You are all aware that, after conceding the right to amend the peace, he now denies it. He says that Amphipolis is his, because your decree that he should keep what he held confirmed his right. It is true that you passed that decree, but you never admitted his right to Amphipolis, for it is possible to hold what belongs to another, and it is not all holders who hold what is their own, but many are in possession of what is really another’s. So his clever quibble is merely foolish.

Moreover he remembers the decree of Philocrates, but he has quite forgotten the letter sent to you when he was besieging Amphipolis, in which he admitted that Amphipolis was yours; for he said that when he had taken it he would restore it to you, implying that it was your property, and not that of the holders.

Apparently those who inhabited Amphipolis, before Philip took it, were holding Athenian territory; but when he has taken it, it is no longer our territory, but his own, that he holds; and in the same way at Olynthus and Apollonia and Pallene he is in possession of his own property, not that of others.

Do you not see that his letter to you is all carefully calculated, so that his words and his actions may appear to conform to the universal standard of justice, while he has really shown supreme contempt for it in claiming for himself and denying to you territory which is yours by common consent and decree of the Greeks and of the King of Persia?This refers to the amended rescript obtained by the Athenians from the king in 366. See Dem. 19.137.

As for the other amendment which you propose to introduce, that all the Greeks who are not parties to the peace should remain free and independent, and that if they are attacked, the signatories should unite to defend them,