as brief.
Athens recalled Demosthenes and he made a successful tour of the cities
to rally them against Antipater. Antipater, however, was too strong, and
his victory at Cranon, B.C. 322, fully restored Macedonia's supremacy.
Pursued to Calaurea by Antipater's emissaries, Demosthenes fled for
refuge to the temple of Neptune there, took poison, which he had long
carried with him for that purpose, and died, aged sixty-two.

It is clear that both the Macedonian conquerors deemed Demosthenes their
most powerful foe. Drunk or sober, Philip thought constantly of him as
the great force to be reckoned with. When he with nine other deputies
visited Philip's court, it was Demosthenes's speech to which Philip felt
called to give special reply, treating him with argument, while
bestowing his choicest hospitality upon the others. AEschines and
Philocrates accordingly came home full of praise for Philip. He was
eloquent, they said, handsome, and could drink more liquor than any
other man. Demosthenes, showing for the nonce some wit, ridiculed these
traits, the first as that of a sophist, the second as that of a woman,
the third as that of a sponge. "The fame of Demosthenes reached the
Persian court; and the king wrote letters to his lieutenants commanding
them to supply him with money and to attend to him more than to any
other man in Greece; because he best knew how to make a diversion in his
favor by raising fresh troubles and finding employment for the
Macedonian arms nearer home. This Alexander afterward discovered by
letters of Demosthenes which he found at Sardis, and the papers of the
Persian government expressing the sums which had been given him."
(Plutarch.)

The moral character of Demosthenes was fiercely assailed during his
life, the chief charges being vacillation, unchastity, cowardice, and
the receipt of bribes. In weighing these accusations we must remember
that they were inspired by personal hatred, and that public life in
Demosthenes's day was characterized by almost inconceivable strife and
bitterness. There was probably considerable ground for all the
allegations, except, perhaps, that of infirmity in purpose. Plutarch
believes that the orator was "vindictive in his nature and implacable in
his resentments." But the same author wonders how Theopompus could say
that he was a man of no steadiness, since it appeared that "he abode by
the party and the measures which he first adopted, and was so far from
quitting th