Defence of Macedonian Policy
"But since the last speaker has ventured to go back to
ancient times for his denunciations of the Macedonian royal
family, I feel it incumbent on me also to say a few words first
on these points, to remove the misconception of those who have
been carried away by his words.
"Chlaeneas said, then, that Philip son of Amyntas became
Sacred war, B. C. 357-346. Onomarchus
killed near the gulf of Pagasae. B. C. 352. See Diodor, 16, 32-35. |
master of
Thessaly by the ruin of
Olynthus. But I conceive
that not only the Thessalians, but the other Greeks also, were
preserved by Philip's means. For at the time
when Onomarchus and Philomelus, in defiance
of religion and law, seized
Delphi and made
themselves masters of the treasury of the god,
who is there among you who does not know
that they collected such a mighty force as no
Greek dared any longer face? Nay, along with
this violation of religion, they were within an ace of becoming
lords of all
Greece also. At that crisis Philip volunteered his
assistance; destroyed the tyrants, secured the temple, and
became the author of freedom to the Greeks, as is testified
even to posterity by the facts.
Philip elected generalissimo against Persia in the congress of allies at Corinth, B. C. 338. |
For Philip
was unanimously elected general-in-chief by
land and sea, not, as my opponent ventured
to assert, as one who had wronged
Thessaly;
but on the ground of his being a benefactor
of
Greece: an honour which no one had previously obtained.
'Ay, but,' he says, 'Philip came with an armed force into
Laconia.' Yes, but it was not of his own choice, as you know: he
reluctantly consented to do so, after repeated invitations and
appeals by the Peloponnesians, under the name of their friend
and ally. And when he did come, pray observe, Chlaeneas,
how he behaved. Though he could have availed himself of
the wishes of the neighbouring states for the destruction of these
men's territory and the humiliation of their city, and have won
much gratitude too by his act, he by no means lent himself to
such a policy; but, by striking terror into the one and the other
alike, he compelled both parties to accommodate their
differences in a congress, to the common benefit of all: not
putting himself forward as arbitrator of the points in dispute,
but appointing a joint board of arbitration selected from all
Greece. Is that a proceeding which deserves to be held up to
reproach and execration?
