Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2001.09.36
Yunis on Worthington on Yunis. Response to 2001.09.19
Response by Harvey Yunis, Classics, Rice University
Many thanks to Professor Worthington for his generous review of my edition of Demosthenes, On the Crown (BMCR 2001.09.19). I respond just to his claim that the introduction contains "factual slips." Professor Worthington rejects my characterization of Philip's treatment of the Phocians in 346 as severe, claiming that "Philip persuaded the Amphictyonic Council not to impose the normal [sic] punishment on them." Philip had the Phocians removed from the Amphictyonic Council, the walls of their cities pulled down, and the inhabitants dispersed into villages (pp. 131, 196). That counts as severe. Professor Worthington doubts my statement that "one can only speculate who revived the case [on Demosthenes' crown] and for what reason," and cites a number of scholars who have argued that Aeschines revived the case. Since no evidence on this question exists, the statement about speculation is true. But I do, nevertheless, offer reasons to suppose that Aeschines was responsible for reviving the case (p. 11). Professor Worthington quibbles with the date of Pytho's mission to Athens by a few months, giving the unfortunate impression that the evidence permits such precision. Claiming that I "over-exaggerate" Athenian opposition to Macedonian hegemony after Chaeronea, Professor Worthington believes that "the Greeks may well have come to accept the Macedonian hegemony, given the peace and prosperity it afforded them." Some Greeks perhaps, but not the Athenians: when they led the revolt of 323, they had been preparing militarily for years and put at sea the largest fleet they ever assembled. And the overwhelming verdict in Demosthenes' favor in 330, when Macedonian hegemony was stronger than ever before, is the best evidence one could expect for the popular mood of the time.