EUBOEA. KALLIAS. 4$$ )n his proposition, supported by Demosthenes, the attendance and tribute from deputies of the Euboic cities to the synod at Athens, were renounced ; and in place of it was constituted an Euboic synod, sitting at Chalkis ; independent of, yet allied with, Athens. 1 In this Euboic synod Kallias was the leading man ; forward both as a partisan of Athens and as an enemy of Philip. He pushed his attack beyond the limits of Eubcea to the Gulf of Pagasae, from whence probably came the Macedonian troops who had formed the garrison of Oreus under Philistides. He here cap- tured several of the towns allied with or garrisoned by Philip ; together with various Macedonian vessels, the crews of which he sold as slaves. For these successes the Athenians awarded to him a public vote of thanks. 2 He also employed himself (during the autumn and winter of 341-340 B. c.) in travelling as mission- ary throughout Peloponnesus, to organize a confederacy against Philip. In that mission he strenuously urged the cities to send deputies to a congress at Athens, in the ensuing month Antheste- rion (February), 340 B. c. But though he made flattering an nouncement at Athens of concurrence and support promised to him, the projected congress came to nothing. 3 While the important success in Euboea relieved Athens from anxiety on that side, Demosthenes was sent as envoy to the Cher- sonese and to Byzantium. He would doubtless encourage Dio peithes, and may perhaps have carried to him some reinforce- ments. But his services were principally useful at Byzantium. 1 JEschines adv. Ktcsiphont. p. 67, 68. JEschines greatly stigmatizes De- mosthenes for having deprived the Athenian synod of these important mem- bers. But the Eubcean members certainly had not been productive of any good to Athens by their attendance, real or nominal, at her synod, for some years past. The formation of a free Euboic synod probably afforded the best chance of ensuring real harmony between the island and Athens. /Eschines gives here a long detail of allegations, about the corrupt in- trigues between Demosthenes and Kallias at Athens. Many of these allega- tions are impossible to reconcile with what we know of the course of his- tory at the time. We must recollect that JEschines makes the statement eleven years after the events. 2 Epistol. Philipp. ap. Demosth. p. 159. 3 JEschines adv. Ktesiph. I.e. JEschines here specifies the month, but not the year. It appears to me that Anthesterion, 340 B. c. (Olymp. 109, 4) is the most likely date ; though Bcihncckc and others place it a year earlier.
