DISPUTE ABOUT HALONNESUS. 417 Athens. 1 Moreover he displayed great harshness in the reception of Hegesippus and his colleagues ; banishing from Macedonia the Athenian poet Xenokleides, for having shown hospitality towards them. 2 The original treaty, therefore, remained unaltered. Hegesippus and his colleagues had gone to Macedonia, not simply to present for Philip's acceptance the two amendments just indicated, but also to demand from him the restoration of the littls island of Halonnesus (near Skiathos), which he had taken since the peace. Philip denied that the island belonged to the Athenians, or that they had any right to make such a demand; affirming that he had taken it, not from them, but from a pirate named Sostratus, who was endangering the navigation of the neigh- boring sea and that it now belonged to him. If the Athenians disputed this, he offered to submit the question to arbitration ; to restore the island to Athens, should the arbitrators decide against him or to give it to her, even should they decide in his favor. 3 Since we know that Philip treated Hegesippus and the other envoys with peculiar harshness, it is probable that the diplomatic argument between them, about Halonnesus as well as about other matters, was conducted with angry feeling on both sides. Hence an island, in itself small and insignificant, became the subject of 1 Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 81, 84, 85. ufupiajSriTel fir) 6e6uKe- vai (Philip contends that he never tendered the terms of peace for amend- ment) fi?}6e roOf 7rpecr/3etf ratJr' eiprjKevai npof vfj.u<:. . . .Tovro 6e rd enavop- ^ufj.a (the second amendment) 6fj.o2.o-/iJv iv ry eTrforoAj?, (if aKovere, 6i- Kaiov T' slvai Kdl dexecdat, etc. 9 Hegesippus was much denounced by the philippizing orators at Athens (Demosthen. Fals. Leg. p. 364). His embassy to Philip has been treated oy some authors as enforcing a "grossly sophistical construction of an article in the peace," which Philip justly resented. But in my judgment it was no construction of the original treaty, nor was there any sophistry on the part of Athens. It was an amended clause, presented by the Athe- nians in place of the original. They never affirmed that the amended clause meant the same thing as the clause prior to amendment. On the contrary, they imply that the meaning is not the same and it is en tl at ground that they submit the amended form of words. 3 Compare Pseudo-Demosth. De Halonneso, p. 77, anl the Philippi, p. 162. The former says, l/leye 6e KOI Trpbr rjpuf TOLOVTOV^ OTI ;r_df avTov lirpeoftEvaa/nev, uf /Ij/arac d^ T?JV tTjar* KTqoaiTo, xal TrpooTjKeiv avrrjv iavrou elvai. Philip's letter agrees as to the main facts.
