880 HISTORY OF GREECE. A.nd it would appear that before long, its conditions were realized. Charidemus surrendered the Chersonese, of course including its principal town Sestos, to Athens ; l yet he retained for himself Kardia, 2 which was affirmed (though the Athenian* denied it) not to be included in the boundaries of that peninsula. The kingdom of Thrace was also divided between Kersobleptes, Berisades, and Amadokus ; which triple division, diminishing the strength of each, was regarded by Athens as a great additional guarantee for her secure possession of the Chersonese. 3 1 We see that Sestos must have been surrendered on this occasion, although Diodorus describes it as having been conquered by Chares five yeai-s afterwards, in the year 353 B. c. (Diod. xvi, 34). It is evident from the whole tenor of the oration of Demosthenes, that Charidemus did actu- ally surrender the Chersonese at this time. Had he still refused to surren- der Sestos, the orator would not have failed to insist on the fact emphati- cally against him. Besides, Demosthenes says, comparing the conduct of Philip towards the Olynthians, with that of Kersobleptes towards Athens vois HaTidaiav ov%i TijviKavT 1 uTredunev, TJVIK' uiroarepelv r' %v, >airep iplv Kepcro/^eTrr^f Xefipovrjcrov (p. 656. s. 128). This distinctly announces that the Chersonese was given back to Athens, though reluctantly and tardily, by Kersobleptes. Sestos must have been given up along with it, as the principal and most valuable post upon all accounts. If it be true (as Diodorus states) that Chares in 353 B. c. took Sestos by siege, slew the inhabitants of military age and reduced the rest to slavery we must suppose the town again to have revolted between 358 and 353 B. c. ; that is, during the time of the Social War; which is highly probable. But there is much in the statement of Diodorus which 1 cannot distinctly make out ; for he says that Kersobleptes in 353 B. c., on account of his hatred towards Philip, surrendered to Athens all the r.jtiw in the Chersonese except Kardia. That had already been done in 35* . c., and without any reference to Philip ; and if after surrendering the C/it-rsonese in 358 B. c., Kersobleptes had afterwards reconquered it, so a? to have it again in his possession in the beginning of 353 B. c. it seems unaccount- able that Demosthenes should say nothing about the reconquest in his ora- tion against Aristokrates, where he is trying to make all poin cs possible against Kersobleptes. 3 Demosth, cont. Aristokrat. p. 681j s. 216. 3 Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. p. 623, s. 8 ; p. 654, s. 121. The c'aionology of these events as given by Rehdantz (Vitas Iphicratis, Chati.ias, etc. p. 147 ) appears to me nearly correct, in spite of the strong objection, expressed against it by Weber (Prolegg. ad Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. p. li;xiii,) and more exact than the chronology of Bohnecke, Forschungen, p. 727, who places the coming out of Kephisodotus as general to the Clhettonese iu 358 B. c., which is, I think, a full yeat to late. Eehdantz doec, no* -How,
