[_Introduction_. It has already been noticed that when Philip took
Amphipolis in 357 B.C., the Olynthians made overtures to the Athenians,
with whom they had been at war for some years, and that, being
rejected, they became allies of Philip, who gave them Anthemus and
Poteidaea. In 352, alarmed at Philip's growing power, they once more
applied to Athens. Peace was made, and negotiations began with regard
to an alliance. In 351 Philip appeared in the territory of Olynthus. He
did not, however, at once carry the invasion further, but took pains,
during this year and the next, to foster a Macedonian party in the
town. In 349 Philip virtually declared war on the Olynthians by
demanding the surrender of his step-brother Arrhidaeus, who had taken
refuge with them. The Olynthians again appealed to Athens; an alliance
was made; Chares was sent with thirty ships and 2,000 mercenaries, but
seems to have mismanaged the war by misfortune or by design. Probably
he had been badly supplied with funds, and instead of helping Olynthus,
resorted to acts of piracy to satisfy his men. The Macedonian troops
proceeded to take Stageira and other towns of the Olynthian League,
though Philip still professed to have no hostile intentions against
Olynthus (see Phil. III, § ii). Chares was recalled and put on his
trial; and, probably in response to a further message from Olynthus,
Charidemus was transferred thither from the Hellespont. With a
considerable mercenary force at his disposal, Charidemus overran
Pallene and Bottiaea, and did some damage to Philip's territory, but
afterwards gave himself up to dissipation in Olynthus. In the meantime,
some of the Thessalians had become restless under Philip's supremacy
(see Olynth. I, § 22, II, § ii), and he was obliged to undertake an
expedition to suppress the revolt, and to put down Peitholaus (who had
apparently become tyrant of Pherae once more, though he had been
expelled in 352). But early in 348 he appeared in person in Chalcidice,
and took one after another of the towns of the League, including
Mecyberna the port of Olynthus, and Torone. He thrice defeated the
Olynthians in battle, and at last obtained possession of Olynthus
itself by the treachery of Euthycrates and Lasthenes, the commanders of
the Olynthian cavalry.
Athens had probably been occupied during the early part of the year [1]
with an expedition which she sent (against the advice of Demosthenes)
to help Plutarchus of Eretria to repel attacks which were partly, at
least, instigated by Philip; and in consequence she had done little for
Olynthus, though on a request of the Olynthians for cavalry, she had
ordered some of those which had been sent to Euboea to go to Olynthus,
and these may have been the Athenians whom Philip captured in that
city. The seventeen ships, 2,000 infantry, and 300 cavalry (all
citizens), which Athens dispatched under Chares in response to a last
urgent appeal from Olynthus, were delayed by storms and arrived too
late. Philip entirely destroyed Olynthus and thirty-two other towns,
sold their inhabitants into slavery, brought the whole of Chalcidice
within the Macedonian Empire, and celebrated his conquests by a
festival in honour of the Olympian Zeus at Dium.
The First Olynthiac Oration was delivered before Olynthus itself was
attacked or any other towns actually taken (Olynth. I, § 17); and both
the First and Second before the discontent with Philip in Thessaly had
taken an active form (I, § 22, II, § 7). Both, that is, belong to the
summer of 349, and the situation implied is very much the same in both.
The First was perhaps spoken when the Olynthians first appealed to
Athens in that year, before the mission of Chares; the Second, to
counteract the effect of something which had caused despondency in
Athens (possibly the conduct of the Athenian generals, or the account
given by other orators of Philip's power). In both Demosthenes urges
the importance of resisting Philip while he is still far away, and of
sending, not mercenaries, but a citizen-army; and while hinting at what
he regards as the true solution of the financial difficulty, proposes a
special war-tax. The solution which he thinks the right one is more
explicitly described in the Third Olynthiac, spoken (probably
[Footnote: See note on Olynth. III, Section 4]) in the autumn of the
same year, and certainly at a time when the situation had become much
more grave. The root of the financial difficulty lay in the existence
of a law which prohibited (evidently under severe penalties, Olynth.
III, Section 12) any proposal to devote to military purposes that
portion of the revenues which constituted the 'Festival' or 'Theoric
Fund', and was for the most part distributed to the citizens to enable
them to take part in the public festivals, and so join in fulfilling
what was no doubt a religious duty as well as a pleasure. This
particular form of expenditure is stated to have been introduced by the
demagogue Agyrrhius in 394, when it revived in an extended form a
distribution of theatre money instituted late in the fifth century by
Cleophon; but the special law in question appears to have been of
recent date (Olynth. III, Section 12), and was almost certainly the
work of Eubulus and his party. Demosthenes himself proposes an
extraordinary Legislative Commission, to repeal the mischievous laws
and leave the way clear for financial reform. At the same time he
attacks the whole policy of Eubulus, charging him with distributing
doles without regard to public service, adding to the amenities of
Athens instead of maintaining her honour in war, and enriching her
politicians while degrading her people. The main object of the speech
was unsuccessful; and just about this time (though whether before or
after the speech is disputed) Apollodorus proposed that the people
should decide whether the surplus revenues should go to the Festival
Fund, or be applied to military purposes, and was heavily fined for the
illegality of the proposal.
The Three Olynthiacs rank high among the Orations of Demosthenes. Some
passages, indeed, show that he had hardly as yet appreciated the genius
of Philip, or the unlikelihood of his making a false move either
through over-confidence or because he had come to the end of his
resources. But the noble patriotism of the speaker, the lofty tone of
his political reflections, the clearness of his diagnosis of the evils
of his time, and the fearlessness of his appeal for loyal and united
self-sacrifice, are nowhere more conspicuous.]