Demosthenes and Philip the ´barbarian Part III
Gandeto
January 31, 2009
Much has been said about the reference ´barbarian´ that Greeks in general, and our hero Demosthenes in particular, have used it to describe the ancient Macedonians. Whether one is convinced, from the passages presented as evidence that Greeks referred to all foreign people as "barbarians", and especially those whose language was different than Greek, or not, is of no great concern at the moment. What we intend to present here, is Demosthenes´ view of the ancient Macedonians, and through him, or through his implied language and references to discern the actual Greek sentiment regarding their northern neighbor, the Macedonians.
Demosthenes´ tirades against Philip are fairly simple and straightforward, but the interpretation of them, however, is not. Some scholars, as we have seen before, tend to ignore the whole thing as an unimportant event with no historical value. Others suggest that the political discourse between rival personalities tend to be exaggerated and misconstrued as truth. And then, there are some who believe that the episodes can be taken as fair representation of the Athenian attitude towards the Macedonians, and this ´sentiment´ expressed, is a historical fact in itself. (Badian "Greeks and Macedonians") He states that in the second long tirade in the Third Philippic (9 .30.f) that I have copied it verbatim below, Demosthenes is simply using "abuse" when referring to Philip´s foreign origin. This particular sentence "this, of course, is simple abuse", is taken to mean that everything that Demosthenes said about Philip and his Macedonians was just a normal angry outburst of an upset man. Thus when the reference ´barbarian´ is used to describe Philip, or the Macedonians for that matter, this too, was taken to mean simple abuse. This is, at least, what I have obtained from the Greek surfers of the news groups on the net.
If I understand Badian´s position correctly, even if this was simple abuse, it should be taken as a sentiment expressed with significant historical merit. Having said that, let me expressed my personal views on this particular knot.
To Demosthenes Philip was the single most important objective; bringing him down was his ultimate task. He knew Philip´s character and Philip´s habits. He was also acutely aware of Philip´s physical deformities, and there lies the "rabbit", to use an old Macedonian phrase. Why did Demosthenes, we ask, not use any of the available insults to abuse him? Surely, one would agree, that he had, at his disposal, an excellent selection of choice words to choose from. Macedonians were regarded as semi-savages, uncouth of speech and dialect, uncivilized, retrograde in their political institutions, habitual oath-breakers, who dressed in bear-pelts, heavy drinkers and renowned regicides. He did not call Philip crippled, or an invalid, nor did he call him blind and ugly. He could have unleashed at Philip such a volley of insults that would have made a low-life city-sleeker blush. But he did not. He chose instead one particular area that he knew would have the greatest impact on Philip – his foreign descent and his barbarian, unlike-Hellenic roots. This was a calculated move to separate Philip from the rest of the Greeks, who in this case did not object the reference ´barbarian´, and by contrast, Demosthenes wanted to implicate and incite the audience with the national feeling of consanguinity theme to its maximum. He knew that Philip, at least for this point, will have no defense and he can pour it on indefinitely, lusting at the pleasure that brewed like volcano inside him.
In the Third Philippic 9.30, we find Demosthenes at his best, firing from all cylinders at Philip´s foreign origin; not only the "Hellenic" origin of the Macedonians is denied, but that of the Macedonian royal house is wiped off clean from the Hellenic slate. In other words, Demosthenes, freed from the pretentious politeness that all Greeks had to endure, ´let him have it´, for there was no need to assuage the Macedonian beasts any more. Philip´s plans and his latest actions in the north Aegean convincingly demonstrated that his military might would no longer leg behind his desires. And, if the Greeks to the south are not going along peacefully, they might, just might be persuaded militarily. The time when the Macedonian kings would have been quite happy to receive a few Hellenic crumbs thrown at them, as a sign of Hellenic acceptance, for all practical purposes was over. Philip couldn´t care less, and Demosthenes knew it.
"Ay, and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Greeks suffered from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Greece, 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.
9.31] But if slave or superstitious bastard had wasted and squandered what he had no right to, heavens! How much more monstrous and exasperating all would have called it! Yet they have no such qualms about Philip and his present conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honor, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave."
Here, there is nothing to suggest that the audience did not accept Demosthenes´ charges as facts. Clearly, had these charges been deemed incorrect, that would have been a ground for a serious attack on Demosthenes by his opponents. That did not happen. The silence, in this case, is a tacit approval by the audience who never actually took the Argead myth as a proof of the Macedonian kings´ Hellenic descent anyway. "They were regarded as clearly barbarian", writes Badian (ibid:42). Now, this revelation by Demosthenes, and the subsequent approval, or at least, lack of reprisals from his opponents, stands in sharp conflict with previous assertions by some other authors that Alexander I, after proudly proclaiming his Hellenic descent at the Olympic games a century ago, was a highly celebrated figure throughout Greece, and in the words of the author "the impression of his Olympic victory, and his Temenid descent was kept worm in the memory of the Greeks."
This signifies either a short memory displayed by the Greeks, not to remember the Temenid-Hellenic descent of the Macedonian kings, or quite possibly the ephemeral importance of the claim. The charges leveled at Philip are not directed against his ´barbarism´ as Daskalakis claims (The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians), but at Philip´s barbarian origin, meaning, no more and no less, his non-Hellenic racial descent. Demosthenes did not attack Philip´s ´cultural backwardness´ either, but Philip´s barbarian roots.
In retrospect, looking at Philip´s life based on anecdotes that have been reported by ancient biographers, we are hard press to find any "barbaric acts "committed by Philip. After the battle of Chaeronea he could have pursued the defeated Greeks and slaughter them, as was his Macedonian habit. He wisely abstained from any unnecessary action –´he would rather be remembered as a good man for a long time, than as a tough men for a short´. Thus, quite the opposite, we find him to be a person of highly refined mental acumen, gifted orator and an excellent motivator with cunning military skills.
Philip was as strong as he was socially amiable. His military genius, coupled with his personal velour and bravery puts him, as Theopompus said, as one of the top man in Europe. Aeschines gloated with pride at the fact that Philip mentioned his name while responding to their speeches at Pela. Aeschines, and Demosthenes were members in the embassy sent to Macedon to arrange a peace treaty with Philip, known as ´The peace of Philocrates´ in 346 B.C. (Hdt. 5.22; Justin 7. 22). This, as seen from this focal point, does not indicate contempt for a ´culturally backward barbarian´. Consequently, Demosthenes reference to Philip as a "barbarian" aims not at his culture, but at his foreign racial origin. By the same implication, the argument compels us to reject the claims that Demosthenes used lies and exaggerations in his ´rabid political diatribes´. None is detected here. Philip´s political skills and behavior is not the target of Demosthenes´ piercing epithets.
9.32] "Yet what is wanting to crown his insolence? Not content with the destruction of cities, is he not organizing the Pythian games, the common festival of the Greeks, and if he cannot be present in person, sending his menials to act as stewards? Is he not master of Thermopylae and the passes into Greece, holding those places with his
garrisons and his mercenaries? Has he not the right of precedence at the Oracle, ousting us and the Thessalians and the Dorians and the rest of the Amphictyons from a privilege, which not even all-Greek states can claim?"
Needless to say, Demosthenes quite correctly, and I may add, to the detriment of the Greeks´ assertion that Macedonia was a part of Greece, here Demosthenes excludes Macedonia from Greece, exactly, by being in control of those passes leading into Greece.
Twentieth century politics find Demosthenes´ corpus not an asset but a liability; it contains passages that flow contrary to the course taken by modern historiographers, and greatly impedes their political aims. There is not much room left for maneuvering to be done, the content of his speeches and the clarity of purpose drastically reduce the scope of its interpretations. Thus, it is not surprising to find Demosthenes´ work dismissed by some as insignificant and unimportant for historical purposes. But, would this modern conviction do justice for the Greek contemporaries who shared in Demosthenes´ experiences? Common men and kings alike paid the man his dues.
"But when he had taken as a noble basis for his political activity the defense of the Greeks against Philip, and was contending worthily here, he quickly won a reputation and was lifted into a conspicuous place by the boldness of his speeches, so that he was admired in Greece, and treated with deference by the Great King; Philip, too, made more account of him than of any other popular leader in Athens, and it was admitted even by those who hated him that they had to contend with a man of mark"(Plut. Demosth.12. 3-4.
We may engage ourselves in endless debates concerning Demosthenes´ work and contribution to the Greek cause for liberty and freedom, and come away with drastically diverging conclusions, but to the ancients his life-long devotion to his motherland was promptly recognized and appreciated. His beginnings may have not been of stellar proportions, but his finish certainly was. Consequently, dismissing a man whom his peers place him among the best in Greece, is certainly, an inadmissible act. His cotemporaries rank Demosthenes with the best in Greece. He was placed in a company of the immortals: Pericles, Thucydides and Cimon. Polyeuctus the Sphettian, one of the political leaders of that time in Athens, declared that Demosthenes was the greatest orator, but Phocion the most influential speaker, since he expressed most sense in fewest words.
Once again, the statue erected by the Athenians to honor their fallen hero is telling, and the inscription equally fitting his life-long struggle against Philip from Macedon.
"If you had had strength (rome) equal to your intelligence (gnome), Demosthenes, the Macedonian Ares would never have ruled over the Greeks."
Reference:
Judith Mossman, Is the Pen Mightier than the Sword? The Failure of Plutarch´s Demosthenes HISTOS vol 3 (1999).
Until next time…
Demosthenes´ tirades against Philip are fairly simple and straightforward, but the interpretation of them, however, is not. Some scholars, as we have seen before, tend to ignore the whole thing as an unimportant event with no historical value. Others suggest that the political discourse between rival personalities tend to be exaggerated and misconstrued as truth. And then, there are some who believe that the episodes can be taken as fair representation of the Athenian attitude towards the Macedonians, and this ´sentiment´ expressed, is a historical fact in itself. (Badian "Greeks and Macedonians") He states that in the second long tirade in the Third Philippic (9 .30.f) that I have copied it verbatim below, Demosthenes is simply using "abuse" when referring to Philip´s foreign origin. This particular sentence "this, of course, is simple abuse", is taken to mean that everything that Demosthenes said about Philip and his Macedonians was just a normal angry outburst of an upset man. Thus when the reference ´barbarian´ is used to describe Philip, or the Macedonians for that matter, this too, was taken to mean simple abuse. This is, at least, what I have obtained from the Greek surfers of the news groups on the net.
If I understand Badian´s position correctly, even if this was simple abuse, it should be taken as a sentiment expressed with significant historical merit. Having said that, let me expressed my personal views on this particular knot.
To Demosthenes Philip was the single most important objective; bringing him down was his ultimate task. He knew Philip´s character and Philip´s habits. He was also acutely aware of Philip´s physical deformities, and there lies the "rabbit", to use an old Macedonian phrase. Why did Demosthenes, we ask, not use any of the available insults to abuse him? Surely, one would agree, that he had, at his disposal, an excellent selection of choice words to choose from. Macedonians were regarded as semi-savages, uncouth of speech and dialect, uncivilized, retrograde in their political institutions, habitual oath-breakers, who dressed in bear-pelts, heavy drinkers and renowned regicides. He did not call Philip crippled, or an invalid, nor did he call him blind and ugly. He could have unleashed at Philip such a volley of insults that would have made a low-life city-sleeker blush. But he did not. He chose instead one particular area that he knew would have the greatest impact on Philip – his foreign descent and his barbarian, unlike-Hellenic roots. This was a calculated move to separate Philip from the rest of the Greeks, who in this case did not object the reference ´barbarian´, and by contrast, Demosthenes wanted to implicate and incite the audience with the national feeling of consanguinity theme to its maximum. He knew that Philip, at least for this point, will have no defense and he can pour it on indefinitely, lusting at the pleasure that brewed like volcano inside him.
In the Third Philippic 9.30, we find Demosthenes at his best, firing from all cylinders at Philip´s foreign origin; not only the "Hellenic" origin of the Macedonians is denied, but that of the Macedonian royal house is wiped off clean from the Hellenic slate. In other words, Demosthenes, freed from the pretentious politeness that all Greeks had to endure, ´let him have it´, for there was no need to assuage the Macedonian beasts any more. Philip´s plans and his latest actions in the north Aegean convincingly demonstrated that his military might would no longer leg behind his desires. And, if the Greeks to the south are not going along peacefully, they might, just might be persuaded militarily. The time when the Macedonian kings would have been quite happy to receive a few Hellenic crumbs thrown at them, as a sign of Hellenic acceptance, for all practical purposes was over. Philip couldn´t care less, and Demosthenes knew it.
"Ay, and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Greeks suffered from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Greece, 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.
9.31] But if slave or superstitious bastard had wasted and squandered what he had no right to, heavens! How much more monstrous and exasperating all would have called it! Yet they have no such qualms about Philip and his present conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honor, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave."
Here, there is nothing to suggest that the audience did not accept Demosthenes´ charges as facts. Clearly, had these charges been deemed incorrect, that would have been a ground for a serious attack on Demosthenes by his opponents. That did not happen. The silence, in this case, is a tacit approval by the audience who never actually took the Argead myth as a proof of the Macedonian kings´ Hellenic descent anyway. "They were regarded as clearly barbarian", writes Badian (ibid:42). Now, this revelation by Demosthenes, and the subsequent approval, or at least, lack of reprisals from his opponents, stands in sharp conflict with previous assertions by some other authors that Alexander I, after proudly proclaiming his Hellenic descent at the Olympic games a century ago, was a highly celebrated figure throughout Greece, and in the words of the author "the impression of his Olympic victory, and his Temenid descent was kept worm in the memory of the Greeks."
This signifies either a short memory displayed by the Greeks, not to remember the Temenid-Hellenic descent of the Macedonian kings, or quite possibly the ephemeral importance of the claim. The charges leveled at Philip are not directed against his ´barbarism´ as Daskalakis claims (The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians), but at Philip´s barbarian origin, meaning, no more and no less, his non-Hellenic racial descent. Demosthenes did not attack Philip´s ´cultural backwardness´ either, but Philip´s barbarian roots.
In retrospect, looking at Philip´s life based on anecdotes that have been reported by ancient biographers, we are hard press to find any "barbaric acts "committed by Philip. After the battle of Chaeronea he could have pursued the defeated Greeks and slaughter them, as was his Macedonian habit. He wisely abstained from any unnecessary action –´he would rather be remembered as a good man for a long time, than as a tough men for a short´. Thus, quite the opposite, we find him to be a person of highly refined mental acumen, gifted orator and an excellent motivator with cunning military skills.
Philip was as strong as he was socially amiable. His military genius, coupled with his personal velour and bravery puts him, as Theopompus said, as one of the top man in Europe. Aeschines gloated with pride at the fact that Philip mentioned his name while responding to their speeches at Pela. Aeschines, and Demosthenes were members in the embassy sent to Macedon to arrange a peace treaty with Philip, known as ´The peace of Philocrates´ in 346 B.C. (Hdt. 5.22; Justin 7. 22). This, as seen from this focal point, does not indicate contempt for a ´culturally backward barbarian´. Consequently, Demosthenes reference to Philip as a "barbarian" aims not at his culture, but at his foreign racial origin. By the same implication, the argument compels us to reject the claims that Demosthenes used lies and exaggerations in his ´rabid political diatribes´. None is detected here. Philip´s political skills and behavior is not the target of Demosthenes´ piercing epithets.
9.32] "Yet what is wanting to crown his insolence? Not content with the destruction of cities, is he not organizing the Pythian games, the common festival of the Greeks, and if he cannot be present in person, sending his menials to act as stewards? Is he not master of Thermopylae and the passes into Greece, holding those places with his
garrisons and his mercenaries? Has he not the right of precedence at the Oracle, ousting us and the Thessalians and the Dorians and the rest of the Amphictyons from a privilege, which not even all-Greek states can claim?"
Needless to say, Demosthenes quite correctly, and I may add, to the detriment of the Greeks´ assertion that Macedonia was a part of Greece, here Demosthenes excludes Macedonia from Greece, exactly, by being in control of those passes leading into Greece.
Twentieth century politics find Demosthenes´ corpus not an asset but a liability; it contains passages that flow contrary to the course taken by modern historiographers, and greatly impedes their political aims. There is not much room left for maneuvering to be done, the content of his speeches and the clarity of purpose drastically reduce the scope of its interpretations. Thus, it is not surprising to find Demosthenes´ work dismissed by some as insignificant and unimportant for historical purposes. But, would this modern conviction do justice for the Greek contemporaries who shared in Demosthenes´ experiences? Common men and kings alike paid the man his dues.
"But when he had taken as a noble basis for his political activity the defense of the Greeks against Philip, and was contending worthily here, he quickly won a reputation and was lifted into a conspicuous place by the boldness of his speeches, so that he was admired in Greece, and treated with deference by the Great King; Philip, too, made more account of him than of any other popular leader in Athens, and it was admitted even by those who hated him that they had to contend with a man of mark"(Plut. Demosth.12. 3-4.
We may engage ourselves in endless debates concerning Demosthenes´ work and contribution to the Greek cause for liberty and freedom, and come away with drastically diverging conclusions, but to the ancients his life-long devotion to his motherland was promptly recognized and appreciated. His beginnings may have not been of stellar proportions, but his finish certainly was. Consequently, dismissing a man whom his peers place him among the best in Greece, is certainly, an inadmissible act. His cotemporaries rank Demosthenes with the best in Greece. He was placed in a company of the immortals: Pericles, Thucydides and Cimon. Polyeuctus the Sphettian, one of the political leaders of that time in Athens, declared that Demosthenes was the greatest orator, but Phocion the most influential speaker, since he expressed most sense in fewest words.
Once again, the statue erected by the Athenians to honor their fallen hero is telling, and the inscription equally fitting his life-long struggle against Philip from Macedon.
"If you had had strength (rome) equal to your intelligence (gnome), Demosthenes, the Macedonian Ares would never have ruled over the Greeks."
Reference:
Judith Mossman, Is the Pen Mightier than the Sword? The Failure of Plutarch´s Demosthenes HISTOS vol 3 (1999).
Until next time…
Print
Email
