492 HISTORY OF GREECE. long aimed at accomplishing by indirect means, but always in vain ; the conversion of the Theoric Fund to military purposes.' So preponderant was the impression of danger at Athens, that De- mosthenes was now able to propose this motion directly, and with success. Of course, he must first have moved to suspend the standing enactment, whereby it was made penal even to submit the motion. To Philip, meanwhile, the new alliance was a severe disap- pointment and a serious obstacle. Having calculated on the con- tinued adhension of Thebes, to which he conceived himself enti- tled as a return for benefits conferred and having been doubt- less assured by his partisans in the city that they could promise him Theban cooperation against Athens, as soon as he should ap- pear on the frontier wi:h an overawing army he was discon- certed at the sudden junction of these two powerful cities, unex- pected alike by friends and enemies. Henceforward we shall find him hating Thebes, as guilty of desertion and ingratitude, worse than Athens, his manifest enemy. 3 But having failed in inducing the Thebans to follow his lead against Athens, he thought it expedient again to resume his profession of acting on behalf of the Delphian god against Amphissa, and to write to his allies in Peloponnesus to come and join him, for this specific purpose. Ilia letters were pressing, often repeated, and implying much embar- rassment, according to Demosthenes. 3 As far as we can judge 1 Philochorus Frag. 135, cd. Didot ; Dionys. Hal. ad Ammaeum, p. 743.
- ^schines adv. Ktesiph. p. 73. ^Eschincs remarks the fact but pervert;
the inferences deducible from it.
- Demosthen. De Coron, p. 279. Adf dfj p.oi TI/V ETrtaroX^v, f/v, dtf ov*
vJTt/Kovov ol &T](3aloi, nefinei Trpdf roitf Iv HAoirovvfiau (rvu/iuxovt; 6 <J>f'/U7rn-o(, iv* EidrjTi: Kal KK ravrt/f aa$> on TTJV (lev u%j)-&rj npoQaciv TVV Trpcr/fiuTcji; TO ravr 1 tnl TTJV 'EA/lu(5 Kal Toijf Brj[3aiovf Kal iiftuc -rrpliTTEiv, uKEKpumfTo KOIVU. 6e Kal rolf 'A-fupiKriioat 66i;avTa troielv irpooenoiElro, etc. Then follows a letter, purporting to be written by Philip to the Pelopon nesians. I concur with Uroysen in mistrusting its authenticity. I do no rest any statements on its evidence. The Macedonian month Lous does not appear to coincide with the Attic Boedromion ; nor is it probable that Pnilip in writing to Peloponnesians, would allude at all to Attic months. Various subsequent letters written by Philip to the Peloponnesians, and intin.ating much .embarrassment, are alluded to by Demosthenes further on 'A3, ia /J.TJV oia? TOT' ijyiei ouvuc o 4>i?.(T7roc val kv otmc ffv raoa^aic inl TWTOIC
