruins of the Colosseum) and delivered to the consuls anonymous letters, warning that Catiline was planning a massacre of leading politicians, and advising them to leave the city. Cicero convened the senate and had them read aloud. A few days later, on 21 or 22 October, an ex-praetor reported news that an ex-Sullan centurion – Gaius Manlius – who had supported Catiline's bid for the consulship had raised an army in Etruria. The senate acted immediately, usually dated to the 21st, to pass a senatus consultum ultimum directing the consuls to take whatever actions they believed necessary for state security. When news of the decree arrived to Manlius, he declared an open rebellion.

Some modern scholars reject a connection between Manlius and Catiline at this early point, arguing that Manlius' rebellion may have been separate from Catiline's alleged conspiracy and that the conspiracy only came into actual fruition when Catiline joined Manlius' rebellion when leaving Rome for exile and seeing nothing to lose. There are, however, no indications of this in the ancient sources.

Catiline's indebtedness – if he was in fact indebted, there is little evidence one way or the other – was not the sole cause of his conspiring: "wounded pride and fierce ambition" played a great role in his decision-making. Many of the senatorial members of the conspiracy were men who had been ejected from the senate for immorality, corruption, or seen their careers stall out (especially in attempts to reach the consulship). The men who joined Manlius' rebellion were largely two groups: poor farmers who had been dispossessed by Sulla's confiscations after the civil war and ruined Sullan veterans seeking more riches. Cicero, in his invectives, naturally focused on the ruined Sullan veterans, who were unpopular; but at the end, Catiline likely kept only the support of the dispossessed Etruscans who had "nowhere else to go". Altogether, these men had mixed backgrounds and no "single-minded purpose [can] readily be ascribed" to them.

Flight from the city
While the consuls fortified central Italy, reports also filtered in of slave revolts in the south. Two generals who were waiting for their triumphs to be approved were then dispatched with men to garrison the northern approaches to Rome and southern Italy. Catiline remained in Rome, as "there was as yet no evidence to incriminate him... the letters sent to Crassus had been anonymous, and so proved nothing".

On 6 November, Catiline held a secret meeting in Rome at the house of Marcus Porcius Laeca where he planned to go to Manlius' army, for other members of the conspiracy to take charge of the nascent revolts elsewhere in Italy, for conspirators in Rome to set fires in the city, and for two specific conspirators to assassinate Cicero the next morning. Cicero exaggerates Catiline's supposed intention to raze the city as a means to turn the urban population against him – a story further embellished in Plutarch – it is more likely that Catiline's fires were intended only to create exploitable confusion for his army.

The next day, on 7 November, the assassins found Cicero's house shut against them and Cicero convened the senate later that day at the Temple of Jupiter Stator reporting the threat to his life and then delivering the First Catilinarian denouncing Catiline. Catiline, who was already planning to leave the city, offered to go into exile if the senate would so decree. After Cicero refused to bring up such a motion, Catiline protested his innocence and insulted Cicero's ancestry, calling him a "squatter". He thereafter left the city, claiming that he was going into voluntary exile at Massilia "to spare his country a civil war". On his departure, he sent a letter to his old friend and ally Quintus Lutatius Catulus Capitolinus, which Sallust copied into Bellum Catilinae. In the letter, Catiline defends himself as an injured party who took up the cause of the less fortunate in accordance with his patrician forebears' custom; he vehemently denies that he goes into exile due to his debts and commits his wife Orestilla to Catulus' care.

He left the city on the road to Massilia, but in Etruria, he went to a weapons cache before diverting for Faesulae where he met up with Manlius' forces. Upon his arrival, he proclaimed himself consul and adopted consular regalia. When news of this reached Rome, the senate declared Catiline and Manlius hostes (public enemies) and dispatched Antonius at the head of an army to subdue him.

Death
In late November, Antonius' forces approached from the south. He decamped from Faesulae and moved near the mountains but remained close enough to the town to be in striking distance. When Antonius' forces arrived in the vicinity of the town, he avoided battle.

Catiline's coconspirators in Rome had been caught out by Cicero with the aid of some Gallic envoys. After a fierce senate debate, they were executed without trial on 5 December. When news of their death arrived to Catiline's camp, much of his army melted away, leaving him with perhaps a bit more than three thousand men. Hoping to escape into Gaul, his escape from Italy was blocked when Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer – proconsul in Cisalpine Gaul – garrisoned the Apennine passes near Bononia.

Antonius kept his men relatively docile near Faesulae, but after he received reinforcements from then-quaestor Publius Sestius in the last days of December, he moved out. Catiline, for his part, seeing his escape blocked, turned south to face Antonius, perhaps believing that Antonius would not fight as hard. They met at Pistoria, modern day Pistoia. Descending from the heights, he offered battle to Antonius' army, possibly on 3 January 62 BC.

On the day of the battle, Antonius gave operational command to Marcus Petreius (Sallust claims he was stricken with gout), an experienced lieutenant, who broke through the Catilinarian centre with the praetorian cohort, forcing Catiline's men to flight. Catiline and his diehard supporters fought bravely and were annihilated: "they were desperate men who did not wish to survive their defeat".

Sallust's account reads: "When the battle was ended it became evident what boldness and resolution had pervaded Catiline's army. For almost every man covered with his body, when life was gone, the position which he had taken when alive at the beginning of the conflict. A few, indeed, in the centre, whom the praetorian cohort had scattered, lay a little apart from the rest, but the wounds even of these were in front. But Catiline was found far in advance of his men amid a heap of slain foemen, still breathing slightly, and showing in his face the indomitable spirit which had animated him when alive."

Legacy
In Roman literature, Catiline's figure became often used as a byword for "villainy". Politicians quickly distanced themselves from his failed revolt; others tried to discredit rivals by linking them to Catiline's conspiracy after the fact. Cicero, who claimed for himself the credit of saving the state from Catiline's revolt, later praised Catiline's personal qualities in a defence speech for someone accused of being a co-conspirator: Cicero paints Catiline as a good motivator, effective general, sociable, and strong as reasons for why so many men were willing to associate with him (for Cicero's client, however, only as a non-conspiring friend). The history of Sallust, written around the time of the Second Triumvirate, painted Catiline as a thoroughgoing disrepute who had from an early time wanted to destroy his own country and symbolised the moral decline that Sallust identified as the cause of the republic's collapse:

"S. [Sallust] prefers to present Catiline as a through-going villain, the product of the corrupt age, who was bent on the destruction of the state from the very beginning..."

Livy used the Catilinarian conspiracy as a template to fill in shaky portions of early Roman history. For example, the conspiracy of one Marcus Manlius, who rose up against the elite with the support of poor plebs, both gives a speech patterned on Cicero's First Catilinarian and takes actions patterned on the real Catiline's. Virgil, in the Aeneid (written during the reign of Augustus), depicts Catiline as being tortured in the underworld by the Furies.

Into the imperial period, Catiline's name was used as a derogatory nickname of unpopular ruling emperors. However, his reputation as an advocate for the dispossessed rural plebs seemed to carry to some degree in rural parts of northern Italy at least until the mediaeval period. In Tuscany, a mediaeval tradition had Catiline survive the battle and live out his life as a local hero; another version gives him a son, Uberto, who eventually spawns the Uberti dynasty in Florence.

While history has often viewed Catiline through the lenses of his enemies – especially in the vein of Cicero's four Catilinarians – some modern historians have reassessed Catiline. The first major attempt was Edward Spencer Beesly in 1878, who argued against the then-prevailing view that Catiline was "a demon breathing murder, rapine, and conflagration, with bloodshot eyes and pallid face, luring on weak and depraved young men to the damnation prepared for himself". Beesly's defences have been followed more recently by others, such as and. Waters' admittedly "largely hypothetical" narrative depicts the Catilinarian conspiracy largely as a Ciceronean fiction framing Catiline and the "co-conspirators" for Cicero's own political advancement. Seager's defence does not go so far, but instead argues the conspiracy was purposefully incited by Cicero and the senate to purge Italy of men who might join with Pompey if he were to follow in Sulla's footsteps on his then-imminent return from the Third Mithridatic War.

Other classicists have argued that Catiline was a precursor of Caesar or that he rebelled to oppose senatorial corruption and incompetence. But, largely, such defences are highly speculative, as the literary evidence that survives is overwhelmingly Ciceronean and biased against Catiline.

Cultural depictions

 * At least two major dramatists have written tragedies about Catiline: Ben Jonson, the English Jacobean playwright, wrote Catiline His Conspiracy in 1611, depicting Catiline as "a sadistic anti-hero"; Catiline was the first play by the Norwegian "father of modern drama" Henrik Ibsen, written in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions and depicting Catiline as hero struggling against his world's corruption.
 * Antonio Salieri wrote an opera tragicomica in two acts on the subject of the Catilinarian conspiracy entitled Catilina to a libretto by Giambattista Casti in 1792. The work was left unperformed until 1994 due to its political implications during the French Revolution. Here, serious drama and politics were blended with high and low comedy: the plot centered on a love affair between Catiline and a daughter of Cicero as well as the historic political situation.
 * Steven Saylor's 1993 novel Catilina's Riddle revolves around the intrigue between Catiline and Cicero in 63 BC. Catiline also plays a major character in Steven Saylor's short story "The House of the Vestals".
 * Catiline's conspiracy and Cicero's consular actions figure prominently in the novel Caesar's Women by Colleen McCullough as a part of her Masters of Rome series.
 * SPQR II: The Catiline Conspiracy, by John Maddox Roberts, discusses Catiline's conspiracy.
 * Robert Harris' 2006 book Imperium, based on Cicero's letters, covers the developing career of Cicero with many references to his increasing interactions with Catiline. The sequel, Lustrum (issued in the United States as Conspirata), deals with the five years surrounding the Catilinarian conspiracy.
 * The Roman Traitor or the Days of Cicero, Cato and Catiline: A True Tale of the Republic by Henry William Herbert originally published in 1853 in two volumes.
 * A Pillar of Iron by Taylor Caldwell, published in 1965, tells of the life of Cicero, especially in relation to Catiline and his conspiracy.
 * A Slave Of Catiline is a book by Paul Anderson that tells of a slave who helps and then hinders Catiline's conspiracy.
 * A novel on the conspiracy, The Fall of the Republic, written by Scott Savitz, was published in September 2020.
 * Bertolt Brecht's unfinished novel The Business Affairs of Mr Julius Caesar provides a fictionalised account of the Catilinarian conspiracy in which Caesar and Crassus are alleged to be involved for financial gain.
 * Adam Driver portrays Cesar Catilina, a character from Francis Ford Coppola's 2024 sci-fi epic film Megalopolis, which is a fictionalised interpretation of the Catiline Conspiracy set in an imagined modern futuristic America. Driver stars opposite Giancarlo Esposito, who portrays a character named Mayor Franklyn Cicero. In the film, Driver's character is pitted against Esposito's character in a rivalry and battle for political control of New Rome. The film also centers around Cesar Catilina's love affair with Mayor Cicero's daughter, Julia Cicero played by Nathalie Emmanuel.

title: Catiline