Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:26:35.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Peace of Philocrates again

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

G. L. Cawkwell
G. L. Cawkwell
Affiliation:
University CollegeOxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In REG 73 (1960) and 75 (1962) I discussed various points connected with the Peace of Philocrates, a number of which have been assailed by M. M. Markle in CQ N.S. 24 (1974) in an article entitled ‘The Strategy of Philip in 346 B.C.’. Time passes, and, although de Ste. Croix in his Origins of the Peloponnesian War (1972), p.105, felt able to declare that ‘a book shortly to be published by M. M. Markle makes a valuable and original contribution to our understanding of the Peace of Philocrates’, and Markle himself confirms that a book is indeed forthcoming, some comment on his preliminary comments may be permitted.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , May 1978 , pp. 93 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* I wish to thank Mr. David Thomas of St. John's College, Oxford, for helpful criticism of a first draft of this paper: I have tried to meet his points, but I fear we are still far from complete agreement.

1 Cf. Ellis, J.R., Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, p.105 and p.266 n.65 (cf. p.265 n.51)Google Scholar

2 Ibid.

3 In REG 75 (1962), 457 n. 23Google Scholar I said that Dem. 19.50 ‘seems to quote’ the Recommendation of the Council which answered the Phocian appeal. That passage is not proof of what the Recommendation said, but I still believe that Demosthenes is quoting.

4 I retract my argument, based on Aesch. 2.121 f. (on p.458, art. cit.) for a second Recommendation of the Council. I now believe that what Aeschines meant was that the embassy was not praised in a decree at all, that means ‘not in the decree merely’, but it was praised in the far better place, the assembly, and that he was referring to some ironical remarks made by Demosthenes. (Of course, the main argument for a second Recommendation in no way depended on this argument which I now retract.)

5 It is unclear when the embassy made its report. Markle (p.262 n.l) seems to think that, since Aeschines set off from Pherae later than the rest of the embassy (Dem. 19.175 and 36), he cannot have been with them when they returned to Athens on 13 Skirophorion and that the embassy could not have reported without all its members being present. Although it is utterly improbable that if Aeschines had i. been left for whatever reason, perhaps illness, the rest of the embassy would not have taken the very first opportunity to let the Council know what they knew about the movements of Philip. Aeschines was probably with the embassy when it reported: otherwise Demosthenes would have made much of what he accomplished when Aeschines was not there to corrupt. So either Aeschines caught up with his colleagues or reached Athens in time to join with them in making their report to the Council, the date of which is quite unclear. It could be the 13th, the day they returned. It is not clear (to me) that the 14th, the date of the Dipolia, was necessarily dies nefastus; ‘Xen.’ A.P. 3.2 may mean that the Council did some business on some feast-days; the decree of the Council of 366/5 quoted in Ath. 171 E argues a variety of arrangements; in our terms the Dipolia may not have been ‘a day of obligation’. The 15th is possible. For the second Recommendation which I postulate all that is necessary is a brief meeting early on the 16th (cf. Dem. 18.169). (Despite the fact that the letter of Philip which Demosthenes accused Aeschines of helping compose seems to have been after the oaths had been sworn in Pherae (Aesch. 2.129), I remain somewhat sceptical about Demosthenes' allegation that Aeschines was left behind at Pherae (19.36 and 175). The accusation that Aeschines answered (2.124 ff.) concerned a night visit at Pella and it would seem that Demosthenes changed it in his published version (19.175), perhaps because Aeschines' defence had raised quite a laugh at Demosthenes' expense. Either Aeschines glossed over the matter of the letter written in Pherae or the letter was written in Pella in the presumption of the oath-swearing being completed, for clearly Aeschines treats the letter as if it was suggested to be the product of the alleged night visit in Pella. The reasons for my scepticism are thus that the claim that Aeschines was left behind in Pherae is clearly a part of the speech touched up by publication and, far more strongly, that Demosthenes made so little of what should have been presented as most suspicious.)

6 Others from Central Greece (Diod. 16.29.1) played their part later on.

7 In 343 Demosthenes (19.20) spoke of Aeschines' ‘calculations’ () in his speech on the 16th.