澤田 典子

In 344/3 B. C, Philip II sent Python of Byzantium to Athens with a proposal for the amendment(επανοθωσι&b.sigmav;)of the Peace of Philocrates, which had been concluded between Philip and Athens in 346. Recent Philippic studies tend to overemphasize Philip's friendlly attitude toward Athens and to exaggerate Athens' central role in his plan for conquering Greece. This tendency is apparent in their interpretation of the επανορθωσι&b.sigmav; negotiations of 344/3. In that year, the Persian King Artaxerxes III also sent embassies to Athens and other major Greek cities requesting that they join the Persians in the imminent campaign against the Egyptians. Most studies which emphasize Philip's friendly attitude toward Athens, interpret these events as follows : in 344/3, the simultaneous arrival of the Macedonian and Persian embassies confronted Athens with a clear-cut choice between alignment with one or the other of these two major powers ; Athens, where public opinion had been predominantly pro-Macedonian due to Philip's friendly attitude, clearly rejected the Persian appeal and entered into negotiations with Philip on the amendment of the peace. In this paper, I reexamine this common view, focusing on three main sources : Didymus 8.7-32, Hypoth. Dem.6, and[Dem]. 7.18-32. 1 conclude that there is no justification for arguing that Athens was confronted with a clear-cut choice between Macedonia and Persia in 344/3, that the Athenian answer to Persia shows the friendly relations between Philip and Athens, that in this period Philip behaved in a friendly way toward Athens, or that pro-Macedonian sentiment was predominant in Athens. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the common view which tends to emphasize Philip's friendly attitude in the επανορθωσι&b.sigmav; negotiations of 344/3. Philip's proposal in 344/3 was not an attempt to show his own friendly feelings toward Athens ; rather it may have been merely one of the many tactics he employed to smoothly carry out his program to conquer Greece, which was under way simultaneously in many parts of Greece, such as Thessaly, Thrace, and the Peloponnese. I believe that this conclusion of this paper provides a basis for amendment of the previous historical interpretations of this period, which are intrinsically Atheno-centric.