Page:History of Greece Vol XI.djvu/429

 DELAY OF THE ENVOYS. 403 011 the uti possidetis, dating from the day on which the Macedoniar envoys had administered the oaths at Athens, Philip was bound to restore all conquests made after that day. But it did not es- cape Demosthenes, that this was an obligation which Philip was likely to evade ; and which the Athenian people, bent as they were on peace, were very unlikely to enforce. 1 The more quickly the envoys reached him, the fewer would be the places in dispute, the sooner would he be reduced to inaction, or at least, if he still continued to act, the more speedily would his insincerity be exposed. Impressed with this necessity for an immediate interview with Philip, Demosthenes urged his colleagues to set out at once. But they resisted his remonstrances, and chose to remain at Athens ; which, we may remark, was probably in a state of rejoicing and festivity in consequence of the recent peace. So reckless was their procrastination and reluctance to depart, that on the 3d of the month Munychion (April nine days after the solemnity of oath- taking before Antipater and Parmenio) Demosthenes made com- plaint and moved a resolution in the Senate, peremptorily order- ing them to begin their journey forthwith, and enjoining Proxenus the Athenian commander at Oreus in Euboea, to transport them without delay to the place where Philip was, wherever that might be. 2 But though the envoys were forced to leave Athens and re- pair to Oreus, nothing was gained in respect to the main object ; for they, as well as Proxenus, took upon them to disobey the ex- press order of the Senate, and never went to find Philip. After a certain stay at Oreus, they moved forward by leisurely journeys to Macedonia ; where they remained inactive at Pella until the 1 See the just and prudent reasoning of Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 388, and De Corond, p. 234. Compare also Pseudo-Demosthenes, De Halonneso, p. 85, 86. s Demosth. Fals. Leg. p. 389 ; De Corona, p. 234. ^Eschines (Fals. Leg p. 40. c. 29, 30) recognizes the fact that this decree was passed by the Sen- ate on the 3d of Munychion, and that the envoys left Athens in consequenco of it. He does not mention that it was proposed by Demosthenes. ^Eschi nes here confirms, in a very important manner, the fact of the delay, ai alleged by Demosthenes, while the explanation which he gives, why the en voys did not go to Thrace, is altogether without value. A document, purporting to be this decree, is given in Demosth. De Co rcna, p. 234 but the authenticity is too doubtful to admit of citing it