^{page 163 note 2} [Dem.] 50, Thuc. 6. 31. 3.

^{page 163 note 3} Plut. Mor. 832 D.

^{page 164 note 1} This is the view underlying the variou articles I have written on the age of Demosthenes, especially those in C.Q. xii (1962)Google Scholar and xiii (1963), and J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963).Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 2} Arr. Anab. 1. 7. 4 f.

^{page 164 note 3} Despite Dem. 5, Demosthenes showed his attitude by his attack on Aeschines (Aesch. 2. 96). Cf. R.E.G. lxxv (1962), pp. 453 f.Google Scholar for the possibility that Demosthenes still wanted on 16 Skirophorion an expedition to save Phocis.

^{page 165 note 1} 18. 193.

^{page 165 note 2} Aesch. 3. 49.

^{page 165 note 3} §21.

^{page 165 note 4} Aesch. 2. 14 and 3. 62.

^{page 165 note 5} § 22.

^{page 165 note 6} Aesch. 2. 61, 62.

^{page 165 note 7} Dem. 19. 16.

^{page 165 note 8} §23.

^{page 165 note 9} Kennedy, , The Art of Persuasion in Ancient Greece, p. 235.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} §54 f., and §§ 159–67.

^{page 166 note 2} Dem. 18. 282, Aesch. 3. 227. He also made public protest against the choice of Demosthenes to deliver the Funeral Oration in 338 (Dem. 18. 285).

^{page 166 note 3} Dem. 18. 249.

^{page 166 note 4} Aesch. 3. 216 ff., 220. Drerup, , Aus einer alien Advokatenrepublik, p. 142Google Scholar, inferred from Aesch. 3. 222 that Aeschines effected a reform of Demosthenes' trierarchic law, but the passage need refer to no more than an attack on the law at the time it was proposed.

^{page 166 note 5} Aesch. 3. 219 (in Philip's lifetime), and 27 (Demosthenes' decree of Thargelion 338/7 providing for in 337/6).

^{page 166 note 6} Dem. 18. 9, 118.

^{page 166 note 7} Dion. Hal. Letter to Ammaeus 1. 12 and Theophrastus Char. 7 give the archon year, 330/9; Aesch. 3. 254 shows that the case was heard very shortly before the Pythia, which were celebrated in every third year of an Olympiad in a month of the Delphic year corresponding to Metageitnion at Athens (cf. Beloch, G.G. ² 1. 2, p. 143).Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 8} Cf. Dem. 23. 92.

^{page 166 note 9} (Dem. 18. 103).

^{page 166 note 10} Cf. Reich, H., ‘Bemerkungen zum Prozess Ktesiphon’, Abhandl. W. von Christ, Munich, 1891, pp. 282 f.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 11} Cf. Charles, J. F., Statutes of Limitations at Athens, Chicago, 1938.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 1} §308.

^{page 167 note 2} Dem. 18. 83, 223.

^{page 167 note 3} 9. 5. 8.

^{page 167 note 4} Justin 9. 5, Diod. 16. 91, Trog. 9 prol. (praemissa classe cum ducibus), Polyaenus 5. 44 (operations against Memnon).

^{page 167 note 5} It is commonly supposed that Philip's settlement of the affairs of individual Greek cities was completed over the winter of 338/7, that the League of Corinth was founded early in 337, at the assembly described by Justin 9. 5, and that the meeting recounted in Diod. 16. 89 (for which cf. P. Oxy. i, no. 12, col. iii) at which Philip was appointed was a later meeting, which could well be in early 336. But it is to be noted that none of our sources describes two sessions, and in Justin the invasion of Asia follows as a direct consequence of the session he describes. Nothing is known of Philip's movements in 337. There seems no strong reason against supposing that there was only one session attended by Philip in 337, though the synod no doubt met at the Isthmia of 336 and at any previous national festivals after the formation of the League, as was laid down for the League of 302 (I.G. iv ². 1. 68, i. 67Google Scholar) and as it was due to meet at the Pythia of 330 (Aesch. 3. 254). So the League of Corinth may not have been founded until well on in 337, after Demosthenes' decree appointing the (Aesch. 3. 27); Demosthenes may have acted in the shadow of the king's presence.

^{page 167 note 6} Diod. 16. 91.

^{page 168 note 1} Diod. 16. 91.

^{page 168 note 2} I.G. ii ². 240Google Scholar, a proxeny decree for a Macedonian, moved by Demades in the tenth prytany of 337/6, is another sign of this change of mood. But one must be careful not to make too much of the change. I.G. ii ². 239Google Scholar, a decree in honour of an Alcimachus, passed in the sixth prytany at the same session of the ecclesia as that at which Demades moved the decree published by Schweigert, in Hesperia ix, 1940, p. 325Google Scholar, may relate to the honours accorded to Alci-machus and Antipater of Macedon and attacked by Hyperides (Harpocration s.v. ); this interpretation of the inscription was adopted by Tod, , G.H.I., no. 180Google Scholar. The name, Alcimachus, common enough at Athens (cf. P.A.), by no means necessarily belongs to a Macedonian (cf. I.G. ii ². 238Google Scholar, which mentions the son of an Amphoterus of Andros), but, if it is a Macedonian whom the Athenians were honouring n the sixth prytany of 337/6, the honours nay well stem from the foundation of the League of Corinth (see p. 167, n. 5, above). Mone the less the contrast between the lonours for Demosthenes proposed by Ctesiphon and those for Philip in the decree of Diod. 16. 91 is very startling.

^{page 168 note 3} Aesch. 3. 27, Plut. Mor. 851 A, B, Dem. 18. 248, Din. 1. 78.

^{page 168 note 4} Aesch. 3. 236.

^{page 168 note 5} Dem. 18. 248, Din. 1. 78.

^{page 168 note 6} Dem. 18. 249, 25. 37 (with Scholiast), Plut. Dem. 21, Mor. 845 F.

^{page 168 note 7} Aesch. 3. 159, Plut. ibid.

^{page 168 note 8} Dem. 18. 285 f., Plut. ibid.

^{page 168 note 9} Cf. Mathieu, , Les Idées politiques d'Isocrate, pp. 172 f.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 10} Aesch. 3. 159.

^{page 168 note 11} Cf. J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 56.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 12} Plut. Cam. 19.

^{page 168 note 13} Aesch. 3. 27.

^{page 169 note 1} Dem. 18. 248.

^{page 169 note 2} For the Law of Eucrates (S.E.G. xvii 26Google Scholar) see Meritt, , Hesperia xxi (1952), 355,Google ScholarOstwald, , T.A.P.A. lxxxvi (1955), 125–8Google Scholar, and Sealey, , A.J.P. lxxix (1958), 71–3.Google Scholar The law was passed in the ninth prytany of 337/6, and so fell in the very period of reaction against Demosthenes. The appointment of the nomothetai probably belongs to the first prytany of the year (cf. Hignett, , A History of the Athenian Constitution, pp. 299 f.Google Scholar), but this particular law may well be a product of developments later in the year.

For the curious co-operation between Demosthenes and the Areopagus cf. Sealey, art. cit.

The Law of Hegemon (Aesch. 3. 25) which destroyed the importance of Demosthenes' position as Theoric Commissioner, may belong to 337/6. It is prior to 335/4, in which year the is again found taking an important part (I.G. ii ². 223 cGoogle Scholar and 1700, 1.217; cf. Bus.-Swob. G.S., p. 1043 n. 1Google Scholar and Cawkwell, , J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), p. 57 n. 63).Google Scholar Hegemon was an opponent of Demosthenes (Dem. 18. 285), and while his law was of wide-ranging effect in financial matters (cf. I.G. ii ². 1628,1. 300Google Scholar), it may have been directed at the position of Demosthenes in particular: the law referred to in Plut. Life of Lycurgus, Mor. 841 c, may be Hege-mon's (and D. M. Lewis may well be right in his—unpublished—suggestion that his name has dropped out between ); this law contained the curious provision may be a misrepresentation of , and the provision prevented Lycurgus from holding financial office indefinitely, but it may have been directed at the control of finances by Demosthenes since 341/0 (cf. Cawkwell, , C.Q. N.S. xiii [1963], 135).Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 3} Plut. Dem. 22. 2 f., Aesch. 3. 77, 160, 219, Diod. 17. 3 and 5. 1.

^{page 169 note 4} Aesch. 3. 161, Plut. Dem. 23, Diod. 17. 4. 5f.

^{page 170 note 1} Arr. Anab. i. 3. 3.

^{page 170 note 2} Fr.Gr.Hist. 72 F 16. Plut. Mor. 847 c (, )suggests a date in or after 334, but Athens could not refuse a request in accordance with the decisions of the League of Corinth. So perhaps is in accurate.

^{page 170 note 3} Bellenger, , Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the Great, p. 14,Google Scholar inclines to the view that the figure of Athena on the gold staters was inspired by Athenian sources. (Cf. Perlman, , ‘The Coins of Philip II and Alexander the Great and their Pan-Hellenic Propaganda’, Num. Chron. N.S. V. [1965], 63 f.Google Scholar) Even if this were true, it would be far from arguing any cordiality in 336/5: Alexander may have sought to conciliate by such a borrowing, but it would be no evidence about the Athenian response to it. But the whole question of these coins is very open.

^{page 170 note 4} Plut. Mor. 1126D () fits into a period of uncertainty as to whether Alexander would follow up the attack begun by Attalus and Parmenion.

^{page 170 note 5} Arr. Anab. 1. 16. 7.

^{page 170 note 6} Plut. Alex. 34. 1.

^{page 170 note 7} Cf. Burn, , J.H.S. lxxii (1952), 84Google Scholar for the date of Gaugamela. The news must have reached Greece about two months later.

^{page 170 note 8} Geschichte der griech. und maked. Staaten i (1893), pp. 497 ff.Google Scholar cf. Beloch, , G.G. iii ². ii (1923), pp. 317 fGoogle Scholar, and followed by many, e.g. Ehrenberg, P. W. iii A 2, col. 1419(1929),Google ScholarTreves, , Demostene e la libertà greca (1933), p. 101Google Scholar, Bengtson, , G.G. ² (1960) p. 346Google Scholar, and most recently Badian, , art. cit., pp. 190 f.Google ScholarTarn, , Alexander the Great i (1948), p. 52Google Scholar puts the battle of Megalopolis ‘soon after Gaugamela’.

^{page 170 note 9} 6. 1. 21.

^{page 170 note 10} Arr. Anab. 3. 6. 3.

^{page 171 note 1} 12. I. 4.

^{page 171 note 2} Anab. 3. 22. 2.

^{page 171 note 3} Curtius recounts the death of Darius in the last chapter of Book 5. The beginning of his account of Agis' revolt in Book 6 is lost For a retrospective digression introduced in a similar way to that of Justin, see 10. 1. 44

^{page 171 note 4} Diodorus in Book XVII appears to have followed the same source as Curtius (cf. C Welles, Bradford, Diodorus Siculus VIII (Loeb) 1963, p. 12)Google Scholar, and, while his disposition of the narrative of the revolt may be as fitful as much else in his history, it is notable that if he (and Curtius) found the account of the revolt in his source after the death of Darius (17. 62), he transposed its commencemem to bring it into close connection with Gaugamela and put its conclusion after the death of Darius in chapter 75, and if he had found in his source a statement corresponding to that of Curtius 6. 1. 21, it is hard to see why he did not recount it all in the one place. His disposition of the material suggests that he knew that the revolt began before Gaugamela and was settled some considerable time afterwards. Curtius 5. 1. 1 suggests, however, that in their common source the revolt was not recounted (as it is in 6. 1) in a single narrative. Diodorus may accurately reflect the disposition of the revolt in their source.

^{page 171 note 5} 3. 133.

^{page 171 note 6} A further argument might be advanced from Arrian. After subduing the Mardi in 330, shortly after the death of Darius in Hekatombaion, Alexander returned to camp and found there four Spartans and Dropides, the Athenian, (Anab. 3. 24. 4). On Niese's chronology, one can only remark that they had been a remarkably long time in not reaching Darius; on my view their arrival so late is not difficult to explain. Dropides might have left Athens during the waverings discussed below on p. 173, n. 2. (Arrian may be misleading here: Curtius 3. 13. 15 reports these ambassadors, with slight variations in spelling, as being captured after Issus; but probably Berve, , Alexanderreich ii, s.v.Google Scholar is right in preferring Arrian.)

^{page 171 note 7} 17. 62.

^{page 172 Note 1} Art. cit., p. 191.

^{page 172 note 2} In §§ 26 f. the speaker discusses the most recent ‘outrage’. A Macedonian trireme had sailed into the Peiraeus and requested the building of . Perhaps the trireme came from the fleet of Amphoterus. We know, at any rate, of no other circumstances in which the Macedonians might request : it must have been for a naval force of more than one ship, if we may trust the use of the plural. The speech is a call to the Athenians to accede to Agis' appeal for allies (cf. § 30, and Cawkwell, , Phoenix xv [1961], 74 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where, however, I was still espousing Niese's dating of the revolt).

^{page 172 note 3} Aesch. 3. 165.

^{page 172 note 4} Diod. 17. 62. 4.

^{page 172 note 5} Arr. Anab. 3. 16. 10.

^{page 172 note 6} 3. 165. The Scholiast comments . He does not say that the statement is wholly false.

^{page 172 note 7} I. 34.

^{page 173 note 1} Arr. Anab. 3. 6. 2.

^{page 173 note 2} There is a story in Plut. Mor. 818 E about Demades curbing his countrymen when they wanted to support the revolt, by telling them that they would be depriving themselves of the money he had provided for distribution at the Choes (in February). It is accepted as genuine by de Falco, , Demade oratore ², p. 23Google Scholar and rejected by Treves, Athenaeum N.s. xi (1933), 118.Google Scholar The setting, if not the details, of the story may be correct: if the revolt did continue into 330, the serious wavering of opinion at Athens, which the story implies, is understandable after the collapse of hopes of Darius defeating Alexander, and may be echoed in the wavering of Demosthenes (Aesch. 3. 167 ), which may be the point of Aesch. 3. 254. See p. 171, n. 6 for the Athenian ambassador, Dropides, sent to Darius: if they had been sent off before Gaugamela, presumably they would have turned back when they learned the result.

The reiforcements, which reached Alexander at Ecbatana in May 330 (Curtius 5. 7. 12), came from Cilicia, and there is nothing to suggest that they were Macedonians (pace Beloch, , G.G. iii ². 2, pp. 317 f.Google Scholar). So the question of when and in what circumstances they were dispatched by Anti-pater does not arise. However Beloch, ibid., may be right in arguing that the reinforcements which reached Alexander in late 330 (Curtius 6. 6. 35), including 3,000 from Illyria sent by Antipater, must have left Europe early in 330. But this does not prove that the revolt of Agis was finished. Once Antipater saw that few states had joined Agis and indeed that he could rely on the support of the League of Corinth (Diod. 17. 63. 1), he could afford to let these forces go.

^{page 173 note 3} Blass, Notably, Att. Bered. iii ^2. (1893), p. 419.Google Scholar Cf. Glotz-Cohen, , Hist. Gr. iv ², p. 208,Google ScholarMartin-Budé, , Eschine ii, p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 4} §§ 253, 270.

^{page 174 note 1} §§ 159–67.

^{page 174 note 2} §§ 248 ff.

^{page 174 note 3} Aesch. 3. 160.

^{page 174 note 4} Aesch. 3. 165 f.

^{page 174 note 5} Aesch. 3. 156.

^{page 174 note 6} 1. 18 f.

^{page 174 note 7} 17. 8. 6.

^{page 174 note 8} Justin 11. 2, Arr. Anab. 1. 7. 2.

^{page 174 note 9} Diod. 17. 8. 5, Plut. Dem. 23. 1.

^{page 174 note 10} 1. 18.

^{page 174 note 11} Arr. Anab. 1.7.4 and 10. 1, Diod. 17. 8. 6, Din. 1. 18. As Reichsverweser under Alexander (as under Philip; cf. Berve, , op. cit. ii, p. 46Google Scholar) Antipater was in Macedon at the time of the revolt (cf. Arr. Anab. 1. 7. 6). A message by sea could quickly reach the Isthmus.

^{page 174 note 12} Diod. 17.8.6 .

^{page 174 note 13} 1. 20. Cf. Aesch. 3. 240.

^{page 174 note 14} Mor. 851 B.

^{page 175 note 1} Diod. 17. 15, Arr. Anab. I. 10. 6, Justin 11. 4. 12.

^{page 175 note 2} Aesch. 3. 240.

^{page 175 note 3} Anab. 1. 7. 1.

^{page 175 note 4} It is to be noted that Plut. Dem. 23 confuses the events of 336 and 335 (as does Justin 11. 2) but there is no difficulty in disentangling them.

^{page 175 note 5} Diod. 17. 8. 6.

^{page 175 note 6} § 162.

^{page 175 note 7} Fr.Gr.Hist. 135 F 2.

^{page 175 note 8} Cf. Pickard-Cambridge, , Demosthenes, p. 439 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} 17. 62. 7. For the favours cf. Arr. Anab. 3. 6. 2.

^{page 176 note 2} Aesch. 3. 165 f.

^{page 176 note 3} § 259.

^{page 176 note 4} § 202. The references to ‘the barbarians’ in 253 and 270 are vaguely general.

^{page 176 note 5} §§ 156, 173, 209, 239, 250, 259.

^{page 176 note 6} § 164.

^{page 176 note 7} § 259.

^{page 176 note 8} 1. 10, 15, 18.

^{page 176 note 9} Against Demosthenes, cols. 17, 21, 25.

^{page 176 note 10} Diod. 17. 4. 7 f., Justin 11. 2. 7.

^{page 176 note 11} Cf. Cawkwell, , C.Q. N.s. xiii (1963), 121 fF.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 12} § 33.

^{page 176 note 13} Aesch. 3. 238.

^{page 176 note 14} Arr. Anab. 2. 14. 5, Diod. 16. 75, etc.

^{page 176 note 15} 336 is the probable date of Darius' accession; cf. Swoboda, , P.W. iv. 2, col. 2205.Google Scholar Diod. 17. 6. 2 synchronizes the accession with the death of Philip. The chronographers vary; Swoboda prefers John of Antioch frag. 38.

^{page 176 note 16} Arr. Anab. 2. 14. 5, Diod. 17. 9. 5.

^{page 176 note 17} 3. 239.

^{page 176 note 18} I. 10.

^{page 177 note 1} See p. 176 nn. 5–10, above, to which add Plut. Mor. 847 F.

^{page 177 note 2} Plut. Mor. 848 E puts the embassy of Ephialtes before Chaeronea, in which he is followed by Drerup, , op. cit., pp. 145 f.Google Scholar, who cites the gift to Diopeithes (Ar. Rhet. 1386 ^a14).

^{page 177 note 3} 20. 4 f.

^{page 177 note 4} 3. 259.

^{page 177 note 5} 3. 164. Another passage (§ 254) is sometimes misunderstood; see Ryder, , Koine Eirene, p. 103 n. 6Google Scholar, who saysthat it ‘probably refers to the Spartans’. It almost certainly does not: the Spartans had already been dealt with by the Synedrion, nor had the of Demosthenes supported them. The probable reference is to Demosthenes’ policy of co-operating with Persia against the League of ‘the Hellenes’ (cf. 259), which had been at war with Persia; hence …

^{page 177 note 6} See previous note.

^{page 177 note 7} Arr. Anab. 3. 6. 2.

^{page 177 note 8} Fr.Gr.Hist. 135 P 2, Aesch. 3. 162.

^{page 178 note 1} Aesch. 3. 165. For Corragus, see Berve, , op. cit. ii s.v.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} Aesch., ibid., Din. 1. 35, Diod. 17. 62. 7.

^{page 178 note 3} For a defence of Agis, see now Badian, , Hermes xcv (1967), 170 f.Google Scholar with whose general viewpoint this article is consonant. (I should add that the original versions of both papers were delivered in 1965 but were entirely independent of each other.)

^{page 178 note 4} Diod. 17. 48. 6, Curtius 4. 5. 11.

^{page 178 note 5} Arr. Anab. 2.17 (Alexander's speech on the necessity of securing Persian sea-bases).

^{page 178 note 6} Aesch. 3. 164.

^{page 178 note 7} Cf. Niese, , op. cit., pp. 102 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 8} Diod. 17. 48. 1 f., Curtius 4. 1. 39.

^{page 178 note 9} Arr. Anab. 3. 6. 3.

^{page 178 note 10} It may be conjectured that Corragus was one of

^{page 178 note 11} Arr. Anab. 3. 6. 3.

^{page 178 note 12} Curtius 5. 1. 1 speaks of activity ‘in Illyriis ac Thraecia’, but what he refers to ‘in Illyriis’ is not clear. For Thrace Diod. 17. 62. 4f.

^{page 179 note 1} 3. 165.

^{page 179 note 2} 1. 34 f. (Dinarchus, curiously, omits the Arcadians. Diod. 17. 62. 7 says that joined the tevolt.)

^{page 179 note 3} Cf. Dem. 18. 89, Din. 1. 36 ().

^{page 179 note 4} I.G. ii ². 1627, 11. 266–78Google Scholar. The naval power available to Alexander in 331 was large. In the siege of Tyre he had employed 200 ships from eastern Mediterranean waters, principally Phoenicia and Cyprus (cf. Berve, , op. cit. i, pp. 161 f.Google Scholar). From these forces he was able to dispatch the 100 ships to help Amphoterus in 331 (Air. Anab. 3. 6. 3), who already had certainly 60 ships (Arr. Anab. 3. 2. 6), possibly 160 (Curtius 4. 5. 14 regarded by Berve loc. cit. as a mistake: 160 was the strength of the ‘Hellenic’ navy in 334–Arr. Anab. 1. 11. 6, and 18. 4). But Alexander's power was new, and the loyalty of the states uncertain. They could have no great interest in containing a revolt of Greece to the advantage of Alexander before the Persian power was finally put out of account by the battle of Gaugamela. On paper there was something approaching a balance of power, but the resolution of Athens would have prompted other Greeks to fight and at least some of Alexander's forces to be lukewarm. Fighting would have been necessary, but victory not impossible.

^{page 179 note 5} The Athenian naval contingent in 334 was only 20 ships (Diod. 17. 22. 5) out of a total of 160 (see previous note), and this is so small as to suggest that the city had other obligations. Cf. Plut. Phoc. 16. 6 … We never hear of Athenian cavalry in Asia, but there were more soldiers from mainland Greece than the literary sources show: for instance, the Boeotian cavalry, attested epigraphically (Hicks and Hill, Greek Historical Inscriptions, no. 163) make no appearance in the battles (cf. Diod. 17. 57. 3f.). Presumably such forces were used on communications.

^{page 180 note 1} Badian, Pace, J.H.S. lxxxi (1961), p. 28 and n. 87.Google Scholar It is to be noted that of the passages he cites in n. 88, there is no proof that the (dubitable) anecdote in Plut. Alex. 74. 2 concerns Greeks and not men from elsewhere in the large area administered by Antipater, while Justin 12. 14. 4 f. refers to Alexander's execution of satraps, not to any acts of Antipater. The only evidence known to me which might be used to support the common view is provided by the of Polyperchon (Diod. 18. 56) which contained a clause restoring to their cities . But this need be no more than a convenient starting-point to include the events of 331/0 as well as the Lamian War.