Now look at a recent, but most convincing, proof that he sold himself to Philip. You know, I am sure, that, not long ago, when Hypereides impeached Philocrates, I rose and said that I was dissatisfied with the impeachment in one respect: it implied that all these grave misdemeanors had been committed by Philocrates alone, and not by any of the other nine ambassadors. That, I remarked, was impossible; for by himself Philocrates would have counted for nothing, if he had none of his colleagues to act with him.

I do not wish, I said, either to acquit or to accuse any man; I want the guilt to be detected and the innocent cleared by plain fact. Therefore let any man who chooses stand up and come forward, and declare that he had no part in Philocrates’ doings, and does not approve them. Every man who does this, I added, I acquit. No doubt you remember the incident. Well, no one came forward or presented himself.

The rest had various excuses: one was not legally accountable; another was not present; a third had a brother-in-law in Macedonia. Aeschines had no such excuse. The truth is, he has sold himself once for all. Not only has he taken hire for past actions, but it is evident that, if he escapes now, he will henceforward, as against you, be Philip’s man; and so, for fear of uttering a single word injurious to Philip, even when you acquit him he does not accept acquittal. He prefers disrepute, prosecution, any punishment this court may inflict rather than to do anything disagreeable to Philip.

But why this fellow-feeling? Why this concern for Philocrates? Though all his acts on embassy had been consistent with honor and sound policy, if Philocrates admitted, as he did admit, that he had taken bribes, an incorruptible ambassador would have taken infinite pains to avoid and disavow all association with him. Aeschines has not done so. Is not that a plain argument, men of Athens? Does it not proclaim aloud that he has taken bribes, and that from first to last he went wrong for money’s sake,—not through stupidity, or ignorance, or blundering?

What witness, he will ask, testifies that I have taken bribes? A brilliant argument! Facts, Aeschines, the most credible of all witnesses. You cannot find fault with facts, and say that they are what they are in deference to somebody, or to oblige somebody. They are what your treachery and perversion have made them, and such they appear on examination. But I have another witness besides the facts. You shall this very moment give evidence against yourself. Come here: stand up and answer me!—Nothing to say? You cannot plead inexperience. You, who take up a new prosecution as easily as you study a new play, and convict your man without witnesses and under a time-limit, you must be an uncommonly clever speaker!Demosthenes alludes to Aeschines’ former profession of actor and also to some recent trial in which Aeschines had been engaged (possibly the action against Timarchus: see Introd. pp. 234-5), when, owing to congestion in the law courts, the time allotted to each speaker was cut down to a minimum. But the matter is obscure.