Isocrates - Letter to Phillip II of Macedon (4th Century BC)

[Spartan]

Ay, and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Hellenes suffered from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Hellas, and they might have been regarded as the acts of a legitimate son, born to great possessions, who should be guilty of some fault or error in the management of his estate: so far he would deserve blame and reproach, yet it could not be said that it was not one of the blood, not the lawful heir who was acting thus. (3-30)

Just to play devils advocate for a minute SoM, so please bare with me for a moment. From the bolded excerpt above, are we to conclude that the ancient Spartans are not Hellenes or 'true-born sons of Hellas' ?

You know my personal opinion on the matter of the Ancient Macedonians and their Greekness. Im not saying they were.
My point is just that Ive read many texts, and quotes where Greek tribes/peoples are refered to as seperate from Hellenes.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Spartan

Just to play devils advocate for a minute SoM, so please bare with me for a moment. From the bolded excerpt above, are we to conclude that the ancient Spartans are not Hellenes or 'true-born sons of Hellas' ?

Hi Spartan, thanks for becoming engaged in this conversation.

The short answer to your question is NO, how did you come to that conclusion from the above excerpt? The sentence in question distinctly states that the Spartans are (alongside the Athenians) considered true-born sons of Hellas;

....the wrongs which the Hellenes suffered from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Hellas....

In the above text Demosthenes is basically telling his audience that even though Hellenes have fought each other and wronged each other, it was at the hands of true Hellenes themselves, such as Spartans and Athenians, and not at the hand of a barbarian from Macedonia. For, immediately after the excerpt in question, reference and comparison is made to Phillip, who is not only no Hellene, nor related to the Hellenes. Demosthenes was clear, Athenians and Spartans are true-born sons of Hellas, Phillip of Macedon was not.


Spartan, I have seen the above excerpt presented in an inconclusive and manipulated manner several times by Greeks (not that I am suggesting you do this), that is why context is so important, when the texts of Demosthenes and Isocrates are taken in context, it is clear that they do not consider the Macedonians as Greeks and that only Isocrates and the few that listened to him believed the fanciful story that the Macedonian kings were of Argive descent.

My point is just that Ive read many texts, and quotes where Greek tribes/peoples are refered to as seperate from Hellenes.

The Demosthenes and Isocrates text do not fall in that category. And in those texts where Hellenic tribes are referred to individually alongside the Hellenes, how many of them call the otherside "not Hellene nor even related to Hellenes" (Demosthenes) or record something akin to a "racial/tribal rivalry between Greek and Macedonian" (Arrian)?

My guess is none, if you have anything to the contrary, please share it.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Hi Spartan, thanks for becoming engaged in this conversation.

how did you come to that conclusion from the above excerpt?

and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Hellenes suffered from the Lacedaemonians

I interpreted 'from the', as 'at the hands of ', thus assuming that the 'Hellenes' suffered at the hands of the 'Lacadaemonians', which would imo, differentiate the 2 as 'seperate'.
However, I see what you are saying, and I didnt analyze too closely the next few lines.

how many of them call the otherside "not Hellene nor even related to Hellenes"

None that I can recall

[Epirot]

Nice summarization of Isocrates's thoughts about Macedonians. Keep up the good work, SoM!

I am looking for a passage in letters of Isocrate, when he urged Philip II to conquer Asia and to found cities when Balkanian peasants might be permanently settled there to safe those territories. In a book I found this passage (taken from To Philip, 120) but it was just interpretation of author, not the original text.
Can you find where Isocrates demanded from Philip such action?
Thnx

[thessalo-niki]

Originally Posted by Epirot

Nice summarization of Isocrates's thoughts about Macedonians. Keep up the good work, SoM!

I am looking for a passage in letters of Isocrate, when he urged Philip II to conquer Asia and to found cities when Balkanian peasants might be permanently settled there to safe those territories. In a book I found this passage (taken from To Philip, 120) but it was just interpretation of author, not the original text.
Can you find where Isocrates demanded from Philip such action?
Thnx

You want the original? Take it.
[120]... ὅπου δ' Ἰάσων λόγῳ μόνον χρησάμενος οὕτως αὑτὸν ηὔξησεν, ποίαν τινὰ χρὴ προσδοκᾶν περὶ σοῦ γνώμην αὐτοὺς ἕξειν, ἢν ἔργῳ ταῦτα πράξῃς, καὶ μάλιστα μὲν πειραθῇς ὅλην τὴν βασιλείαν ἑλεῖν, εἰ δὲ μή, χώραν ὅτι πλείστην ἀφορίσασθαι καὶ διαλαβεῖν τὴν Ἀσίαν, ὡς λέγουσί τινες, ἀπὸ Κιλικίας μέχρι Σινώπης, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις κτίσαι πόλεις ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ, καὶ κατοικίσαι τοὺς νῦν πλανωμένους δι' ἔνδειαν τῶν καθ' ἡμέραν καὶ λυμαινομένους οἷς ἂν ἐντύχωσιν...

and the translation:
[120] Now since Jason by use of words alone advanced himself so far, what opinion must we expect the world will have of you if you actually do this thing; above all, if you undertake to conquer the whole empire of the King, or, at any rate, to wrest from it a vast extent of territory and sever from it—to use a current phrase—“Asia from Cilicia to Sinope”; and if, furthermore, you undertake to establish cities in this region, and to settle in permanent abodes those who now, for lack of the daily necessities of life, are wandering from place to place and committing outrages upon whomsoever they encounter?
__________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

[Onur]

Originally Posted by thessalo-niki

...to wrest from it a vast extent of territory and sever from it—to use a current phrase—“Asia from Cilicia to Sinope”;

So, from today`s city of Adana at Mediterranean coast, to Sinop at Blacksea coast in central Anatolia, from the most southern point to most northest. Is there any document which mentions of any migration to Anatolia or this plan never realized?

[Epirot]

Thank you very much for sharing the original quote!

[Epirot]

While I was searching about using of 'Barbarian' notion in several contextes in antiquity I found the following text:

Thucydides 4.124-7 maintains that they were ‘barbarian’; so also Isocrates, Philipus 106-8, Demosthenes, Olynth.3.24.

Medieval and modern Greek By Robert Browning, 1983, p.2.
http://books.google.com/books?id=b55...0Greek&f=false

In fact, this is the first time I acknowledged that Macedonians were labeled as 'Barbarians' by Isocrates. I could not verify anything so far.
Soldier of Macedon you seem well-informed about Isocrates speeches...do you know the exact passage where Isocrates denote Macedonians as Barbarians?

[Akzion]

Well, not exactly. Actually there are two contradictory passages (in bold)

From letter to Philip (107-108)
[He refers to Philip’s father, King Amyntas II]
For they endeavored to win this honor by engendering factions, disorder, and bloodshed in their own cities; he, on the other hand, held entirely aloof from Hellenic territory, and set his heart upon occupying the throne of Macedon. For he knew full well that the Hellenes were not accustomed to submit to the rule of one man, while the other races were incapable of ordering their lives without the control of some such power.
And so it came about, owing to his unique insight in this regard, that his kingship has proved to be quite set apart from that of the generality of kings: for, because he alone among the Hellenes did not claim the right to rule over a people of kindred race, he alone was able to escape the perils incident to one-man power. For history discovers to us the fact that those among the Hellenes who have managed to acquire such authority have not only been destroyed themselves but have been blotted, root and branch, from the face of the earth; while he, on the contrary, lived a long and happy life and left his seed in possession of the same honors which he himself had enjoyed.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Akzion

Well, not exactly. Actually there are two contradictory passages (in bold)

There's no contradiction, you just need to employ logical interpretation.

From letter to Philip (107-108)
[He refers to Philip’s father, King Amyntas II]

Wrong. He refers to the "founder of your empire" - meaning Perdiccas (the inclusion of Caranus to the myth came later) - who (apparenty) lived centuries before the time of Phillip. Read the passage properly.

And the founder of your empire, although he aspired higher than did his fellow citizens and set his heart on a king's power, was not minded to take the same road as others who set out to attain a like ambition. For they endeavored to win this honor by engendering factions, disorder, and bloodshed in their own cities; he, on the other hand, held entirely aloof from Hellenic territory, and set his heart upon occupying the throne of Macedon. For he knew full well that the Hellenes were not accustomed to submit to the rule of one man, while the other races were incapable of ordering their lives without the control of some such power.
And so it came about, owing to his unique insight in this regard, that his kingship has proved to be quite set apart from that of the generality of kings: for, because he alone among the Hellenes did not claim the right to rule over a people of kindred race, he alone was able to escape the perils incident to one-man power. For history discovers to us the fact that those among the Hellenes who have managed to acquire such authority have not only been destroyed themselves but have been blotted, root and branch, from the face of the earth; while he, on the contrary, lived a long and happy life and left his seed in possession of the same honors which he himself had enjoyed.

The above shows Isocrates using the fanciful claim first made by Herodotus in conjunction with Alexander the 'Philhellene', where a mythical heritage is conjured for the Macedonian royal house. It was done purely for political purposes, to give Alexander more credibility in the ancient world and what was then perceived to be the more 'civilised' society of the Hellenes. There is no such claim prior. It was not an unusual phenomena for that period in any case; Herodotus also ties the Scythians and Persians to mythical figures such as Heracles and Perseus, who feature among the gods worshipped by Hellenes. This is the only Hellenic 'connection' that Isocrates can refer to in his desperate plea to Phillip. He does not consider the Macedonian people as Greeks. He was a frightened opportunist that is trying to appeal to the Macedonian king's lenient side. The quote from Peter Green on the first page explains it well:

"taken as a whole the Address to Philip must have caused its recipient considerable sardonic amusement........Its ethnic conceit was only equalled by its naivety..........though Philip did not give a fig for Panhellenism as an idea, he at once saw how it could be turned into highly effective camouflage (a notion which his son subsequently took over ready-made). Isocrates had, unwittingly, supplied him with the propaganda-line he needed. From now on he merely had to clothe his Macedonian ambitions in a suitable Panhellenic dress."

That is the logical conclusion. Phillip couldn't care less about what Isocrates was whining about, and the Macedonian victory over of the Athenian-led Greeks at Chaeronea proved that. Let the fate of Isocrates be an indication of Phillip's intentions all along:

On a pillar is a statue of Isocrates, whose memory is remarkable for three things: his diligence in continuing to teach to the end of his ninety-eight years, his self-restraint in keeping aloof from politics and from interfering with public affairs, and his love of liberty in dying a voluntary death, distressed at the news of the battle at Chaeronea (Pausanias, 1.18.8).