Page:History of Greece Vol XI.djvu/422

 396 HISTORY OF GREECE. prevent these conquests from being yet farther multiplied, and protect herself against being driven from bad to worse. But it presently appeared that even thus much was not realized. On the twenty-fifth day of the same month 1 (six days after the previous assembly), a fresh assembly was held, for the purpose of providing ratification by solemn oath for the treaty which had been just decreed. It was now moved and enacted, that the same ten citizens, who had been before accredited to Philip, should again be sent to Macedonia for the purpose of receiving the oaths from him and from his allies. 3 Next, it was resolved that the Athenians, together with the deputies of their allies then present in Athens, should take the oath forthwith, in the presence of Philip's envoys. But now arose the critical question, Who were to be included as allies of Athens? Were the Phokians and Kersobleptes to be included ? The one and the other represented those two capital positions, 3 Thermopylae and the Hellespont, which Philip was 1 This date is preserved by JEschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 64. c. 27. lury p&ivavrof TOV 'E/ta077/3o/ltwvof ft^vbf, etc. In the earlier oration (DeFals. Leg. p. 40. c. 29) JEschines states that Demosthenes was among the Proe- dri or presiding senators of a public assembly held ijSdop'y Qdivovrof the day before. It is possible that there might have been two public assemblies held, on two successive days (the 23d and 24th, or the 24th and 25th, ac- cording as the month Elaphebolion happened in that year to have 30 days or 29 days), and that Demosthenes may have been among the Procdri in both. But the transaction described (in the oration against Ktesiphon as having happened on the latter of the two days must have preceded that which is mentioned (in the Oration De Fals. Leg.) as having happened on the earlier of the two days ; or at least cannot have followed it ; so that there seems to be an inaccuracy in one or in the other. If the word ?. in the oration against Ktesiphon, and fyMo/*?; in the speech on the False Legation, are both correct, the transactions mentioned in the one cannot be reconciled chronologically with those narrated in the other. Various conjectural alterations have ben proposed. See Vcemcl, Prolegg. ad De- mosth. Orat. De Pace, p. 257 ; Bohneckc, Forschungen, p. 399. Kovf, OVTTU 6e amjpKOTuv inl T?)V varepav irpeafieiav, eKK^Tjaia -yh'srai, etc. This iKK^Tjaia seems to be the same as that which is named by JEschines in the speech against Ktesiphon, as having been held on the 25th Elaphcbohoo. vevrjf oiifi' iv fir tiriieifnt ry n ^Xei, Karfi [iti> yr/v. TTw/lw! -ix &a^aTTrjc 61
 * JEschines, Fals. Leg. p. 39. ijdt) 6e fy/uuv Ke^eLporovij^Evuv elf rot)r o^
 * Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 397. KU'ITOI 6i>o ^p^cr^wrfpovf TOTTOI^ r/}f oitcov-