No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Since the important work of Pohlenz and Wüst there has been general agreement that Philip's Letter, preserved in the Demosthenic Corpus as [D.] 12, contains authentic material. But controversy continues on some points, and this article attempts to deal with them.
In his text Griffith wrote of the Letter as if it was an authentic document (e.g. 567) but raised his own serious doubts (553), especially in an Appendix entitled ‘Afterthoughts on the Letter of Philip’ (714-16). His chief doubt was about the exploit of Callias, the leading politician at Chalcis in Euboea, then in alliance with Athens, who was said, in Griffith's translation, to have ‘captured all the inhabited cities on the Gulf of Pagasae’.
1 This is the meaning of 
in the context; see L-S-J s.v. HI. That they were ‘inhabited’, as in Griffith's translation, was obvious and not worth saying. The point was that the cities were on the waterside. It is difficult to know how many ancient cities were in that position. See Atlas Map 14.
2 553 with notes 2 and 3.
3 For another example see Porphyr. Tyr.FHG 3.692 cited below in n.24Google Scholar.
4 FHG 4.413 Hegesander F 4Google Scholar.
5 See Gomme, A.W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 2 (Oxford 1956) 245, citing Thuc. 2.29.5 and 2.67.2Google Scholar.
6 An analogy is provided by Perdiccas III who was killed in battle, but the later version was that he was murdered (Just. 7.5.6).
7 PW, , RE zweite Reihe 3.1 (1927) 380Google Scholar, citing Ed. Meyer, , GdA 4.405Google Scholar in agreement, held that the Letter was correct in naming Sitalces. This was without noticing the one killer of Sitalces and the two killers of Cotys.
8 We have good examples in Plutarch's and Arrian's accounts of Alexander's last illness, for which they drew on the same source, the Ephemerides of Alexander. See my discussion in Sources for Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1993) 306–9Google Scholar, where I argue against the theories of recent writers that there were two or more versions of the Ephemerides in circulation.
9 It is the reading of all codices; there are no grounds for emending, as Cobet and OCT do, to 
Demosthenes took particular delight in devising violent hiatus and such pathetic rhythms as 
(19.65).
10 So also Pohlenz 61.
11 For the meaning here of 
see L-S-J s.v. B II and IV.
12 Chares was in the Chersonese as general in February 340 in Tod, , GHI 174Google Scholar.
13 For the growth of the Macedonian navy see my article in Antichthon 26 (1992) 30–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. When Alexander crossed in 334 to the Troad his Macedonian fleet of 60 warships consisted of 22 triremes and 38 smaller warships on my interpretation.
14 The main body of the army would have followed the higher ground, for instance by the Australian War Memorial, and detachments would have been sent down to threaten any inhabited sites on the shore. See Alias Map 14 inset.
15 This makes it clear that Chares had not yet mustered his entire fleet, and that Philip had the advantage of surprise.
16 Griffith 566 has a delightful picture of Chares at sea, but he does not mention the order to Chares in [D.] 12.16.
17 For such resolutions see D. 18.92.
18 The alliance of Philip with Cardia was mentioned in 343 in D. 19.174, and military help was given in 341 in D. 8.58. Diopeithes, the Athenian general, ravaged the territory of the Cardians. For the dispute about boundaries which Philip offered to submit to arbitration see [D.] 7.39-44. See also Pohlenz 52 ‘die Kleruchen befanden sich in Kriegszustande mit Kardia’.
19 Philip was referring to the disputed lands of the preceding note.
20 See L-S-J s.v. 
I 1. This absolute use was not understood by Jacoby, who commented 
requires a complement' (FGrH III b Suppl. 1.331).
21 So also Jacoby, loc.cit: ‘anyhow there is no doubt (
) that Philochorus dated the attack on Perinthus … at the opening of the Athenian year 340/339’.
22 Diod. 16.77.2 and Tod, , GHI 175.10 (Tenedos)Google Scholar.
23 So Wüst 130 f.
24 Just. 9.1.7, deriving through Tragus from the account of Theopompus (see Hammond, , Sources 498 f. and 502)Google Scholar; D. 18.139; Porph. Tyr. FHG 3.692Google Scholar
(Chersonese) 
For the sense here see n.3 above.
25 Wüst 127 with n.3.
26 Wüst 128 had assumed that the cleruchs were being supported by Chares’ fleet, but he did not explain how that fleet was evaded by the Macedonian fleet.
27 See Barber, G.L. in The Oxford Classical Dictionary2, edd. Hammond, N.G.L. and Scullard, H.H. (Oxford 1970) 818Google Scholar.
28 See his chronological table on p. 19.
29 This is an unusual view which is not supported by the contents of the Letter; see Pohlenz 59 f. and Wüst 134 f.
30 Griffith 568 n.4 in which he argued against Wüst's dating.