MOVEMENT TOWARDS PEACE. 369 ever, was passed at the same time that the disposition towards peace, if peace were attainable, was on the increase at Athens. Some months before the capture of Olynthus, ideas of peace had already been started, partly through the indirect overtures of Philip himself. During the summer of 348 B. c., the Eubreans had tried to negotiate an accommodation with Athens ; the con- test in Euboea, though we know no particulars of it, having never v; holly ceased for the last year and a half. Nor does it appear that any peace was even now concluded ; for Eubrea is spoken of as under the dependence of Philip during the ensuing year. 1 The Euboean envoys, however, intimated that Philip had desired them to communicate from him a wish to finish the war and conclude peace with Athens. 2 Though Philip had at this time conquered the larger portion of Chalkidike, and was proceeding successfully Timarcbus cither towards the close of Olymp. 108, 1 or towards the be- ginning of the following year, Olymp. 108, 2 ; that is, not long before, or not long after, Midsummer 347 B. c. But which of these two dates is to be preferred, is matter of controversy. Franke (Prolegom. ad jEschin. cont. Timarchum, p. xxxviii. xli. thinks that Timarchus was senator in Olymp. 108, 1 and proposed the decree then ; he supposes the oration of ^Eschines to have been delivered in the beginning of Olymp. 108, 3 and tnat the ex- pression (p. 11) announcing Timarchus as having been senator ;t the year before " (n-epvcfiv), is to be construed loosely as signifying " the year but one before." Mr. Clinton, Boeckh, and Westermann, suppose the oration of jE^chines against Timarchus to have been delivered in Olmyp. 108, 4 not in Ulymp. 108, 3. On that supposition, if we take the word nepvoiv in its usual sense, Timarchus was senator in 108, 3. Now it is certain that he did not p>poso the decree forbidding the export of naval stores to Philip, at a date so late as 108, 3; because the peace with Philip was concluded in Elaphcbolion Olmyp. 108, 2. (March, 346 B. c.) But the supposition might be admis- ible, that Timarchus was senator in two different years, both in Olymp. 108, 1 and in Olymp. 108, 3. (not in two consecutive years). In that case, the sena- torial year of Timarchus, to which .^Eschines alludes (cont. Timarch. p. 1 1 ), would be Olymp. 108, 3, while the other senatorial year, in which Tirsar- chus moved the decree prohibiting export, would be Olymp. 108, 1. Nevertheless, I agree with the views of Bohnecke (Forsehungen, p. 294) who thinks that the oration was delivered Olymp. 108, 3 and that Timar chus had been senator and had proposed the decree prohibiting export of stores to Philip, in the year preceding, that is, Olymp. 108, 2 ; at the lw> ginning of the year, Midsummer 347 B c. 1 Uemoith. Fals. Leg. p. 348-445 * JEschin. Fals. Le,-. p. 29
