Demosthenes ´the Greek hero´, or Philip of Macedon the ´unifier´
Gandeto
January 29, 2009
After the battle of Chaeronea on August 4th, 338 Demosthenes, who fought on the Greek side as a hoplite, was chosen to deliver the official funeral oration for the fallen Greeks in the battle. The epitaph composed for their common tomb has survived:
"Time, whose o´erseeing eye records all human actions, Bear word to mankind what fate we suffered, how Striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas upon Boeotia´s famous plain we died" (Paus. 1.9.4; Isocr. Epist. 3.3).
Chaeronea, in the eyes of some scholars, brought down the curtain to a brilliantly played Greek tragedy, and signified with added emphasis, the closure of the Greek city-states´ life and an era of dominance. With it, under the weight of its own progressive decay, died the last breath of liberty and the freedom of Greece. Lycurgus´ fitting memorable quote sums it all; ´with the dead of Chaeronea was buried the freedom of Greece´. These scholars believe that king Philip of Macedon was solely responsible for the Greek demise, and hold him accountable for the persistent ills that have plagued the socially indifferent and culturally over-saturated breathless masses of city-states.
For others, Chaeronea meant not a closure of the Greek city-states´ life, but a new beginning of a different period, filled with new potentials, optimism, and a new hope. It opened wider horizons for the culturally stagnant and socially confined Greek elite to spread its civilized wings eastward.
They saw Philip not as a man who pulled down the curtain on Greek liberty, and destroyed the Greek city-states´ life, but as a unifier and a savior of it, which at the time displayed all chronic symptoms of a lifeless mass. The Greek cities, were culturally too self absorbed, socially too indifferent and aloof, and militarily too spent and exhausted to pick themselves up, thus Philip was a timely instrument of their historic awakening.
These two diametrically opposed views have one common ingredient; the life and the work of one of the most controversial, and at the same time, tragic figures of antiquity – the Athenian orator and leader Demosthenes. For his Greek contemporaries he was, and remained so till the end of his life a national hero, whose unremitting fight for Greek liberty and a democratic freedom, engulfed and totally consumed, his soul and person.
To them, he exemplified a true noble spirit of a man whose national ideals and service far surpassed his own personal concerns. His tenacious fight to awaken the complacent Greek populace, and his tireless campaigns throughout Greece to arouse, and to imbue the lethargic masses with fighting spirits inherited from their legendary predecessors is a testimony to his perseverance and his boundless love of the motherland. It was totally inconceivable for Demosthenes to have a barbarian like Philip of Macedon, to even think that he can conquer and lord it over Greece. He carried his fight against Philip orally, mentally, spiritually, and as fate will have it he took his chances, as it was his duty, to physically stop the barbarian at Chaeronea. His speeches reveal a passionate leader, an ardent lover of Greek liberty and freedom and a tenacious embodiment of Greek spirit in action.
Today´s Greek scholarship treats the work of the Athenian orator and a political leader as non-issue, as one whose involvement in Greek history is negligible one and ´denuded of all historical significance´. His role in Athenian and Greek politics is down-played and relegated to an inconsequential occurrence that ´merits no special research´. Demosthenes work on the Athenian political scenes is compared to, and equated with, third rate orators who propagate their trade on the corners of the market place, and instead of supplementing their speeches with facts and documentations, they resort to lies, exaggerations and libel, in order to make an impression or to achieve their goals.
In other words, leaving the diplomacy aside, they want the public at large, not to use Demosthenes corpus as evidence because it contains passages and references that go contrary to their present-day political philosophy.
It reveals that (a) ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, (b) it indicates, expressly, that there was no unification of the Greek states by Philip, but a military conquest, (c) Philip and his Macedonians were, indeed, called, and also seen, as barbarians, and (d) there is a clear and unambiguous reference to the Macedonians as people of a different race than the Greeks.
These four areas of dispute are the major reason for today´s Greeks willingness to distance themselves from their ancient orator and patriot—who undoubtedly left significant imprints on Greek and Macedonian relations—and dismiss him as an insignificant historical figure. Indeed, Demosthenes´ corpus, with its bare truthful essentials, left exposed an irreparable gaping hole from the ancient Greeks and Macedonians discourse that today´s Greeks feel quite uncomfortable bringing it up for a discussion. It simply reveals the true feelings the ancient Greeks held for the ancient Macedonians as people, neighbors and brethren and finally, with added emphasis, as enemies of Hellas.
Henceforth, modern Greeks, with all their passionate embrace of the ancients and all the energies thrown into bridging the divide between their present-day geo-political platform and their "unbroken continuity" with their past, have failed to acknowledge the true feelings of their tireless hero, who embodied the spirit of all the Hellenes who, for the liberty of Hellas, died fighting against Philip and his Macedonians. An inescapable conclusion looms overhead: by dismissing Demosthenes´ work and political statements—that set the ancient Greek masses on fire—as unimportant, today´s Greeks profess to know more about the ancient Greeks than the ancient Greeks themselves.
Was Demosthenes a Greek and an Athenian hero or is he a political leper, a victim to be avoided at all cost?
The 3rd century Athenians awarded him two gold crowns, and twice elected him to be in charge of the war effort, and when everything was said and done, and the final curtain fell, they paid their honorary tribute to their fallen hero by erecting a lasting monument. What compelling reasons, we ask, do 20th century Greeks have to minimize and denigrate the status of an ancient hero who devoted his entire life fighting to safeguard the freedom of the Greeks?
The answer is not as complex as it is intriguing. To strip Demosthenes of his hard earned credentials and to denounce his life-long struggle for liberty of Hellas as a "passing episode" is as unjust as it is cruel, but to usurp and betray the judgment of the 3rd century Athenian Greeks who shared his pain and anguish, is practically incomprehensible. Surely, one would agree that Demosthenes national struggle against Macedon, which culminated with the battle of Chaeronea, cannot be erased from the pages of history, nor can it be viewed as a minor ´delay´, a pit stop, on the way to World Empire as it has been suggested by some scholars.
Such a cursory treatment of the battle and the events leading to it will preclude the reader to witness, and enjoy Demosthenes´ heroic and monumental fight against Philip, and will do no justice to those who laid their lives on the plains of Boaotia, save guarding the holly soil of Hellas.
If one can envision Demosthenes defending against these charges, one would certainly not see a more splendid oratory defense than that of "On the Crown". Western Christian intellectuals in general, and Johan Gustaf Droysen, who found analogous social and political development between Greek city-states and the German states under the strong leadership of Prussia, in particular, could not allow Philip from Macedon to have purely Macedonian interests in heart. He was destined to "unite" the Greek city-states, and was held largely responsible for the Athenian demise, even though, he handled her with particularly soft hands and respect. With his influence on subsequent scholarship Droysen lent credence to an idea whose time and credentials have been severely depleted.
Thus the verdict on Demosthenes need not come from 20th century historians. It was explicitly sealed and delivered by the 3rd century Greeks who knew their native son much more intimately than the modern historiographers of today whose key boards sway under the political winds of the time. Demosthenes statue succinctly sums it all up:
Only if Demosthenes´ strength was equal to his wisdom, Greece would have not been enslaved by Philip and his Macedonians.
To be continued…
Until next time…
"Time, whose o´erseeing eye records all human actions, Bear word to mankind what fate we suffered, how Striving to safeguard the holy soil of Hellas upon Boeotia´s famous plain we died" (Paus. 1.9.4; Isocr. Epist. 3.3).
Chaeronea, in the eyes of some scholars, brought down the curtain to a brilliantly played Greek tragedy, and signified with added emphasis, the closure of the Greek city-states´ life and an era of dominance. With it, under the weight of its own progressive decay, died the last breath of liberty and the freedom of Greece. Lycurgus´ fitting memorable quote sums it all; ´with the dead of Chaeronea was buried the freedom of Greece´. These scholars believe that king Philip of Macedon was solely responsible for the Greek demise, and hold him accountable for the persistent ills that have plagued the socially indifferent and culturally over-saturated breathless masses of city-states.
For others, Chaeronea meant not a closure of the Greek city-states´ life, but a new beginning of a different period, filled with new potentials, optimism, and a new hope. It opened wider horizons for the culturally stagnant and socially confined Greek elite to spread its civilized wings eastward.
They saw Philip not as a man who pulled down the curtain on Greek liberty, and destroyed the Greek city-states´ life, but as a unifier and a savior of it, which at the time displayed all chronic symptoms of a lifeless mass. The Greek cities, were culturally too self absorbed, socially too indifferent and aloof, and militarily too spent and exhausted to pick themselves up, thus Philip was a timely instrument of their historic awakening.
These two diametrically opposed views have one common ingredient; the life and the work of one of the most controversial, and at the same time, tragic figures of antiquity – the Athenian orator and leader Demosthenes. For his Greek contemporaries he was, and remained so till the end of his life a national hero, whose unremitting fight for Greek liberty and a democratic freedom, engulfed and totally consumed, his soul and person.
To them, he exemplified a true noble spirit of a man whose national ideals and service far surpassed his own personal concerns. His tenacious fight to awaken the complacent Greek populace, and his tireless campaigns throughout Greece to arouse, and to imbue the lethargic masses with fighting spirits inherited from their legendary predecessors is a testimony to his perseverance and his boundless love of the motherland. It was totally inconceivable for Demosthenes to have a barbarian like Philip of Macedon, to even think that he can conquer and lord it over Greece. He carried his fight against Philip orally, mentally, spiritually, and as fate will have it he took his chances, as it was his duty, to physically stop the barbarian at Chaeronea. His speeches reveal a passionate leader, an ardent lover of Greek liberty and freedom and a tenacious embodiment of Greek spirit in action.
Today´s Greek scholarship treats the work of the Athenian orator and a political leader as non-issue, as one whose involvement in Greek history is negligible one and ´denuded of all historical significance´. His role in Athenian and Greek politics is down-played and relegated to an inconsequential occurrence that ´merits no special research´. Demosthenes work on the Athenian political scenes is compared to, and equated with, third rate orators who propagate their trade on the corners of the market place, and instead of supplementing their speeches with facts and documentations, they resort to lies, exaggerations and libel, in order to make an impression or to achieve their goals.
In other words, leaving the diplomacy aside, they want the public at large, not to use Demosthenes corpus as evidence because it contains passages and references that go contrary to their present-day political philosophy.
It reveals that (a) ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, (b) it indicates, expressly, that there was no unification of the Greek states by Philip, but a military conquest, (c) Philip and his Macedonians were, indeed, called, and also seen, as barbarians, and (d) there is a clear and unambiguous reference to the Macedonians as people of a different race than the Greeks.
These four areas of dispute are the major reason for today´s Greeks willingness to distance themselves from their ancient orator and patriot—who undoubtedly left significant imprints on Greek and Macedonian relations—and dismiss him as an insignificant historical figure. Indeed, Demosthenes´ corpus, with its bare truthful essentials, left exposed an irreparable gaping hole from the ancient Greeks and Macedonians discourse that today´s Greeks feel quite uncomfortable bringing it up for a discussion. It simply reveals the true feelings the ancient Greeks held for the ancient Macedonians as people, neighbors and brethren and finally, with added emphasis, as enemies of Hellas.
Henceforth, modern Greeks, with all their passionate embrace of the ancients and all the energies thrown into bridging the divide between their present-day geo-political platform and their "unbroken continuity" with their past, have failed to acknowledge the true feelings of their tireless hero, who embodied the spirit of all the Hellenes who, for the liberty of Hellas, died fighting against Philip and his Macedonians. An inescapable conclusion looms overhead: by dismissing Demosthenes´ work and political statements—that set the ancient Greek masses on fire—as unimportant, today´s Greeks profess to know more about the ancient Greeks than the ancient Greeks themselves.
Was Demosthenes a Greek and an Athenian hero or is he a political leper, a victim to be avoided at all cost?
The 3rd century Athenians awarded him two gold crowns, and twice elected him to be in charge of the war effort, and when everything was said and done, and the final curtain fell, they paid their honorary tribute to their fallen hero by erecting a lasting monument. What compelling reasons, we ask, do 20th century Greeks have to minimize and denigrate the status of an ancient hero who devoted his entire life fighting to safeguard the freedom of the Greeks?
The answer is not as complex as it is intriguing. To strip Demosthenes of his hard earned credentials and to denounce his life-long struggle for liberty of Hellas as a "passing episode" is as unjust as it is cruel, but to usurp and betray the judgment of the 3rd century Athenian Greeks who shared his pain and anguish, is practically incomprehensible. Surely, one would agree that Demosthenes national struggle against Macedon, which culminated with the battle of Chaeronea, cannot be erased from the pages of history, nor can it be viewed as a minor ´delay´, a pit stop, on the way to World Empire as it has been suggested by some scholars.
Such a cursory treatment of the battle and the events leading to it will preclude the reader to witness, and enjoy Demosthenes´ heroic and monumental fight against Philip, and will do no justice to those who laid their lives on the plains of Boaotia, save guarding the holly soil of Hellas.
If one can envision Demosthenes defending against these charges, one would certainly not see a more splendid oratory defense than that of "On the Crown". Western Christian intellectuals in general, and Johan Gustaf Droysen, who found analogous social and political development between Greek city-states and the German states under the strong leadership of Prussia, in particular, could not allow Philip from Macedon to have purely Macedonian interests in heart. He was destined to "unite" the Greek city-states, and was held largely responsible for the Athenian demise, even though, he handled her with particularly soft hands and respect. With his influence on subsequent scholarship Droysen lent credence to an idea whose time and credentials have been severely depleted.
Thus the verdict on Demosthenes need not come from 20th century historians. It was explicitly sealed and delivered by the 3rd century Greeks who knew their native son much more intimately than the modern historiographers of today whose key boards sway under the political winds of the time. Demosthenes statue succinctly sums it all up:
Only if Demosthenes´ strength was equal to his wisdom, Greece would have not been enslaved by Philip and his Macedonians.
To be continued…
Until next time…
Print
Email
