Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:18:33.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Support of Athenian intellectuals for Philip: a study of Isocrates' Philippus and Speusippus' Letter to Philip

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Minor M. Markle III
Minor M. Markle III
Affiliation:
Charlottesville, Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the year 346 Isocrates wrote his discourse the Philippus (v) which he sent to Philip II of Macedon urging him to lead the Hellenic cities in an invasion of Persia. This ninety-year-old teacher of rhetoric did not invent the so-called Panhellenic idea; it was first proposed by Gorgias in 392 and again celebrated by Lysias in 384. When Isocrates took up the notion in his Panegyricus (iv) of 380 and urged Athens and Sparta to assume joint leadership in a war against Persia, he repeatedly defends himself for speaking on a well-worn theme by the claim that he will do so in a superior fashion (iv 3–4, 7–10, 15). Ignored by the Athenians and Spartans, Isocrates seems to have felt that his proposal would find better reception among strong individual leaders, and he appealed probably to Jason of Pherae in the late 370s (see v 119; cf. Xen. Hell. vi 1.12; Isocr. Ep. vi 1), to Dionysius I of Syracuse in about 368 (Ep. i, esp, 7–8), and certainly to Archidamus of Sparta in about 356 (Ep. ix, esp. 17–9). The discourse to Philip, however, was surely of much greater political importance than Isocrates' previous appeals because it was addressed to an individual who was actually acquiring the strength to wage war against Persia. The Athenian rhetorician, inspired by the Peace of Philocrates, claims that he hopes to persuade both his fellow citizens and Philip that reconciliation of the Hellenic cities and an expedition against the Persians under the leadership of the Macedonian king would be to their mutual advantage (v 7–9). In this article, I shall argue, first, that certain opinions, proposals, and arguments contained in the Philippus show that the author was prevented by the requirements of good propaganda from making a fully candid and practical plan of action, but, instead, advocated a programme that would please the greatest possible number of Greeks.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 96 , November 1976 , pp. 80 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I wish to express my gratitude to Mr G. E. M. de Ste. Croix and Dr J. K. Davies for their painstaking criticism of earlier drafts of this article and Mr C. M. Reed for many helpful suggestions. They must not, however, be taken to agree with all the views which I have argued herein.

1 For the precise date of the Philippus, see Mathieu, G., Les Idées Politiques ď Isocrates (Paris, 1925) 155–6Google Scholar. For a complete bibliography on the Philippus and related writings, see Dobesch, G., Untersuchungen zum Korinthischen Bund i, ‘Der Panhellenische Gedanke im 4 Jh. v. Chr. und der ‘Philippos’ des Isokrates’ (Österr. Arch. Inst., 1968) 242–7Google Scholar; Gillis, D., PP xxiv (1969) 321–48Google Scholar, Philologus cxiv (1970) 195–210 and WS n.f. v (1971) 52–73; Fuks, A., Ancient Society iii (1972) 17–44Google Scholar.

2 Since the definitive study of Bickermann, E. and Sykutris, J. in Berichte über d. Verh. d. Sächs. Akad. d. Wissensch. (Leipzig) lxxx 3 (1928) 1–86Google Scholar, Epist. Socr. xxx rightly has been accepted by all scholars as a genuine letter of Speusippus, nephew of Plato and second head of the Academy, to Philip II, king of Macedonia.

3 Ps.-Dem. vii 24–6; Dem. v 25; schol, on Ps.-Dem. vii 18, p. 81, 4; 23, p. 82, 22 and on Dem. xix 161, p. 391, 27 Df.

4 Dobesch (op. cit. [above n. 1] 61–6) does take the arguments seriously, but his astute observations actually support my case that Isocrates intended his remarks on Amphipolis only as a bid for the goodwill of the Athenians. He finds in Isocrates' statements about Amphipolis (63) ‘a passive indifference, even a certain defeatism’ which ‘must have had a favourable effect on Philip, since [they] strengthened in Athens the disinclination for further exertions of force and the mood of resignation’. Perlman, S. (Historia vi [1957] 308–9Google Scholar) also considers Isocrates' proposals about Amphipolis as serious policy in indicating ‘the way to an alliance with Athens’.

5 v 6, 32–7, 68, 79–80, 86, 95, 116, 120–3, 127, 140; Ep. ii 18, 21. See de Romilly, J., ‘Eunoia in Isocrates…’ JHS lxxviii (1958) 92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 v 39–57, esp. 39–41, 57–67; see also 10, 12–3, 17, 24.

7 Philip's support for the Peloponnesian enemies of Sparta is denied by Isocrates (v 73–5), but confirmed as early as 347 by the failure of the decree of Eubulus; see Dem. xix 10–1, 303–6, 310; Aesch. ii 79, 164; Markle, M., CQ. n.s. xxiv (1974) 253–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on 257, n. 1.

8 Meyer, Eduard, ‘Isokrates' zweiter Brief an Philipp und Demosthenes' 2. Philippika,’ Sitzgber. d. königl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. xxxi (1909) 758–79Google Scholar, who writes ‘As Isocrates above all distinguishes himself whenever he speaks of current political questions by his clear perception and understanding judgment…’ (763). Meyer sees the embassy of Python and its offers to the Athenians that they might propose an amendment to the peace as motivated by Isocrates' letter to Philip of 344. Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii 21, 522–5Google Scholar, conceives of Isocrates as strongly influencing Philip and Greek public opinion. For a summary of these and other views favourable towards Isocrates early in this century, see Adams, C., CP vii (1912) 343–50Google Scholar. More recent favourable views are those of: Mikkola, Eino, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., ser. B. lxxxix (1955), esp. 235–43Google Scholar. The picture which he draws of the Persian threat is taken completely from Isocrates without the investigation of any independent sources! S. Perlman, op. cit. (above n. 4) esp. 311–2, who argues that in the Philippus Isocrates envisaged Athens as sharing in Philip's war against Persia as a naval partner, is rightly refuted by Bringmann, K., Hypomnemala xiv (1965) 99Google Scholar. But both Bringman (96–102) and Perlman (306–17) agree in interpreting the Philippus as a serious, straightforward political proposal. Finally, there is the thorough work of Dobesch, op. cit. (above n. 1) esp. 52–3, 69–71, 117–23, 124–6, 182–4, 187. On 117–23, Dobesch actually examines the question which I consider in this article whether it would be realistic for Philip to follow Isocrates' advice to trust to persuasion in dealing with the Greeks, but he hedges in his answer by trying to have it both ways. He stresses that Isocrates' proposal is practical but when he recommends the use of persuasion to Philip he is proposing an ideal which in fact cannot be achieved.

9 Cloché, P., Isocrate et son Temps (Paris, 1963) 117–27Google Scholar, shows most forcefully how Philip ignored Isocrates' advice after the publication of the Philippus, and how the Macedonian king's contrary behaviour was allowed to pass without comment in the rhetorician's letter of 344 (Ep. ii).

10 See above n. 7.

11 Isocr. v 74–5; see also Dem. v 18; vi 9, 13–15, 19–27; xviii 18–19, 64, 295; xix 10–11, 260–2, 303–6, 310; Paus, iv 28. 2; v 20. 9–10; vii 30. 6.

12 See Markle, op. cit. (above n. 7) 253–68.

13 Baynes, N. H., Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955) 144–67, on 156Google Scholar.

14 For Hegesippus' opposition to the peace and alliance, see schol. on Dem. xix 72, p. 364, 1; for Aristophon's, Theopompus, , FGrH 115Google Scholar, F 166; cf. Dem. xix 89.

15 The date of Ep. ii was definitely established as 344 by the discovery of the papyrus containing the fragment of Didymus' Commentary on Demosthenes' Orations; see Meyer, op. cit. (above n. 8) 758 ff. and Mathieu, op. cit. (above n. 1) 164–5.

16 Diod. xvi 69. 7; cf. 93. 6; Trogus, , prol. 8Google Scholar; Dem. xviii 42–4, 67; Isoer. Ep. ii 2, 11–2; Didym., In Demosth. col. xii 63–6Google Scholar; Theopompus, FGrH 115Google Scholar, F 182; Just, viii 6. 3–4.

17 Ps.-Dem. vii 32; Dem. viii 59; ix 12; xix 260; Diod. xvi 69.8.

18 Dem. xix 36 with schol. p. 352, 17; 39, 159, 163, 174, 334; Strabo ix 5.8.

19 Westlake, H. D., Thessaly in the Fourth Century B.C. (London, 1935) 190–2Google Scholar.

20 Sordi, M., La Lega Tessala fino ad Alessandro Magno (Rome, 1958) 275–93Google Scholar, esp. 275–81, inclines to the view that the text of Demosthenes was corrupted in antiquity by the substitution of δεκαδαρχία for τετραρχία. Cf. Westlake, op. cit. (above n. 19) 196–9.

21 The authenticity of Ep. iii was first questioned by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, (Aristoteles und Athen [Berlin, 1893] ii, 395–7Google Scholar; Hermes xxxiii [1899] 494–5) on insufficient grounds. The argument in favour of its authenticity by Mathieu (op. cit. [above n. 1] 172–3) is decisive.

22 Isocr. xv 4–7, 153–4; Ep. ii 22; xii 5, 11.

23 Dem. x The Fourth Philippic, the authenticity of which has been questioned, has been generally accepted as genuine since the discovery of Didymus' Commentary on Demosthenes; see Körte, A., RhM lx (1905) 388–416Google Scholar; Adams, C. D.CPh xxxiii (1938) 129–44Google Scholar; Daitz, S. G., CPh lii (1957) 145–62Google Scholar.

24 Jacoby, (FGrH IIIb [suppl.] i 88–93Google Scholar) argues that Androtion ‘was not pro-Macedonian, he was antiPersian’, but his view is unacceptable. No practical politician would have advocated that Athens lead a war against Persia in 344 when she had lost not only the Social War of the 350s but also the war against Philip in 346, and Androtion was no retiring intellectual but an active politican. The only possible leader for such a war was Philip.

25 For the date of the Persian embassy, see Jacoby, , FGrH IIIb (suppl.) i 532Google Scholar, which I accept in spite of the doubts of Brunt, P. A., CQ n.s. xix (1969) 345–65 on 256Google Scholar.

26 The opinion that Androtion moved the response to Persia depends on Diels' supplement of Didymus, col. 8, line 15, which has been almost universally accepted; for the suggestion of a different restoration, see Cawkwell, G. L., CQ n.s. xiii (1963) 121–38 on 131, n. 1Google Scholar.

27 For a detailed treatment of Ps.-Dem. xii, see Bliquez, L., A Commentary on Pieces XI and XII of the Demosthenic Corpus (Stanford University Ph.D. dissertation, 1968)Google Scholar. Bliquez argues well that the proposal that Anaximenes of Lampsacus is the author of the letter from Philip (Ps.-Dem. xii) ‘must remain only an hypothesis’ (19). He is also correct in accepting the decree described in Ps.Dem. xii 6 as genuine and dated to 344/3 (49–54).

28 Diod. xvi 75.1–2; Ps.-Dem. xi 5–6; Arr. Anab. ii 14.5.

29 The letter of Speusippus to Philip (Ep. Socr. xxx) contains only two indications of a date: the support of Philip's claim to Ambracia in § 7 and the reference to a shortage of papyrus in Athens due to the Persian reconquest of Egypt in § 14. Philip's campaign in Epirus and his march against Ambracia is firmly dated by all the sources to the winter/spring, 343/2 (Ps.-Dem. vii 32; Dem. xlviii 24 ff; that this activity took place in the middle or early in the second half of the archon year 343/2 is indicated by a combination of the schol. on Aesch. iii 83 and the inscription IG ii2 225). It would have been extremely tactless of Speusippus to defend Philip's claim to Ambracia after he had failed in an attempt to capture the city (Dem. ix 72), and therefore Antipater and Speusippus must have defended his claim shortly in advance of his march against the city, or in the autumn or winter, 343. The shortage of papyrus in Athens could then be explained by Artaxerxes' conquest of Egypt in the summer of 343, for which date, see below n. 34.

30 Beloch, 's date for the Second Philippic (Gr. Gesch. iii 22, 289–90Google Scholar) still stands, in spite of the latest treatment of the question by Cawkwell, op. cit. (above n. 26) esp. 123–5. I plan to consider the views of Cawkwell on the chronology of 344/3 in a forthcoming article.

31 None of these events is mentioned by Demosthenes in the Second Philippic; they are all described as of recent occurence or as current in his speech De Falsa Legatione, which is dated to late summer, 343 (Schaefer, , Demosth. ii 2383, n. 1)Google Scholar.

32 Dem. xix 87, 204. 219, 326. 334; ix 33.

33 Cawkwell, G. L., CQ n.s. xiii (1963) 200–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on 200–3, goes too far in dismissing the claims of Demosthenes of Philip's intervention in Peloponnesian affairs, in Megara, and in Euboea as early as the summer of 343. I will, however, respond to his arguments in a forthcoming article on Demosthenes' Second Philippic.

34 Cawkwell, op. cit. (above n. 26) 122–3, dates Artaxerxes' reconquest of Egypt to the archon year 343/2 on the basis of the so-called dream of Nektanebo, but I would agree with Jacoby. FGrH IIIb (suppl.) ii, p. 430, that this evidence is worthless. See above n. 30.

35 The treaty mentioned in Arrian is undated, but this is the only plausible time for it; it must come before Persian hostility towards Macedon in summer, 340 (FGrH 328, F 162; Diod. xvi 75. 1–2; Ps.-Dem. xi 5–6; Arr. ii 14.5), and previous to Artaxerxes' conquest of Phoenicia he was too weak for an alliance to serve any need of Philip.

36 Hyper. iv 29–30; Dem. xix 116–18; cf. 112–13, 114, 119, 145, 206–8; Arist. Rhet. 1380b 8; Aesch. ii 6; iii 79, 81.

37 Python of Byzantium, pupil of Isocrates: Zosimus, , Vit. Isocr. p. 256, 91Google Scholar; schol. on Aesch. ii 125; Olympiod., Comm. in Plat. Gorg. i p. 447cGoogle Scholar. Demosthenes' statement in his speech De Falsa Legatione (xix 181): ‘…then here you pass decrees of a different sort,—that…you will amend the peace’ (beware of C. A. Vince's translation in the Loeb edition) indicates that Python's embassy had come to Athens before late summer 343. Since there is no hint in the Second Philippic, which was delivered in spring 343 (above n. 30), of any offers from Philip that the Athenians might propose amendments to the peace, the embassy of Python ought to be dated to the early summer of 343.

38 Ps.-Dem. vii 21–2; cf. Dem. xviii 136.

39 Ps.-Dem. vii 26–7; schol. on Dem. xix 161, p. 391, 27; Dem. v 25.

40 Ps.-Dem. vii 18, with schol. p. 81, 4.

41 Plato, Ep. v; Carystius, fr. 1 ap. Athen. 506e, fr. 2 ab. Athen. 508d = Müller, , FHG iv p. 357Google Scholar.

42 There is no doubt that Aristotle became tutor in 343/2 during the archonship of Pythodotus (Dionys, . Halic., , Ep. ad Ammae. i 5, p. 728Google Scholar; Apollodorus, , Chron., ap. Diog. Laert. v 10)Google Scholar. See Düring, I., Aristotle in the Biographical Tradition (Göteborg, 1957) 249–58Google Scholar, who argues convincingly that the source for this date is Philochorus. For the date of Speusippus' letter, see above n. 29.

43 For a dicussion of Isocr. Ep. v, see Merlan, P., Historia iii (1954) 60–81Google Scholar.

44 See Hdt. v 17–22, with How & Wells, , Commentary; vii 173Google Scholar, viii 140, ix 44–5.

45 Dein, i 14; Diod. xv 81. 6; Isocr. xv 108; Polyaen. iii 10. 15; date, schol. on Aesch. ii 31; Diod. loc. cit.

46 Dem. v 19; xix 80, 310, 327; xviii 36; Diod. xvi 60.

47 Thuc. i 25–7, 46, 48; ii 80; vii 58.

48 Xen., Hell. v 4. 65–6Google Scholar; vi 2. 3.

49 Aesch. iii 118; Diod. xvi 60.

50 Plut, . Timol. 7 fGoogle Scholar.; Diod. xvi 65 f.

51 Dem. ix 72; schol. on Aesch. iii 83; IG ii2 225; Dem. xlviii 24–6.

52 For an excellent account of Hermias' association with the Academy, see Jaeger, W., Aristotle, transl. Robinson, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1948) 111–21Google Scholar. Also useful is Wormell, D., Yale Classical Studies v (1935) 57–92Google Scholar. Merlan, P., Philologus ciii (1959) 206–10Google Scholar, argues convincingly against Jaeger that there was no break between Aristotle and Speusippus when the former left the Academy in 347.

53 Nepos, , Epam. 6Google Scholar; Plut., Mor. 193c, 810 fGoogle Scholar; cf. Theopompus Comicus, fr. 30 Kock i 740, ap. Athen. xi 485c.

54 Maxim. Planud., Rhet. Graec. v 481 WalzGoogle Scholar; Hyper., Deliakos, fr. 1Google Scholar. 1 in Minor Att. Or. (LCL) ii 564; Contr. Demad. fr. 19. 1 in ibid. 577–8; Dem. xviii 134–6; xix 209; IG ii2 222 and 1636–1652.

55 Arist., Pol. 1286b 20–3, 1296b 25–31, 1302a 9, 1307a 13–20Google Scholar.

56 Momigliano, A., Filippo il Macedone (Florence, 1934) 131Google Scholar.

57 See e.g. Diehl, Anth. Lyr. Gr. 3 fasc. 1, Solon, , fr. 1Google Scholar, esp. 11. 71–3; fr. 5; 14; 24.

58 vii 31–5, 52–3; viii 128; xv 159–60.

59 xv 5, 30–1, 39–41, 146–7, 154–8; xii 7–8.