τὴν εἰρήνην, and, τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὁρκοῦν τοὺς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν, and, τοὺς πρέσβεις οὐδαμοῦ μόνους ἐντυγχάνειν Φιλίππῳ, none of which are found in the suspected decree. It is true, that the first, or even the two first quotations might be referred to the original decree of Elapheb. 19th, but the third quotation exhibits too strong a jealousy of the ambassadors to be ascribed to any other hand than that of Demosthenes. Unless he has forged it entirely, it must surely be part of the Bovλns výpiμa, penned by him on the 3rd of Munychion.

Less stress can be laid upon the words quoted by Eschines, (F. L. 275), πράττειν δὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις καὶ ἄλλ ̓ ὅ τι ἂν δύνωνται ἀγαOóv. In fact, the internal evidence is here the other way, and may convince us that these words come from the decree of Elapheb. 19th, in which the influence of Demosthenes was by no means exclusive or even predominant.

In regard to the form of the decree under examination, I desire correction if I am wrong, but I cannot help suspecting that there is a defect. On this occasion, the people had conferred full powers on the senate, (Demosth. F. L. 389; cf. Andoc. Myst. 8,) so that the Bouλns pipa was a final authority. Nevertheless, the forβουλῆς ψήφισμα mula here used is precisely the same as in the reverse case of Ctesiphon's decree (De Coron. 266), where the consent of the senate had first been obtained, for introducing a measure to the people with its sanction. In both, it is barely said dedóxoai τn βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ, but no one would be able to find out from the former decree that the senate had previously obtained full powers from the people, any more than from the latter that Ctesiphon had previously secured the approbation of the senate. In fact, the very same form is employed also in the decree of Aristonicus, (De Coron. 253), which does not appear to have been passed with the same formalities as either of the others. Are we to suppose that the Athenians did not carefully mark in the decrees themselves the process by which they received the public sanction? I should have expected this senatorial edict of Demosthenes to have run thus: Ἐπειδὴ περὶ τὴν πρεσβείαν τὴν ἀποληψομένην τοὺς ὅρκους παρὰ Φιλίππου ὁ δῆμος τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐποίησε τὴν βουλὴν αὐτοκράτορα· δεδόχθαι τῇ βουλῇ ἀπιέναι τοὺς πρέσβεις τὴν ταχίστην, &c......

There is another obscure point in the decree before us, viz. the mention of the εἰρήνη and the πρώτη ἐκκλησία. The speeches of the antagonist orators abound with allusions to the two ékkλýσiai which were held on the 18th and 19th of Elaphebolion, but their

contradictions are very embarrassing. I believe, however, that on the 18th the resolution of the allies for peace was read to the people, and discussed, but nothing was done that day. On the 19th, a vote was carried for both peace and alliance with Philip, provided that "all the allies of Athens" were included. On the 25th, Philocrates qualified this by the clause, “such of the allies as have representatives now sitting in the congress." (See Esch. c. Ctes. 391-393, and Demosth. F. L. 353, 354, &c.) That not only eipun with Philip, but also ovμμaxía, was voted, is admitted by Demosthenes; but he names it with reluctance, except when charging it on Philocrates, being aware that the guilt of it was laid upon himself; as, most bitterly, by Æschines (1. c.) Since he generally calls it eipnn, a mere reader of the De Corona would suppose it was nothing more; but as we know it was ovμpaxía, would not this have been expressed in the decree? The cipń was discussed and approved, but it was not formally passed in the προτέρα ἐκκλησία; what then are we to understand by the εἰρήνη ἡ ἐπιχειροτονηθεῖσα τῇ πρώτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ ?We might farther ask, How is it that the clause is here found, “including the allies of each party," for this might appear to take no cognizance of the qualifying words introduced by Philocrates. The reply, I believe, is sufficient, that the only party excluded by that clause, was Kersobleptes, (Esch. 1. c.); and before the date of this decree, the Athenians had learned that his kingdom was irrecoverably lost (Æsch. F. L. 271).

But I must pass to the next document, the decree of Callisthenes (238); which is there stated to have been enacted "when Mnesiphilus was archon, on the 21st of Mæmacterion." The name of the archon being the same as in the former, and the interval of time only several months, we cannot doubt that the fabricator intended Mnesiphilus to be one of the annual archons; which he is not. Concerning the date, the question is less clear. Corsini has confidently rested on a statement of Demosthenes, which perhaps cannot be trusted, since the orator had a case to make out by exaggerating the rapidity of the events. The second Embassy had returned on Skiroph. 13th, and made its report to the people on the 16th. On the same day Philocrates passed a decree of alliance "with Philip and his heirs for ever," with a distinct threat of hostility against the Phocians. On the 23rd the Phocians submitted to Philip. On the 27th Dercyllus brought

the news to the Piræus (Demosth. F. L. 356 and 359). Afterwards, (and the present question is, How long afterwards?) the Athenians were seized with panic, and collected persons and property into the city, and even celebrated the feast of Hercules within their walls (368). Demosthenes is anxious to shew that this was an immediate result of the Athenian decree on the 16th; and for the same reason he habitually speaks of the "ruin" of the Phocians as taking place on the 23rd, the day of their surrender. In p. 389 (F. L.) he has the following important passage: "When, after five or six days, the Phocians were ruined,.... and Dercyllus came back from Chalcis, and reported to you, while you were met in assembly at Piræus, that the Phocians are ruined;' and you, on hearing it, were, with good reason, partakers in their grief, and panic-struck for yourselves too; you voted to bring in the women and children from the fields, to repair the fortresses, to fortify Piræus, and to celebrate the feast of Hercules within the city."

It cannot be questioned, that the obvious meaning of the above, is, that this panic was occasioned by the tidings which Dercyllus brought; and, in fact, that the decree (which must have been this very decree of Callisthenes, see Demosth. F. L. 368), was passed on the same 27th of Skirophorion. So Corsini understood it; and if so, then clearly the date Mæmacterion 21st, is a mark of spuriousness in the document which we are examining. Nevertheless, I am disposed here to charge Demosthenes with misrepresentation, and to believe that the panic did not take place until Philip had begun to raze the Phocian cities to the ground, the measures for which cannot have been taken in a day, nor is it likely that he would instantaneously disclose his intentions. In the De Corona (237), Demosthenes shows himself equally desirous as here, of insisting on the shortness of the interval, (evðús, oỷk eis μakpáv,) yet he there seems to admit that the actual razing of the cities to the ground preceded the Athenian panic. What happened after this; instantly, and not at a distant time? That the miserable Phocians were ruined, and their cities razed, while you, remaining inactive and believing the word of this fellow, a little afterwards had to collect your property from the fields, &c." I do not think then that we can entirely adopt Corsini's inference, that the feast of Hercules was at the end of Skirophorion, or that the decree of Callisthenes was passed on the 27th. On the other hand, it is intrinsically incredible that Philip should wait until the middle of Mæmacterion, that is to say, nearly five months after the sur

66

render of the Phocian army, before proceeding to the decided and severe measures which threw the Athenians into alarm. No more words are needed, to show that this is undoubtedly a false date: yet I may add, that as, after his campaign in Phocis was ended, Philip celebrated the Pythian games (De Pace 62, 11. Philip, 119), those who hold with Mr. Clinton that these games could not fall later than the beginning of autumn, have therein an independent ground for rejecting the date Mæmact. 21st.

It would farther appear that the composer of the decree before us did not know very accurately what the contents of it ought to have been. Demosthenes had just implied, that it commanded the people σκευαγωγεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν : but he did not here add, what is twice stated in the Fals. Leg. (368 and 379), "to bring in the women and children from the fields." Instead of this, the decree before us forbids any one (male adult, as well as females and children) to be in the country during the night, with the sole exception of the guards on duty. Such a decree appears impossible to be executed. It might indeed have been passed, during a frenzy of alarm; but if so, I think Demosthenes would have commented on it in the F. L., as aggravating the case against Æschines, instead of softening it down into a more reasonable edict. Again, the natural, if not the necessary, inference from his words in F. L. 368, is that the order to celebrate the feast of Hercules within the walls, was a part of Callisthenes's decree. Now this could not be found out from the De Corona, and accordingly it is omitted in the document there inserted. If the passage of the F. L., to which I refer, be examined, it will be seen that the orator is contrasting the glorious events which gave rise to the decree of Diotimus, with the melancholy ones which caused that of Callisthenes; after which, he orders each decree to be read out for the sake of verifying his statement. This appears to me to imply that all the lamentable things which (says he) npicere, were contained in the pioμa of Callisthenes. Decidedly to the same effect is the passage from p. 379, already quoted. If so, this is another very strong proof that we have not before us the authentic decree.

The epistle from Philip which follows, is moral rather than historical, yet it contains one point which may seem historically questionable. He says: "In short, you appear to me to be doing something rather extreme, in agreeing to the peace, and yet, not

at all the less drawing out your forces against me,” ἀντιπαρεξάγοντες. It is dangerous to reason from negative evidence; yet such a fact, as that the Athenian armies marched out, after the destruction of the Phocian towns, to cope single-handed with the Thebans, the Thessalians and Philip, appears not more incredible, than the omission of it everywhere else, if true. Possibly, however, it may be replied, that if they had collected an army round Athens itself for defensive purposes, Philip may have exaggerated this on pur

pose.

The records to be next discussed, refer to a topic which has no acknowledged date : it is, the detention of the Athenian merchantvessels by Philip. We first get a rough approximation to the time, from the remark of Demosthenes (249): "It was he who broke the peace by seizing our vessels; and not the city, Eschines." Now, we know that in B.C. 342, Diopeithes assaulted the dominions of Philip in the Chersonese and on the coast of Thrace; and Demosthenes justified him: we must then place this detention of the vessels earlier than B. c. 342. In the oration Tepì Xepoovoov Demosthenes does not, indeed, definitely mention the affair, but he has words which will include it, and may even seem to allude to it (p. 91 Reiske, p. 110 aliorum): paíverai àn' ȧpxîs ó Φίλιππος, πρὶν Διοπείθην ἐκπλεῦσαι, . . . . πεποιηκέναι τὸν πόλεμον, πολλὰ μὲν τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀδίκως εἰληφὼς ὑπερ ὧν ψηφίσμαθ ̓ ὑμέτερα ἐγκαλοῦντα κύρια ταυτί,—. We might believe that while uttering the word ταυτί, the orator displayed the very same piopara as he afterwards caused to be recited at this part of the De Corona. At any rate, as the pervading argument of the Tepì Xepo. is, the positive assertion that Philip had already broken the peace, and was in actual war with Athens, and as this seizure of the vessels must have been, according to that speech, only the first act of a series of hostilities, we seem justified in placing the aggression at least as early as B. C. 343.

....

A farther examination of the orator's words shows, if I do not mistake, that it happened either in the beginning of that year, or even as far back as the year preceding. For he tells us (250), that the first decree was moved by Eubulus, a second by Aristophon, a third by Hegesippus, a fourth by Aristophon again, a fifth by Philocrates, a sixth by Cephisophon, and others by others. Such a series of decrees implies a succession of messages backwards and forwards to the scene of action; perhaps replies from