The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary. with an Appendix on the Thirty-First Socratic Letter Attributed to Plato 3515083960, 9783515083966

Citation preview

Anthony Francis Natoli The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II

HISTORIA Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte Revue d’histoire ancienne

Journal of Ancient History Rivista di storia antica

EINZELSCHRIFTEN Herausgegeben von

Kai Brodersen/Mannheim Mortimer Chambers/Los Angeles Martin Jehne/Dresden Francois Paschoud/Geneve Hildegard Temporini/Tübingen

HEFT 176

Anthony Francis Natoli

The Letter

of Speusippus to Philip II Introduction, Text, Translation

and Commentary

With an Appendix on the Thirty-first Socratic Letter Attributed to Plato

qo

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2004

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliographische Daten sind im Internet tiber

abrufbar. ISBN 3-515-08396-0

(9 ISO 9706

Jede Verwertung des Werkes außerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulássig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Übersetzung, Nachdruck, Mikroverfilmung oder vergleichbare Verfahren sowie für die Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen. Q 2004 by Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart. Gedruckt auf sáurefreiem, alterungsbestándigem Papier. Druck: Printservice Decker & Bokor, München. Printed in Germany

For

Cathy, Jess, Claire and Alex whom I have always endeavoured to put first

ἔστι δὲ φῦλον Ev ἀνθρώποισι ματαιότατον ὅστις αἰσχύνων ἐπιχώρια παπταίνει τὰ πόρσω μεταμώνια

θηρεύων ἀκράντοις ἐλπίσιν Pindar, Pythian 3

CONTENTS Preface REM

9

Abbreviations and Bibliography ............................. eese nennen 1. Editions and translations ......................... eese nennen nnns 2. Secondary Literature ................cccccssssesssccccsessssscsnecsesessescsseaeseceesesaseeaeas

12 12 13

Introduction PR 1. Methodological Considerations ......................................... eeeecseeeeeeee 2. Public versus Private Letter .............220000000220000002000200nanonannsnnnenannnanenen 3. The Argument for Authenticity ................22200404000200000000n0onennnnnnenssnsnenee 4. The Historical Background to Speusippus’ Letter: The Academy and its Competitors for Macedonian Patronage .......... i. Plato and Philip II .......................... eere ii. Plato's associates and Philip II ..................ccsssccccsssrcecsesseecesessrecees a. Euphraeus, Python of Aenus, Delius, Phocion and Leon.. b. Speusippus .........220..22222002200020n0000n000unensnnnsunnnnnnonnensnsnnunsanenanene C. Xenocrates ........οννννοννννννονοννονονοννννενννενονονννεννονοννοννννννννοννονενενοον d. Aristotle ......«νννννοννννονονοννννοονονονοννεννννννοννονενενεονονεννενεννονεννννενεσοον iii. The Academy's Rivals and Philip II ............................................. a. [socrates 00.0... cccssssseeccccceeesssssssessesccesssssssneessceceessnsssanecees b. Theopompus of Chios ...................................... eeeeeeeseeeeeeee c. Anaximenes of Lampsacus ........................ esee d. Callisthenes of Olynthus .............................. essere iv. The timing of Speusippus' Letter ........................................ssssssese 5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter ...............................eeeeeeeeseeeees i. Historical Traditions .................cccceesccccssercccssnsccseseecessssecessnsscessanees a. Heracles ..0.........cscsssseccessssstecccessssncecessssnseeceeeevscsneeeerenans b. The Delphic Amphictyomny...................cccccccsssscccssrecesssnneeseees c. The Depiction of Alexander I .............................................

17 18 20 23

ii.

The Rhetoric of Misrepresentation ............................

eese

a. Isocrates’ use of paradigms ...............................eeeeeeeeeeeee b. The Foundation of Cyrene ......................................... sess c. Three Major Criticisms of Isocrates" Philip ...................... iti. Plato euergetes — the aim of Speusippus' rhetoric ........................

32 32 39 39 42 45 47 50 50 56 59 62 64 66 66 68 73 77

84 84 87 90 94

Text and Translation ......................2200.022020220002000020200n@nnnnnnonunnenansnnennnnnnsnnnenenannene 101

8

Appendix

Contents

I. A Letter of Plato to Philip ....................................... eese ees 161

Appendix II. Five Spurious Letters of Plato.................................................... 175 Appendix III. The Expulsion of Amyntas III .................................................. 178 Index Locorum, ....................222000420200000000000000nennnsnnesnnnnnnsnnnnssnnnsnsnsanensssanersseann 181 General Index ......................

eee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eene nenne thee eeee eee re ee esee ese ee etes east eren ree 193

PREFACE It is now more than seventy years since E. Bickermann and J. Sykutris published their edition of the letter of Speusippus to Philip II of Macedon - Speusipps Brief an Konig Philip. The work that resulted from the collaboration of these two scholars, scrutinized as it was by U. von Wilamowitz-Mollendorff and P. Maas, was of a high order and won immediate acceptance. The primary aim of the work was to authenticate the Letter of Speusippus, and in this respect it continues to enjoy the support of most scholars. From my close reading of the letter, however, I realised that there were a number of areas of interpretation where I disagreed with Bickermann and Sykutris, especially in regard to the form of the letter, its rhetorical structure and its purpose. As to the form of the letter, it was apparent to me that it could not have been a public document and this conclusion alone placed in doubt the methodology adopted by Bickermann in verifying the authenticity of the letter. And then there was the evident unease of both authors in attempting to account for the absence of the defence of Plato promised in section 2, which suggested to me that the argument of the letter had not been fully understood. The fact that it had generally been assumed that Philip held Plato in high regard (as Speusippus implied in his letter) despite evidence to the contrary, encouraged me to look at the letter from the opposite point of view. Having done this, the significance of the thirty-first Socratic letter attributed to Plato became obvious, and the question of that letter’s authenticity presented itself. For these reasons I feel that it is now time to take another look at the Letter of Speusippus and to propose a new model for scholarly appraisal. A new edition also provides the opportunity to take account of those publications that have appeared since 1928 which are either relevant to the letter itself or to the historical material contained in the letter. In the Introduction and appendices I offer a revisionary interpretation of the Letter of Speusippus based on its historical background and on an analysis of its overall rhetorical structure. My reading of the letter turns on events which occurred at the Macedonian court more than twenty years before Speusippus composed his missive to Philip. These events, as I interpret them, account for the tradition that Philip despised Plato because of his meddling in Macedonian affairs, which brought the country to the brink of civil war. The thirty-first Socratic Letter, which I argue is likely to be a genuine work of Plato, provides a vivid insight into Plato's role in Macedonian affairs during the reign of Perdiccas III. It is in terms of this historical background that the rhetorical structure of the letter is best understood. The letter is constructed after the form of a syllogism based on an argument from euergesia, the aim of which was to discover whether Philip was prepared to reopen contact with the Academy, which had lapsed since

10

Preface

the time of Perdiccas III. Complementing this quasi-syllogistic attack against Isocrates and his Philippic discourse, the purpose convince Philip that Isocrates was not worthy of Macedonian ironic that Plato’s nephew and successor, himself so critical

argument is the of which was to patronage. It is of the tricks of

sophists, should be the author of this most rhetorical of works.! In the Commentary my aim has been to elucidate the meaning of Speusippus’ words within their historical and contextual background. While I would agree with Sir Kenneth Dover that ‘Evidence and arguments must be judged on their own merits, without reference to the competence or reputation of those who put them forward', unlike him I have attempted to be fairly comprehensive in recording the opinions of those who have written on the letter, especially where these opinions contradict my own, so that the reader can more easily follow up on

points of interest.? Judgments on the Letter of Speusippus have all been unfavourable. Bickermann felt that the letter reflected poorly on Speusippus due to his cynical decision to associate himself with the views of Antipater of Magnesia. By his attempt to ingratiate himself with Philip and harm a rival Speusippus inflicted grievous injury on his country. ‘It is not hate for Athens’, Bickermann wrote, ‘but indifference to her interests that characterises the letter and makes it indicative of its

time’.? The letter, Sykutris added, reflects the cosmopolitan minded milieu of the Academy

in which

Speusippus

regarded himself as little of an Athenian

as

Xenocrates or Aristotle. Griffith described the letter as ‘a crook writing, whether for money or merely in order to surpass Isocrates in being of use to Philip'.? Less restrained is the judgment of Sealey who referred to it as ‘perhaps the most disagreeable writing in the preserved corpus of ancient Greek literature’.© In referring to the letter as ‘unhappily authentic’ Brunt expresses the unease which one often senses when reference is made to the Letter of Speusippus.! For all the negative judgments that have been cast on the letter it retains an importance quite disproportionate to its brief length. To begin with, it is the only complete work we possess from the pen of Speusippus. In addition, the letter provides a valuable insight into the relations of Greek intellectuals with the Macedonian court and especially the relationship between the Academy and Philip. The information contained in the letter has relevance to numerous issues in ancient Greek history and rhetoric. Future writing on matters such as the expulsion of Amyntas III, the reign of Perdiccas III and his relationship to his ! There is evidence that Speusippus, like his co-Academician Aristotle, had a keen iterest in rhetoric. Speusippus’ work Texv@v ἔλεγχος may have concerned the refutation of arguments. See Commentary $10: Ev ταῖς τέχναις.

? KJ. Dover Aristophanes Clouds, Oxford: O.U.P., 1968 p.viii. * BS p.46. In a memorable phrase, Bickermann described Speusippus as a stepmother to the 'patris'. BS p.47. Compare the similar judgment of Sykutris, who however also praised the effectiveness of Speusippus' style and the rich refinement of his criticism. BS p.81-82. * BS p.82.

5 HM p.515. 6 R. Sealey, Demosthenes and his time, N.Y. ἃ Oxford: O.U.P., 1993 p.167. ? Brunt p.292.

Preface

11

brother and successor Philip II, the historical writing of Theopompus of Chios and the use of the oikeion paradeigma, to mention only a few, will now need to take into account the evidence of Speusippus' letter. The use of invective, in particular of ridicule, familiar to us from the works of the Athenian orators, assumes an importance in the letter which is unique in an extant prose work of the classical period.? The letter also adds to our understanding of the war of words, the propaganda war, that was raging between Athenian politicians and Macedon during the years prior to the Battle of Chaeronea. As a study of propaganda based on historical traditions it is unique for its time, and provided German scholars of the twenties and thirties with a parallel for the racially based propaganda of their own day.’ Importantly also Speusippus’ letter holds up a mirror to Isocrates’ Philip in which we see the latter work reflected with greater clarity. Isocrates impresses us with the independence of his stance in addressing Philip, a stance that bears out his proud boast that in his dealings with private individuals and dynasts alike he spoke as a free man and an Athenian uninfluenced by considera-

tions of wealth and power.!?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere thanks are due to James O'Neil, Harold Tarrant, John Dillon, Michael Flower and Thomas Pill who, despite the pressure of administrative and research commitments and also the often unremarked pressures of everyday life have found the time to read my work and improve it by their considered comments. I would also like to thank the anonymus reader of the Cambridge University Press for comments on an earlier version of the work. As always, the opinions I have expressed and the conclusions I have arrived at remain my own. I owe a special debt of gratitude to the Inter-library Loans section of the University of New South Wales Libraries, in particular to Mary McDonell and to her predecessor Jill Skinner. Without the assistance of these people and their staff it would not have been possible for me to obtain the sometimes obscure material I required to complete the present work. A.F. Natoli The University of Sydney

8 Theopompus' Diatribe against the teachings of Plato may have employed a similar technique. Note particularly the citation of an opponent's words against himself, such as we find in sections 4, 9 and 14 of Speusippus' letter. ? Bickermann wrote of ‘Die Fiktion der urzeitlichen Rassenverwandschaft, die auch heute gegebenfalls als Agitationsmittel auftraucht'. BS p.23; see also Harder p.253 n.21.

10 Antidosis 69-70: φανήσομαι yàp πρὸς αὐτὸν (sc.tóv Νικοκλέα) ἐλευθέρως xai τῆς πόλεως ἀξίως διειλεγμένος, καὶ oU τὸν ἐκείνου πλοῦτον οὐδὲ τὴν δύναμιν θερακενων.

12

ABBREVIATIONS

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works that have a direct bearing on the Letter of Speusippus as well as some common abbreviations are included in the following bibliography. Other works are cited fully in the body of the text.

EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS Allazzis Boehnecke

BS

L. Allazzis, Socratis, Antisthenis et aliorum Socraticorum epistolae. Paris: Cramoisy, 1637 (not seen) K.G. Boehnecke, Demosthenes, Lykurgos, Hypereides und ihr Zeitalter Bd.1. Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1864. (German translation and commentary) E. Bickermann and J. Sykutris, Speusipps Brief an König Philipp.

Text, Übersetzung, Untersuchungen. Berichte über die Verhand-

Frolfkova

lungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Bd. 80 (3), 1928. (German translation and commentaty) [Reviewed in the Supplement critique au Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Budé | (1929), 93-95; F. Geyer, Mitteilungen aus der historishen Literatur 57 (1929) p.143. See also the review by Meyer listed below ] A. Frolíková, 'Speusippov list Filipovi II’, Zprávy Jednoty Klasickych Filologou 21 nos. 1-3, 1979 17-27. (Czech translation and notes)

Hercher Köhler

R. Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci. Paris: Didot, 1871[Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965]. (Latin translation and brief comments) L. Köhler, Die Briefe des Sokrates und der Sokratiker. Philologus, Supplementband 20 (2), 1928. (German translation and commentary)

[Reviewed in the Supplement critique au Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Budé

Isnardi Parente, Speusippo

Mullach

Orelli

1(1929), 91-93; W. Nestle. Philologische

Wo-

chenschrift n.52, 29 Dezember, 1928, cols. 1577-1578; A.E. Taylor, Classical Review 43 (1929) 22-23; L. Castiglioni, Gnomon 1930, 217-219] M. Isnardi Parente, Speusippo. Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento. Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1980. (Italian translation and commentary) F.G.A. Mullach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum III. Paris: Didot, 1881 (Latin translation and brief comments) J.K. Orelli, Socratis et Socraticorum Pythagorae et Pythagoreorum quae feruntur epistolae. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1815.(Com-

ments by earlier writers including Allazzis and Bremi may be

Shrimpton

conveniently found printed by Orelli in his edition] (Latin translation and commentary) G. Shrimpton, Theopompus the historian. Montreal & Kingston:

Abbreviations and Bibliography

13

McGill-Queen's U.P., 1991, pp. 200-203 (English translation) Wickersham & Verbrugghe

Worley

J. Wickersham ἃ G. Verbrugghe, Greek historical documents. The fourth century B.C. Toronto: Hakkert, 1973, pp. 97-101 (English translation) D.R. Worley, ‘The Epistles of Socrates and the Socratics’ in A.J. Malherbe (ed.) The cynic epistles. Missoula, Montana: Scholars

Press, 1977. (English translation)

SECONDARY LITERATURE Badian

Barwick

Bentley

Bergk

E. Badian, 'Greeks and Macedonians', in Macedonia and Greece in late classical and early hellenistic times edited by B. BarrSharrar and E. Borza, Washington: Trustees of the National Gallery of Art, 1982 (Studies in the History of Art : 10), 33-51 K. Barwick, 'Das Problem der isokrateischen Techne', Philologus, 107 nos.1-2 (1963) 43-60 R. Bentley, A dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris: with an answer to the objections of the Honourable Charles Boyle, Esquire. London: printed by J.H. for Henry Mortlock & John Hartley, 1699 T. Bergk, Fünf Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Astronomie, edited by G. Hinrichs. Leipzig: Fues's Verlag (R. Reisland), 1883

Bernays Bertelli, Epistola

J.Bernays, Phokion und seine neueren Beurtheiler. Berlin: Verlag von Wilhelm Hertz, 1881 L. Bertelli, *L'epistola di Speusippo a Filippo: una problema di cronologia', Atti Accad. Scienze e Lettere di Torino. Classe di Lettere 110(1976) 275-300

Bertelli, Lettera

Brunt

Drerup Dümmler

Dusanic

Ellis, Philip

L. Bertelli, 'La lettera di Speusippo a Filippo: il problema dell'autenticità', Atti Accad. Scienze e Lettere di Torino. Classe di Lettere 111 (1977) 75-111 F. Blass, Die atische Beredsamkeit, zweite Abtheilung: Isokrates und Isaios, 2nd. ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1892 P.A. Brunt, ‘Plato's academy and politics’ in Studies in Greek History and Thought, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 pp. 282342 E. Drerup, 'Epikritisches zum Panegyrikus des Isokrates', Philologus 54 (1895) 636—653 F. Dümmler, 'Chronologische Beiträge zu einigen Platonischen Dialogen aus den Reden des Isokrates’, Chron. Beitr. (1890) pp. 3-49. In Kleine Schriften v.1, pp.79—139. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1901 S. Dusanic, 'Plato's Academy and Timotheus' policy, 365—359 B.C.', Chiron 10(1980) 111-144 J.R. Ellis, Philip I] and Macedonian imperialism. London: Thames and Hudson,

FGrH

1976 (1986)

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker: Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1923-1930; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1940-1958

14 FHG Flower Friedrich Frolfkova

Abbreviations and Bibliography

C. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Paris: Didot 1841-1870. Reprinted Frankfurt: Minerva, 1975 M. Flower, Theopompus of Chios: history and rhetoric in the fourth century B.C.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 (1997) G. Friedrich, ‘Zum Panegyrikos des Isokrates’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 142 (1893) 1-24 A. Frolfkovä, ‘Isokratovy vy'zvy panovnfkum (Epist. Socr. XXX,13)'. Listy Filologicke 102 (1979) 82-86

Fuscagni

S. Fuscagni, 'Aspetti della propaganda macedone sotto Filippo II’, Contributi dell’ Istituto di Storia Antica

GHI Gomperz

Gruppe HM HM v.1 Hammond, Philip Harder Harward

1 n. 2 (1972) 71-82

M.N. Tod, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions vol. 2. Oxford: O.U.P., 1948 Th. Gomperz, ‘Die Akademie und ihr vermeintlicher Philomacedonismus'. Wiener Studien 4 (1882) 102-120. O. Gruppe, ‘Herakles III: Ortliche Verbreitung der H.-Kulte und -Sagen, RE Suppl. 3 (1918) cols. 910-1000 N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A history of Macedonia, volume [1 550—336 B.C. Oxford: O.U.P., 1979 N.G.L. Hammond, A history of Macedonia, volume 1. Historical geography and prehistory Oxford: O.U.P., 1972 N.G.L. Hammond, Philip of Macedon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 1994 R. Harder, 'Prismata', Philologus 85 (1930) 250-254 J. Harward, The Platonic epistles, Cambridge: C.U.P., 1932. (reprinted Arno Press Inc., 1976)

Isnardi Parente, Filosofia

M. Isnardi Parente, Filosofia e politica nelle lettere di Platone, Napoli: Guida editon, 1970

Isnardi Parente, Studi

M. Isnardi Parente, Studi sull'Academia Platonica Antica, Firenze:

Isnardi Parente, Epistole

Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1979 M. Isnardi Parente, ‘Due epistole socratiche e la storia dell’ Accademia antica', La Cultura 18 (1980) 274—282

Jost

K. Jost, Das Beispiel und Vorbild der Vorfahren. Diss. Basel. Kallmünz bei Regensburg: Michael Lassleben, 1935

Klek

J. Klek, 'Symbuleutici qui dicitur sermonis historia critica per quattuor saecula continuata', Rhetorische Studien 9(1919) 102-

106 Laistner Lane Fox

Laqueur LSJ

M.L.W. Laistner, /socrates De Pace and Philippus, N.Y. and London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1927 R. Lane Fox, 'Theopompus of Chios and the Greek world', in J. Boardman and C.E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson (eds), Chios: a conference at the Homereion in Chios, 1984, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986 R. Laqueur, 'Theopompos (9)'. In RE V A. 2 (1934), cols. 21762223 Liddell-Scott-Jones,

O.U.P., 1940

Greek-English

Lexicon.

9th

ed.

Oxford:

Abbreviations and Bibliography Mathieu Markle

Merlan, /socrates Merlan, Biographie Meyer Momigliano, Filippo Momigliano, Storia

Morel Münscher Nilsson Norlin

15

G. Mathieu, Les idées politiques d'Isocrate. Paris: Les Belle Lettres, 1925 M.M. Markle,'Support of Athenian intellectuals for Philip: a Study of Isocrates" Philippus and Speusippus’ Letter to Philip’, JHS 96 (1976) 81-99 P. Merlan, 'Isocrates, Aristotle and Alexander the Great’, Historia 3(1954) 60-81 P. Merlan, 'Zur Biographie des Speusippos', Philologus 103 (1959) 198-214 Ernst. Meyer, a review of BS in Deutsche Literaturzeitung N.F. 6 (1929) 1199-1203 A. Momigliano, Filippo il Macedone. Firenze: Felice le Monnier, 1934 "La storia di Eforo e le Elleniche di Teopompo', Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 13(1935) 180—204 W. Morel, ‘Zu Speusippos' Brief an König Philipp’, Philologische Wochenschrift, 8th February, 1930, 191-192 K. Münscher, 'Isokrates'. In RE IX (1916), cols. 2146-2227 M. Nilsson, Cults, myths, oracles, and politics in ancient Greece, N.Y.: Cooper Square, 1972 G. Norlin, /socrates. vols.1-2, London & Cambridge, Massachu-

setts: Heinemann & Harvard U.P., 1928-1929 (LCL) Obens

Ogden

Pasquali Pohlenz

ἮΝ. Obens, Qua aetate Socratis et Socraticorum epistulae quae dicuntur scriptae sint. Diss. Münster, 1912 D. Ogden, Polygamy, prostitutes and death, London: Duckworth, 1999 G. Pasquali, Le lettere di Platone, 2nd ed. Firenze: Sansoni, 1968 M. Pohlenz, 'Philips Schreiben an Athen', Hermes 64 (1929),

41-62 Radermacher RE Ritter Robertson

Schaefer Schering Schmitz-Kahlmann

Smith Sonnabend

L. Radermacher, Artium Scriptores, Wien: Rohrer, 1951 Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll-Mittelhaus, Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1893— C. Ritter, Neue Untersuchungen über Platon, München: O.Beck,1910 N. Robertson, ‘The myth of the First Sacred War’, Classical Quarterly 28(1978) 38-73 A. Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit., 2nd ed. rev., 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1885-1887 O. Schering. Symbola ad Socratis et Socraticorum epistulas explicandas. Diss. Greifswald. Greifswald: Hans Adler, 1917 G. Schmitz-Kahlmann, Das Beispiel der Geschichte im politischen Denken des Isokrates. Philologus Supplementband 31 (4), 1939 L.F. Smith, The genuineness of the ninth and third letters of Isocrates. Lancaster, Pa., 1940 H. Sonnabend, Die Freundschaften der Gelehrten und die zwischenstaatliche Politik im klassischen und hellenistischen Griechenland. Hildesheim; Zürich; N.Y.: Olms-Weidmann, 1996

16

Abbreviations and Bibliography

Stenzel

J. Stenzel, 'Speusippos 2' in RE

Susemihl, Bericht

1669 F. Susemihl, ‘Bericht über Aristotles und die ältesten Akademikerund Peripatetiker fur1880—-1882', Jahresbericht über der Fort-

Bd. Ill, A, 2 (1929), cols.1636-

schritte der Klassischen 30 (1882) pp.1-98

Susemihl, Geschichte Sykutris, Briefe

Sykutris, Überlieferung

Sykutris, Sokratikerbriefe

Taran Tod Too

F. Susemihl, Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, Bd. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1892 J. Sykutris, Die Briefe des Sokrates und der Sokratiker. Paderborn: Verlag Ferdinand Schóningh, 1933

J. Sykutris, ‘Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Sokratikerbriefe', Philologische Wochenschrift no. 41/42, (20. Oktober, 1928) 1284-1295 J. Sykutns, 'Sokratikerbriefe'. In RE Suppl.BdV (1931), cols.981— 987 L. Tarán, Speusippus of Athens. A critical study with a collection of the related texts and commentary. Leiden: E J.Brill, 1981 M.N. Tod, A selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. II: from 403 to 323 B.C. Oxford: O.U.P, 1962 Y.L. Too, The rhetoric of identity in Isocrates: text, power, pedagogy. (Cambridge Classical Studies). Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1995

Usener

S. Usener, /sokrates, Platon und ihr Publikum. Tübingen: Narr, 1994 (ScriptOralia: 63 : A, Altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe Bd 14)

Van Hook

L.R. van Hook, /socrates, vol.3. London & Cambridge, Massachusetts: Heinemann & Harvard U.P., 1945 (LCL)

Vatai Von Scala

Wendland, Anaximenes Westermann

Westlake, Thessaly Wilamowitz, Leben

F.L.Vatai, Intellectuals in politics in the Greek world. From early times to the Hellenistic age. London: Croom Helm, 1984 R. von Scala, 'Isokrates und die Geschichtschreibung', Verhandlungen der 41. Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in München, Leipzig, 1892 102-121 P. Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. 1905 A. Westermann, De epistolarum scriptoribus Graecis commentarius. Pars VII, Leipzig, 1855 H.D. Westlake, Thessaly in the fourth century B.C. London: Methuen, 1935 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Platon. Sein Leben und seine Werke, 5th ed. Bearbeitet und mit einem Nachwort versehen von Bruno Snell. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1959 (Reprint of the 1st vol. of Platon, first pub. 1919)

Wilamowitz, Beilagen

Wórle

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Platon. Beilagen und Textkritik. 3rd ed. Dublin/Zurich: Weidmann, 1969. (Reprint of the 2nd vol. of Platon, first published 1919) A. Worle, Die politische Tätigkeit der Schüler Platons. Darmstadt: Kümmerle Verlag, 1981

INTRODUCTION Since the publication in 1928 of Speusipps Brief an Kónig Philip (henceforth referred to as BS) the findings and interpretations of Bickermann and Sykutris have been accepted with few reservations, and then only on points of detail.!! Their principal finding was to confirm the genuineness of the letter. From his detailed analysis of its vocabulary and style, Sykutns proved that the letter was fully consistent with a fourth century BCE date of composition and on the basis of historical references Bickermann arrived at a date of winter 343/2. The precision of Bickermann’s dating has been questioned, and rightly so in my opinion, but it is generally agreed that the letter belongs roughly to the years 343 or 342.!2 However, despite the general agreement today, it should be acknowledged that there are scholars who question the conclusions of Bickermann and Sykutris. For example Tarán, whose book on Speusippus is indispensable for the study of that philosopher, denies the authenticity of all the Socratic Letters, although he has yet to publish his arguments, and Badian writes of BS that '...most of the learned editors' arguments were irrelevant', thereby raising methodological issues on

which he does not elaborate.!? Indeed, the only scholar who has been prepared publicly to challenge the conclusions in BS has been Bertelli, and he limited himself to criticising Bickermann's argument while declining to evaluate the linguistic and stylistic analysis of Sykutris.!^ For this reason it will be useful to comment on the methodological difficulties involved in authenticating the Letter of Speusippus before tackling the question of its genuineness.

!! See, for example, Stenzel col. 1668; Pohlenz p.55; Momigliano Filippo p.132 n.2; F. Wüst, Philipp II. von Makedonien und Griechenland München: Beck, 1938 p.87 n.3; Pasquali p.226; Merlan, Biographie. pp. 206-207; Markle p.81 n.2; Isnardi Parente, Speusippo p.402;

Griffith HM

p.504 n.2; Brunt p.292 n.29; Flower p.52 n.37. An extreme instance of this

acceptance is the attribution to Speusippus of the seventh Platonic epistle based on stylometric computer analysis of the two letters. See A. Morton et al., It's Greek to the computer, Montreal: Harvest House, 1971, pp. 83-89. E. Meyer [col. 1200] in his review of BS noted that '...man kann sagen daB in den letzten 50 Jahren fast alle erfahrenen Beurteiler den Brief entweder für echt erklürten oder doch mindestens einen sehr engen AnschluB an ein echtes Original annahmen'. In her edition of the Socratic Letters Kóhler argued that the letter was a forgery. However the appearance of BS in the same year completely overwhelmed her case. The judgments of scholars prior to 1928 are summarised in BS pp. 83-86 and Klek p.104 n.1. 1? Pohlenz [p.55 n.1] argued for a date in the first half of the year 343. The main criticism of Bickermann's dating has come from Bertelli, whose work I discuss below.

15 See Taran p.8 n.30; Badian p.47 n.32. 4 See Epistola p.277.

18

Introduction

1. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Perhaps the most severe methodological constraint one encounters in attempting to authenticate the Letter of Speusippus is the fact that virtually nothing has survived from Speusippus’ entire literary output with which a comparison might be made. Consequently, we are not in a position to compare typical elements of Speusippus' language and style with those of the letter. Nor are the ideas contained in the letter of a primary philosophical nature that would provide points of contact with what we know of Speusippus' philosophy. The implied criticism of Isocrates and Theopompus as ‘sophists’, that we find in sections nine and eleven of the letter, is what we would expect from the successor of Plato, but as an idea that may be said to be typical of him it does not take us far. A standard comparison of language, style and ideas (such as I have used in Appendix I to argue a case for the genuineness of a letter of Plato) cannot, therefore, be applied to the Letter of Speusippus. The most that one can hope to show is that the language of the letter, the arguments it employs and the historical allusions it contains are totally consistent with a fourth century date and that the quality of its composition is worthy of a prominent intellectual such as Speusippus. This brings us to the epistolary form of the work, which itself raises methodological difficulties. Ever since 1699, when Richard Bentley successfully refuted the authenticity of a number of collections of ancient letters, the presumption has been that all such letters must be treated as forgeries.!? It is certainly true that it was common practice in antiquity to compose letters under the names of famous people from the past. The profit motive lay behind some of these forgeries but others simply had the didactic purpose of conveying philosophical teachings or were exercises produced within the schools of rhetoric. Still others were written to tell a story through letters and so may be thought of as literary fiction. The period from the first century BCE to the second century CE saw the heyday of such imaginative epistolary writing, which continued to be popular into the

Byzantine period.'® The fact that our letter has been transmitted together with the so-called Socratic Letters, a collection for the most part of obvious forgeries dating from the first century CE and later, is a mixed blessing. For while its close proximity to such spurious literature has tended to condemn it by association, the Letter of Speusippus has always stood out from its surroundings by virtue of its

language, style and content.!’ The fact that the Letter of Speusippus is not referred to by any contemporary I5 For the psychological effect that Bentley's work had on subsequent scholars see Smith, p.6, who makes the point that Bentley himself did not fall for the false logic involved here; M. Stirewalt Jr. Studies in ancient Greek epistolography, Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1993 pp.28-38. See also Too's discussion [pp.195—196], in relation to Isocrates" letters.

l6 See Stirewalt op. cit. n.15 above p.35; J. Sykutris, 'Epistolographie' in RE Supp. Bd.5 col. 218; J.A. Goldstein, The letters of Demosthenes, N.Y. & London: Columbia U.P., 1968 p.32. 17 Sykutris (Briefe pp.107-122] argued for two periods of composition for the Socratic Letters. Letters 1—7 he dated to the first century CE and the remainder, with the exception of our letter, to the third century CE.

1. Methodological Considerations

19

source imposes a further difficulty for the historian who would mount a case for authenticity. The letter is first mentioned by a little known writer, one Carystius of Pergamum, more than two hundred years after Speusippus' death and therefore the historian must consider the reliability of the tradition that attributes the letter we possess to Speusippus of Athens. A related methodological problem concerns the form of the letter. If, as was the opinion of Bickermann and Sykutris, the letter is a public document, then the probability of it being cited by a contemporary source must be considered infinitely greater than if, as I argue, it is a private missive. Indeed, we would not necessarily expect to find a private letter from Speusippus to Philip mentioned in a contemporary source. And here another issue is implied, for if it is a private letter how are we to account for its preservation? The magnitude of the task before us will now be obvious. The work we are attempting to authenticate is a private document, which falls within the epistolary genre and so is open to suspicion of fabrication. It is a work for which the first extant citation occurs some two hundred years after the death of its supposed author. Moreover, because nothing of Speusippus' writing survives there is nothing with which to compare the language and style of the letter, and yet the universally acknowledged literary quality of the work ensures that it cannot easily be dismissed as an inferior piece unworthy of Speusippus. In view of these extraordinary difficulties, the crucial issue, it seems to me, is to decide what exactly constitutes proof of authenticity. Does the onus of proof lie on the person who would accept the letter to prove absolutely that it is genuine, or on the person who rejects the letter to prove absolutely that it is a forgery? Despite Bickermann's claim to have precisely dated the letter to winter 343/2, (a claim which we will see cannot be sustained in its precision), I would suggest that absolute proof pro or con is simply not possible in the present circumstances. What we are dealing with here is rather a question of probability than of absolute proof, and probability depends on the investigator's judgement in interpreting the evidence

and his ability to convince other informed individuals. Consequently, in place of absolute proof of authenticity we should, I would argue, be content with likely proof of authenticity, especially as such a position affirms the role of the historian to evaluate the material of history and arrive at probable conclusions. The scholar of the ancient world is frequently called upon to exercise judgment in situations where absolute proof is not possible as, for example, in regard to a difficult source problem or the dating of an inscription. The alternative is to reserve judgement and so to forego the use of the material.'® Consequently, when I come to present the argument for the authenticity of the letter it will of necessity be an argument for likely, not absolute, authenticity. '8 Compare the following comment by H. Tarrant on what he calls the 'authenticity-game': ‘I accept neither the view that a work (particularly a letter) has to be attributed to its purported author until it is proved spurious; nor that it should be regarded as spurious until authenticity is demonstrated. We must accept that the historian of ancient ideas examines issues on which proof is often impossible; he must often adopt the "likely story' or suspend judgement. It is pointless to dogmatise about the unknown." ‘Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle’, Phronesis, v.28 (1), 1983, p.75. On a more provocative note, but one that nevertheless provides a valuable perspective, there is the statement attributed to Paul Friedlander, “You cannot prove that Plato wrote the Symposium.". Attested by M. Chambers, ‘The Athenaion Politeia after a century’ in Transitions to empire (eds. R. Wallace and E. Harris) Norman and London: U. Oklahoma Press, 1996 p.220.

20

Introduction

2. PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE LETTER Now that we have seen the methodological issues involved in authenticating the Letter of Speusippus we must, as a first step, determine whether it is a public or a private document. The argument for the authenticity of the letter and the way in which we interpret it will necessarily differ according to the conclusion we arrive at. Bickermann and Sykutris believed that the letter was written with the dual objective (doppelte Zielsetzung) of influencing both its addressee and the general public. The letter was not a private document but one, like Isocrates’ Philip,

written for publication.!? It was intended by its author to disparage Isocrates in Philip's eyes and also in the estimation of Athenian public opinion. As a public document it was meant to play a part in the contemporary debate over the expansionist policies of Macedon. Moreover, Bickermann believed that his case for the authenticity of the letter depended on it being a public document. That is to say, the argument for dating the letter precisely to winter 343/2 presupposed that it was published before Philip withdrew from Epirus in 342, otherwise it could not have influenced public opinion.?? A private letter, on the other hand, could have been published either before 342 or afterwards, depending on whether Speusippus considered that Philip would appreciate support for his claim to Ambracia after his withdrawal from the region, or would find it unpleasant to be reminded of his failure. Bickermann and Sykutris substantiated their case for the public nature of the letter from section 5, where Speusippus introduced a novel justification for Philip's conquests based on the work of the historian Antipater of Magnesia. The arguments of Antipater, Speusippus declared, were those ‘which everyone may be told' (Was aber Jedermann mitgeteilt werden darf), which was the way in

which Sykutris translated the words à δ᾽ ἐστιν οὐκ ἐμποδὼν toic τυχοῦσιν eineiv. These words showed unequivocally that the letter was meant for publication.?! The problem with this interpretation, as Richard Harder rightly pointed out, is that it is based on a mistranslation, the meaning of the word ἐμποδὼν being ‘manifest’ or ‘apparent’ and not, as Sykutris translated it, ‘presenting an impediment’.22 Given the inadmissibility of section 5 and in view of the highly personal 19 [n his classification of letter forms ['Epistolographie', RE , Supp. Bd. 5 cols. 200-201] Sykutris placed the Letter of Speusippus under the heading 'Der Brief als Einkleidungsform'

and specifically as a 'publizistische Brief’, ...der unserem ‘offenen Brief’ entspricht und durch seine gleichzeitige Veröffentlichung auf das weite Publikum wirken bezw. durch die öffentliche Meinung einen Druck auf den Adressaten ausüben will.’

20 BS p.30. ?1 *.. die Schrift, wie die Satz à δ᾽ ἐστιν οὐκ ἐμποδὼν toig τυχοῦσιν εἰπεῖν x.t.À unzweideutig zeigt, vom Verfasser zur Publikation bestimmt.’ BS pp.18, 45, 69 n.2. Klek [p.102] had earlier decided that the word ‘pamphiet’ best described the character of the letter.

22 Harder pp.250-254. For a more detailed discussion see Commentary $5: ἃ δ᾽ ἐστιν οὐκ ἐμποδὼν toic τυχοῦσιν εἰπεῖν. from the standard translation at vero in promptu non solent esse Boehnecke [p.468 n.4] in 1864

Sykutris must have known that his translation differed radically the time, namely that of Westermann in Hercher's edition (Quae oratoribus) and yet he did not draw attention to the fact. Indeed, had specifically explained the meaning of the word ἐμποδὼν as

2. Public versus Private Letter

21

nature of the invective against Isocrates (and, we may add, those asso-ciated with him), together with Speusippus’ blatant gambit to acquire Macedonian patronage, Harder concluded that the letter was essentially a private document never intended for public consumption: ‘So offene sind doch offene Briefe nicht’. The general reluctance to view the letter as a private document is to some extent understandable. After all, the letter has been interpreted primarily as an attack against Isocrates’ Philip, itself a public document and, like our letter, addressed to King Philip. Nevertheless, Harder’s findings, which appeared in the journal Philologus for 1930 and which have subsequently been overlooked, should have sufficed to reopen the question. Instead the interpretation of Bickermann and

Sykutris continues to be accepted by most commentators.?? While the argument put forward by Harder certainly undermined the position of Bickermann and Sykutris, there are further reasons why we should accept the private nature of the letter. The most convincing to my mind is Speusippus’ open advocacy of the Macedonian claim to Amphipolis in particular, but also to the other places lost to Athens. Speusippus’ support for the blatantly partisan attempt of Antipater to rewrite history using historical traditions that guaranteed Macedonian title to Amphipolis and the Greek states of Chalcidice could not have been acceptable to an Athenian audience around the year 342. The statement at section 7 that ‘all Macedonians know (Μακεδόνες πάντες ἴσασι) of the recent acquisitions of Alexander in the territory of the Edones’ would have cut no ice in Athens but would be entirely appropriate if addressed to Philip. Even Isocrates, writing four years earlier in the Philip felt constrained to advocate the return of Amphipolis, albeit in the most indirect and diplomatic terms.?^ Likewise, Speusippus’ open support for Philip's settlement of the Phocian war, which had become highly unpopular by 342, could not have been well received by Athenians. | would imagine also that the notion of a Macedonian as the saviour of Greeks at Tempe, which we find in section 3, would have seemed ludicrous to an Athenian audience accustomed to glorifying their own role in the defeat of Persia. For these reasons alone the publication of his letter would have won Speusippus no favour among his fellow citizens. Another consideration that leads me to believe that the letter could not possibly have been published at the time of its composition is the mention in section 12 of Philip's debt to Plato. So risky was this ploy, that Speusippus (as I argue

πρόχειρον, φανερόν. Compare also Köhler: ‘Was man aber nicht leicht jedem sagen kann’. Isnardi-Parente [Speusippo p.393] accepts the implication drawn by Bickermann and Sykutris from $5, but her translation of the passage, which agrees with that of Westermann, appears to contradict this: ‘quelle cose che non sono facilmente accessibili agli oratori'. The English translations of Shrimpton and Wickersham and Verbrugghe appear to have been influenced by that of Sykutris. 23 Markle's important article on support of Athenian intellectuals for Philip is a case in point. Markle, who regards BS as ‘the definitive study’ [p.81] n.2], assumes that the letter was intended to influence public opinion although he never explicitly states this. See also Griffith, HM p.515 n.2; Usener p.54 n.26; Sonnabend p.90.

4 See p. 158.

22

Introduction

below) couched it within an intricate argument from euergesia and even then

only alluded to Philip’s debt indirectly.? Risky enough in a private letter, the reminder to Philip that he owed his kingdom to Plato would have been totally unacceptable in a public letter, touching as it did the king's honour. As has often been observed, the Letter of Speusippus is a sustained attack on Isocrates, the primary purpose of which is to be found in the context of the rivalry between Isocrates' school and the Academy for Macedonian favour. The arguments contained in the letter served to impress upon Philip that Speusippus was his man and that the Academy was deserving of his patronage; all of which was a matter for private representation and not for public discussion. The subject matter of the letter, therefore, has no direct relevance to the public debate in Athens for and against Philip. The fact that the letter scrupulously avoids hiatus may have further convinced Sykutris of its public status, for he wrote that doubt would attach to any letter purporting to have been written for publication in the fourth century which con-

tained illegitimate hiatus.7 This line of argument is flawed if by it the implication is drawn that a private letter must always have been written in a natural, unaffected style. The Letter of Speusippus was indeed a private letter, but it was also a formal letter designed to impress its recipient as much with its style as with its content: it could hardly have displayed less attention to the avoidance of hiatus than the Philip of Isocrates with which it compared itself. The major difference I detect between Speusippus' letter and other private letters such as those written by Isocrates to the young Alexander and to Antipater (also a letter of recommendation), both of which scrupulously avoid illegitimate hiatus, is the familiar tone of the latter which contrasts markedly with the formal tone of our letter. It is this

tone, I suggest, that distinguishes a private from a personal letter.2’ The private and formal nature of Speusippus' writing supports my interpretation of the letter as an instrument intended to ‘test the waters’, so to speak, in order to discover where the Academy under Speusippus' headship stood in Philip's estimation with a view to Macedonian patronage. The question of how the letter came to be preserved if it was not published by Speusippus is impossible to say for certain. The same question may, of course, be asked of Isocrates' letters, most of which scholars today accept as genuine works. We may surmise, however, that the correspondence of heads of the Academy with the kings of Macedon was something to be preserved in the archives of the Academy and in those of the Kingdom of Macedon.?9 25 See pp. 96 n. 291, 98. 2 BS p.66: Dagegen war die Vermeidung des ZusammenstoBes der Vokalen (σύγκρουσις τῶν φωνηέντων) in einem für die breite Öffentlichkeit bestimmten Werk so selbstverständlich, daß allein die Nichtberücksichtigung des Hiates in einem Werk aus dem IV Jahrh. hätte genügen kónnen, Zweifel an seiner Echtheit auftauchen zu lassen.

27 Compare the observation of Sonnabend [p.93 n.236] : Im Gegensatz zu Platons Brief an Perdikkas entbehrt das Schreiben des Speusippos jeglicher vertraulich-persónlicher Note. 28 Harder [p.254] suggested the possibility that Isocrates may have obtained a copy from his associates at the Macedonian court and published it in an attempt to compromise the Academy.

3. The Argument for Authenticity

23

3. THE ARGUMENT FOR AUTHENTICITY When now we turn to examine the external evidence for dating the Letter of Speusippus we find that the earliest reference to the letter appears in a work by Carystius of Pergamum, a 'Literatur-historiker', as Jacoby described him, who lived during the last third of the second century BCE.” Carystius quoted from section 12 of the letter as we know it today to the effect that Philip owed the beginning of his kingship to Plato.> But who was this Carystius and how reliable as a source is he likely to have been? As to the first question, it must be acknowledged that nothing is known of him apart from citations to his works, which derive primarily from Athenaeus. Most of the fragments, including those that concern us, come from a work entitled ‘Iotopixa Ὑπομνήματα or Explanatory notes on historical subjects. The work probably had a thematic structure and in its ethical emphasis is reminiscent of Theopompus of Chios in his historical writ-

ing.?! Carystius also wrote a work on Dramatic Performances (Διδασκαλίαι), which not only recorded writers, dates and successes but also discussed wider

issues such as the origin of the term 'parasite'.?? The fact that we can glimpse even this much from Athenaeus, whose selection from Carystius was made to illustrate his own unedifying themes, suggests to me that the historian should be taken more seriously than his association with Athenaeus might lead one to believe. The material available to Carystius appears to have been extensive and detailed, suggesting the possibility that he may have had access to the resources of the newly built library of Pergamum. Clearly he was a serious historian and not

This would account for why the letter is always found together with Isocrates' letters in extant manuscripts. See also BS pp.79-80. Another intriguing possibility is that the letter was among the papers of Speusippus that Aristotle is said to have purchased for the large sum of three talents. Consequently it may have been Aristotle or his successor Theophrastus, to whom Aristotle bequeathed his library, who allowed the letter to be copied; and in this way copies could have been acquired by the libraries of Alexandria and Pergamum. See Diogenes Laertius 4.5; Aulus Gellius 3.17.3; Surabo 13.1.54; Plutarch Sulla 26.1-2. Athenaeus [3a-b] preserves an alternative tradition that it was Ptolemy Philadelphus who purchased Aristotle's library. 29 See Carystius F.1, FHG 4.356-357 = Athenaeus 506e-f; F. Jacoby 'Karystios von Pergamon' in RE 10.2 col.2054. Athenaeus seems to have been careful and accurate in his citations from prose works. See K. Zepernick 'Die Exzerpte des Athenaeus in den Dipnosophisten und ihre Glaubwürdigkeit’, Philologus 77(1921) pp.311-363. Zepernick shows that in some cases Athenaeus has preserved better readings than we possess in extant manuscripts. See also W. Arnott 'On editing comic fragments from literary and lexicographical sources' in The rivals of Aristophanes (ed. D. Harvey and J. Wilkins), London: Duckworth, 2000 p.4. 30 Carystius was quoting from memory. See Commentary $12: ὥσπερ ov Πλάτωνος ... κατασκευάσαντος.

*! Carystius was critical of luxury and the unrestrained lifestyle in the same way as was Theopompus.

He criticised Demetrius

of Phalerum

for his love of food and of boys

[F10],

whereas he remarked on the moderate lifestyle of Antipater [FF 3:7]. He seems also to have had a respectable interest in ethnography, as we see from FF13-14.

32 FF17-18, FHG 4.359. Compare the similarly entitled work attributed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius 5.26.

24

Introduction

the ‘gossip’ he has been too easily labelled.?? We can say, therefore, that approximately two hundred years after Speusippus’ death a letter believed by Carystius to have been written by him was in existence and that in part at least it resembled our letter. By way of comparison, the earliest reference we possess to Plato's epistles comes from the early years of the second century BCE, at which time they were classified by the grammarian Aristophanes of Byzantium, the librarian

of the Alexandrian library.”* The letters of Isocrates and Demosthenes cannot boast even this early a reference let alone a citation.?? The next reference we have to the Letter of Speusippus occurs in the probably third century CE writer Diogenes Laertius, who provides a list of Speusippus' works including letters to Dion, Dionysius and Philip.?$ Diogenes’ source is likely to have been a much earlier Hellenistic work, perhaps an Alexandrian catalogue of Speusippus' writings. The external evidence for the authenticity of the letter may, therefore, be said to be more hopeful than otherwise when compared to the other extant fourth-century letters mentioned in the previous paragraph. It remains possible that the letter was written sometime during the period 339 c.139 BCE or that a writer of a later period utilised the work known to Carystius as the basis for the letter we have today. It will appear from the following consideration of the internal evidence, however, that a later date is highly unlikely. This leaves us with the earlier possibility, which can probably never be completely eliminated, especially if the letter were a product of the early Academy. However, it seems to me more difficult to make out a case for the letter being a product of the Academy immediately post Speusippus than to accept the tradition current in the mid-second century BCE that it is indeed the work of Speusippus himself. Turning now to examine the internal evidence for the authenticity of the letter, I propose to focus on three major areas: 1) language and style, 2) coherence, depth and subtlety of argument and 3) historical allusions that point to a particular date of composition. As regards the first of these, language and style, our task has been facilitated by the work of Sykutris. Rather than repeat his arguments I propose to summarise his method and conclusions, leaving the reader to consult BS for the detail. Sykutris began by examining the vocabulary and its usage in the letter, which he regarded as the best method of distinguishing an Attic from an atticizing author. W. Obens in his 1912 dissertation, in which he argued that the entire collection of Socratic Letters originated from one atticizing 33 Badian [p.47 n.32] writes of Carystius that he was ‘...a mere gossip, though he must have had good sources', and Jacoby ['Karystios von Pergamon' in RE 10.2 col.2055] wrote of '...meist Klatsch oder schlecht verbürgte Anekdoten. 4 See Diogenes Laertius 3.62. Aristophanes of Byzantium was appointed chief librarian in about the year 195 and died in 180 BCE.

35 Isocrates’ letter to Dionysius is an exception in that he himself refers to it at Philip 81. There may also be an indirect reference to section 16 of the first Letter to Philip in the Panathenaicus [64] but the first direct attestations occur in Harpocration and Pseudo-Plutarch while Cicero is the first to mention letters of Demosthenes.

36 Diogenes Laertius 4.5.

3. The Argument for Authenticity

25

school of the second century CE, produced a list of words present in the letter which he claimed were only found in later writers. If Obens’ assessment had been accurate, his case against the genuineness of the letter would have been a strong one. In what was a skilful analysis Sykutris showed that the words on Obens' list were either manuscript errors or in fact did conform to Attic prose usage of the classical period. Only in the case of the extremely rare comparative μωλύτερον, which is found in the later lexica, was he unable to provide a precedent from the classical period.?’ As a general principle, Sykutris observed that the mere absence of a word from the indexes of extant authors does not make it non-Attic, as unique words and constructions appear in many authors, and each newly discov-

ered text provides more.*® A word is likely to be un-Attic when it runs contrary to the spirit of Attic speech, evincing a dull and lame feeling for the language; and we do not find this in the Letter of Speusippus. Sykutris then proceeded to discuss the writer's accomplished use of metaphor, his ability to employ a variety of synonymous expressions or indeed to repeat the same expression in order to achieve the desired effect. A consummate instance of his ability to vary metaphors to great effect occurs in section 13, where the writer satirised Isocrates'

attempts to interest prominent figures in his panhellenic ideas.?? The variety of expression we find in sections 6-7 to convey the notion of ‘holding in trust’ testifies to the skill of the writer and the care he took to avoid tedious repetition.Ὁ Sykutris found the writer's use of the periodic style and the antithetical sentence to be entirely appropriate and natural without exhibiting the self-conscious ex-

cess that might be expected of an inferior writer or a later imitator.^! We may notice also the skill with which the writer lampoons Isocrates! professional ability in sections 9-11, turning the orators’ words against him in what is a clever if unconscionable misrepresentation of the argument in the Philip. Sykutris next noticed the strict avoidance of illegitimate hiatus that is a feature of our letter. Hiatus avoidance had been popularised by Isocrates and favoured by Plato after he wrote Theaetetus, but was relaxed by later writers in favour of a freer style. It was the presence of hiatus in the other Socratic Letters that confirmed that they could not have been written by the same author as our letter. Hiatus is best avoided by a transposition of words, and our writer's skill here ensured that no convoluted expression would spoil the impression of natural speech.*? Given the highly sophisticated and accurate use of language displayed in the letter and comparing it with the obviously inferior writing of most of the other Socratic Letters, Sykutris asked whether an atticizer could be considered 37 See BS pp 47-56; see Commentary $14: μωλύτερον. In his discussion of the poetic word ἀνήμερος Sykutris overlooked the obvious justification. See Commentary $12: xai διὰ τέλους χαλεπῶς φέροντος, €i tt γίγνοιτο παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀνήμερον fj μὴ φιλάδελφον.

38 39 40 41 42

BS BS See BS See

ρρ.52--53. The ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία is a good example. pp.56-57. Commentary $6: δοθῆναι παρακαταθήκην φυλάττειν. pp.61—66. Introduction pp. 84-94.

99 BS pp.66-69.

26

Introduction

capable of producing reductio ad absurdum would be difficult to Speusippus; and even

such an accomplished work. He replied with a memorable that it was, of course, possible in theory, but in reality it come up with another work comparable with the Letter of if such were to exist, we would have to show proof why it

must derive from the later period.“ From his analysis of language and style, therefore, Sykutris succeeded in overturning the objections which Obens had raised to the authenticity of the letter and proved that it was a highly polished production completely consistent with the period at which Speusippus wrote. The possibility of it being a work of the Roman imperial period, whether of a forger or (what must be considered even less likely) a school exercise, was so remote as to be negligible. What he did not, indeed, could not prove was that Speusippus himself wrote the letter. At this point it is appropriate to introduce an argument of a different sort, which, it seems to me, in combination with the argument from language and style, should rule out any real possibility of a late date of composition. In addressing the possibility that the letter might be the work of a forger who wrote during the atticizing period, Bickermann pointed out that the depiction of Isocrates as a propagandist in the service of Macedon was completely opposed to the views of writers from the time Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Herodes Atticus. During that period Isocrates was known primarily as a stylist, a teacher and an exponent of philosophic rhetoric. For a forger to present him as a political opportunist would

have been thought totally misguided.* The second base on which the authenticity of the letter rests is the coherence, depth and subtlety of its argument. It is true that in itself the coherence of the letter cannot prove its genuineness, but if, as in the judgment of one critic, the letter comprises a patchwork of historical references dating from 346 to 341 strung together at a later date, then clearly the letter was not written by Speusippus.* Importantly also, the theory espoused by a number of scholars that our letter is in fact a much later reworking of an original letter by Speusippus cannot be sustained if it can be shown that it possesses a tight logically developed argument without any of the signs one would expect to find as a result of

reworking.*’ ^ BS p.61. Sykutris (Briefe p.109) distinguished the Letters of Socrates (nos.1-7) from those of the Socratics (nos.8-27, 29-34). The former he judged to be written in a far better style than the latter. Sykutris was inclined to exempt the twenty-ninth letter also. See Briefe p.112. 45 BS pp.36—37. In the Rhetorica of Philodemus (II. 249 Sudhaus) Isocrates is a representa-

tive of sophistical rhetoric (σοφιστικὴ ῥητορική) which is distinguished from political rhetoric (πολιτικὴ Pntopımn). For Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isocrates exemplified philosophic rhetoric, which primarily sought to educate political leaders. See Life of Isocrates 4, 12. See also Blass pp.120-121; G. Kennedy, The art of persuasion in Greece p.197: 'Isocrates was generally viewed as an orator and stylist, occasionally as an educator, hardly ever as a political thinker'. ^6 Bertelli, Lettera p.107. Bertelli's argument in the first of his papers (Epistola) proved that Bickermann's case that the letter was published on a particular occasion, viz. winter 343/2, could not be sustained. The argument I present here is based on the premise that the letter was never intended for publication, and consequently is unaffected by Bertelli's challenge. ^! See Bernays p.117; Dümmler p.121; Köhler pp.5, 116, 121; Bertelli, Lettera p.107; Wilamowitz, Leben p.576 n.1, but he later retracted according to Sykutris, BS p79 n.2.

3. The Argument for Authenticity

27

I argue in the following sections of this Introduction that the letter is best understood in a particular historical context. Philip, it will be seen, deliberately distanced himself from Plato and his school as a result of events that took place during the reign of his brother Perdiccas. More than twenty years later, Speusippus sought to reestablish contact with Macedon through what was ostensibly a letter of recommendation for the historian Antipater of Magnesia, but in reality a letter commending himself and the Academy to Macedonian patronage. Because of Philip’s known disapproval of Plato, Speusippus had to take care in the way he approached the king. To this end he devised an argument of considerable subtlety based on the concept of service or euergesia. The detail of the argument is set out

in a later section of this Introduction, to which the reader is referred.*? Suffice it to say here that, if my interpretation is found to be persuasive, then the tightly constructed and highly sophisticated argument employed by our author is not one we would expect to find in a forged or reworked document; far less in a school exercise. Rather the argument based on euergesia exhibits a clear and logically developed thought process in pursuit of its goal; a goal which, I show, never leaves the author's sight. Indeed, there is nothing in the letter that could have been omitted without impairing the argument and diminishing the overall effect. At this point mention is required of the letter writer’s undertaking in section 2 to defend Plato against a slanderous attack by Isocrates. The apparent omission of the defence of Plato might be taken as proof that the letter underwent editing at a later time and, if this were the case, then obviously the letter we have today could not have been written by Speusippus. The difficulty here clearly disconcerted Bickermann and Sykutris, as it had other commentators before them, which may be seen by the fact that they each proposed different explanations to account for it. If the solution I provide to this longstanding crux is found convincing, then what appears to be an omission turns out to be an integral part of the argument of

the letter, and so provides evidence of its unity.*? This brings us to the third basis for the authenticity of the letter, namely the coincidence of historical allusions that point to a particular date of composition. The presence of contemporary historical allusions in a work of known authenticity is a powerful and well-established method for dating documents. In the case of the Letter of Speusippus I propose to use this same technique to determine the date of composition implied by the letter, full in the knowledge that the argument taken by itself cannot prove authenticity but may carry considerable weight as part of a cumulative argument. The Letter of Speusippus in that it criticises Isocrates' Philip must have been written after 346, the likely publication date of the latter work. However, I believe that it is possible to date the letter with greater precision than this. A terminus post quem of 343 for the letter is established by two references. The first occurs in section 14 where we read of a shortage of papyrus in Athens resulting from the Persian reconquest of Egypt in winter 343/2, which the writer described “8 See pp. 94-100. 49 BS pp.19—20; 71. In general see my discussion below pp. 94-95.

28

Introduction

as having already taken place. I do not propose to debate whether the shortage resulted immediately upon the Persian victory or took effect later, or whether it lasted for one month or six months, for even if it were possible to know this with

certainty, it would not affect the present argument. The important point to recognise is that Speusippus mentioned the interruption to papyrus supplies in order to imply to Philip that, had he more papyrus to add to his roll, he would have been able to continue with his criticisms of Isocrates. It was, therefore, primarily a convenient rhetorical device, the effect of which does not depend on whether Philip interpreted the remark literally or not. The hypothesis of Bertelli that an editor inserted the reference in order to give the letter verisimilitude by placing it in the political context of the years 343 and 432 is not convincing in that it overlooks this primary function.?! As an indication of date, the allusion to a papyrus shortage, it seems to me, is that much more convincing because it is not the sort of detail that an historian would be likely to record and, therefore, not one that a forger might later make use of. Rather it is an event that has no political and little historical significance in itself but one which a writer at the time might use in order to make a rhetorical point. The implication must be that the letter was written after 343. The second reference in the letter that points to a date of composition about the year 342 is the inclusion in section 7 of an argument based on historical traditions justifying the Heraclid/Macedonian claim to Ambracia. We know from a number of references in speeches by Hegesippus and Demosthenes that in the year 342 there was a perception among Athenians that Philip's campaign in Epirus represented a threat to the independence of Ambracia and Acarnania. So concerned were the Athenians that they despatched a citizen force to Acarnania in

the spring of 342.?? It seems unlikely to me that Philip announced in advance his intention to invade the territory of Ambracia; indeed he may never have intended to attack that city at all. The Athenian and Corinthian military reaction will have been prompted by Philip's reorganisation of the Molosian kingdom and by his forceful annexation of four small Greek cities of Cassopia, which we may assume

had some political connection to Ambracia and Corinth.?? Speusippus and Antipater of Magnesia probably learned of Philip's intention from the actual events of 343 and 342. Consequently the letter must have been composed after 343,

30 Various theories are cited in the Commentary $14: τοσαύτην ἡμῖν σκάνιν βιβλίων Baσιλεὺς Αἴγυπτον λαβὼν πεποίηκεν. Speusippus presumably had the option of reusing papyrus sheets had he chosen to do so.

5! Epistola p.279-280. Bertelli's view that if there really was a papyrus crisis it must have been mentioned by another contemporary source is an argument from silence which ignores the reality that a rhetor such as Aeschines or Demosthenes introduced historical allusions only as required to support his rhetoric.

52 See Commentary $7: κερὶ 'Außpaxiav Κλείδην xai τοὺς Κλείδον raidac where the relevant evidence is cited.

5

We know from an inscription (Tod 173] that Arybbas of Molossia sought refuge in

Athens after his expulsion, and so he may well have reported Philip's plans (whether accurately or not) upon his arrival in Athens.

3. The Argument for Authenticity

29

which date agrees well with the allusion already discussed to a shortage of papyrus. A terminus ante quem, however, is not so easily established for, as we have seen, the letter was of a private nature and so the reference to Macedonian claims to Ambracia could also have been relevant after 342. We may imagine that Philip would have been impressed, whether in 343 or later, by the demonstration that Antipater of Magnesia’s novel argument based on historical traditions and

deposit in trust could be made to extend to Ambracia.™ There is, however, evidence in the letter that would appear to imply a minus ante quem of 341. In section 14 Speusippus pokes fun at a number of cuses (προφάσεις) that Isocrates is supposed to have made in his Philip. The of these was Isocrates' statement that Philip will know how to out-general

terexlast the

Persian: tov Πέρσην δ᾽ ὡς καταστρατηγήσεις αὐτὸν εἰδέναι σέ φησι. Bickermann inferred from these words that the letter must have been written prior to the downfall of Hermias of Atarneus in 341, as a result of which Philip's secret pre-

parations against Persia became generally known.5?? Had Speusippus been aware of Philip's plans he From section 1 of the thesis of the Philip, lead the Greek states and 342 there was no preparations. In fact,

would presumably not have derided Isocrates' statement. letter we learn that Antipater of Magnesia praised the hypoand so he must have acknowledged Philip’s aspirations to against Persia. In reality, however, between the years 344 clear indication that Philip was making serious anti-Persian it was common knowledge that Macedon's allies, Thebes

and Argos, were fighting on the Persian side in Egypt.” After the murder of Hermias and the disclosure of Philip's plans against Persia, Speusippus' derisory remark would no longer have been humorous. Bertelli is right to emphasise that Speusippus' argument has more to do with rhetoric than with history: he could not resist a cheap shot at yet another of Isocrates’ supposed ‘excuses’; but this in no way lessens the force of Bickermann’s argument.*’ We have seen, therefore, that there are three definite historical allusions that point to the years 343-341 as the likely date for the composition of the letter. In addition to this there are two major indications that the author of the letter possessed an instinctive feeling, such as a participant would possess, for the contem** Bickermann judged the letter to be a public document and therefore argued that it would have made no sense to raise the matter of Ambracia publicly in 342, in which year Athenian diplomatic and military intervention had forced Philip to withdraw from that region. Consequently, he concluded that the letter must have been published in winter 343/2 when Philip's hopes for Ambracia were still alive. Bickermann also asked how a later writer familiar with Demosthenes' speech On the Crown, in which he boasted of his success in saving Ambracia, could possibly arrive at the bizarre idea that Ambracia belonged to Philip by right. See BS pp.29— 30, 45.

55 See BS p.34. + While we may doubt with Griffith (HM pp.485-487] the existence of an alliance between

Philip and Artaxerxes Ochus, to which Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.2 attests, it is true, as the same writer states [HM p.487], that prior to 341 ‘Philip was not yet committed publicly as an enemy of Persia’. See also A. Bosworth, A historical commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander v.1, Oxford: O.U.P., 1980 pp.229-230.

57 See Epistola pp.287-289.

30

Introduction

porary political debate of the 340’s. The first is the argument he employed based on historical traditions and deposit in trust (καρακαταθήκη), both of which concepts are well attested individually during the classical period and also in

combination.** Specifically, I am referring to the writer’s justification for the Macedonian claim to Amphipolis, which we find summarised in section 6. It was around the year 343 that Athenians were demanding the revision of the Peace of Philocrates so as to restore Amphipolis to them as their rightful possession. We learn from a speech published in that year by Aeschines that Athens based her original title to the city on the tradition that Theseus' son Acamas had received the region of Amphipolis as the dowry from his marriage to the Thracian princess

Phyllis.?? The letter writer appears to be replying to this Athenian claim by citing the historian Antipater of Magnesia to the effect that Heracles had legally acquired the country two generations before Acamas and placed it in trust until such time as his descendants should reclaim it. Philip had, therefore, acted legally in taking back Amphipolis and the other places to which he was entitled as a descendant of Heracles. In justifying Macedonian claims to Chalcidice it should also be noted that our author concentrated on places of particular significance to the contemporary debate in Athens: Olynthus, Amphipolis, Potidaea and Torone, all names that resonated in the consciousness of Athenians around the year 343. A second instance of our writer's intimate feeling for contemporary political events concerns Philip's new found influence at Delphi, which was bitterly resented by Athenians. We read in Demosthenes' speech On the embassy of 343 sharp criticisms of the Peace of Philocrates, which that orator declared had resulted in making fugitives of Phocians who used to be Amphictyons and the entry in their place by force of Macedones and barbarians.°' The author of our letter provided in sections 8-9 the counter argument, namely that Philip had followed honourable and pious precedent based on historical traditions in obtain58 The evidence for the currency of these concepts is discussed below pp. 69-73.

59 See On the embassy 31. 60 Bickermann (BS pp.34—35] noticed that Antipater of Magnesia presented mythological precedents for Heraclid claims to Pallene and Sithone but not to Acte, the main cities of which (namely Acanthus and Dium) were not members of the Chalcidian League. From this he deduced the writer's accurate appreciation of the contemporary political situation. The composition of the Chalcidian League at the time is not known with certainty, but the independence of Acanthus is

sure and probably Dium also, as appears from an Athenian decree of c. 349. See IG ii? 2101.14, and |. 13 where the name Philip is preserved. Compare the somewhat heavy restoration of E. Schweigert in Hesperia 6 (1937) pp.329-332. M. Zahrnt, Olynth und die Chalkidier München: Beck, 1971. pp. 108, 150, 185, also argued that the lack of evidence for Sane, Cleonae, Thyssus and other towns on Acte during the fourth century suggests that they were under the control of Dium. Zahrnt's conjecture is preferable to that of A. West, History of the Chalcidic League, N.Y.: Arno, 1973, p,173, who felt that Acanthus may have controlled Acte. See also Griffith HM pp.366, 373. While there is some truth in Bickermann's observation, | would say that Speusippus' selection was primarily intended to reflect the grievances of many Athenians during the latter 340's. 9! On the embassy 327. See Introduction pp. 73-77, where I argue that the traditions cited by Antipater of Magnesia supporting Philip's entry into the Amphictyony were not unique to him but reflect the justifications of contemporary writers whose work no longer survives.

3. The Argument for Authenticity

31

ing a place on the Amphictyonic Council as a reward for his championing of Apollo’s cause. Both these instances imply a conscious juxtaposition of argument and counter argument within the contemporary debate of the late 340's. In conclusion, then, the case for the likely genuineness of the letter may be summarised as follows. The external evidence shows that the ancient Greek world, at least from the time of Carystius of Pergamum in the latter half of the second century BCE, knew of a letter written by Speusippus to Philip of Macedon a letter which, moreover, contained words similar to those found in section 12 of our letter. I have argued that the testimony of Carystius is trustworthy and that the external evidence is at least as good and in some cases better than that we possess for other collections of letters by fourth century writers. Turning to the internal evidence, we have seen that the language and style of the letter are totally consistent with the period at which Speusippus wrote. We noted the quality of the writing, highlighting in particular the author's skilful use of metaphor, his ability to vary his expression to effect and his enviable success in avoiding hiatus without compromising his free-flowing prose style. To this must be added the minute care with which he built his argument around the concept of euergesia, culminating in section 12 with the statement of Philip's debt to Plato and then concluding with the reverse argument, namely Isocrates" dysmeneia towards Philip and his family. The letter displays a close and intuitive appreciation of the political situation of the later 340's, providing arguments to counter those we know Philip's opponents in Athens levelled against him at that time. And finally there is the evidence of the internal historical allusions that point to a date of composition between the years 343 and 341, there being nothing in the letter that implies a later date. It seems unlikely to me that even the most consummate forger of literary epistles from the Hellenistic or Roman imperial periods could have combined such impressive literary skill together with an intimate knowledge of the history of the later 340's. Indeed, it must be acknowledged that there is nothing to compare in terms of quality, even remotely, with the Letter of Speusippus in the corpus of known epistolary forgeries such as those attributed to Phalaris, the socalled Cynic letters or the Socratic Letters. We are left, it seems to me, to conclude that the ancient tradition represented by Carystius of Pergamum is likely to have been correct and that our letter was indeed the work of Speusippus of Athens, as the majority of scholars have long suspected.9? It is no coincidence that Speusippus decided to address his letter to Philip in about the year 342, which I regard as the most likely date for the letter. For it was at this time that Athenian public opinion had turned decidedly against Macedon and Isocrates" advice to Philip lay in tatters. It was this situation that provided an opportunity for the Academy under Speusippus to reestablish contact with Macedon with the aim of reviving a relationship that had lapsed during the previous twenty years.9? 62 To be sure, the name of Speusippus is not mentioned in the manuscripts of the letter. The fact that the letter writer referred to himself as an Athenian and, moreover, one close to Plato and the Academy, together with secondary references to a letter of Speusippus to Philip provides the evidence for Speusippean authorship. See Commentary $2: τὴν ἡμετέραν πόλιν.

93 See below pp. 64—66.

32

Introduction

4. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO SPEUSIPPUS’ LETTER : THE ACADEMY AND ITS COMPETITORS FOR MACEDONIAN PATRONAGE With the notable exception of Speusippus’ letter, the evidence suggests that the close relationship that existed between the Academy and Macedon during the reign of Perdiccas III was replaced by coolness if not hostility in the reign of Philip II. Philip, I will argue, had only contempt for Plato and this explains why Plato made no attempt to reopen contacts with Philip after his accession. Plato’s death in 347, in that it removed the principal object of Philip's ire, left the door ever so slightly open for the Academy under Speusippus' leadership to compete once again for Macedonian patronage. Even so, it was not until some five years later in 342 that Speusippus decided to approach Philip formally. By way of contrast Isocrates chose to approach Philip as soon as practicable after the conclusion of peace between Athens and Macedon in 346. Philip had become the wealthiest and most powerful figure in the Greek world, and due to his settlement of the Phocian War had achieved a prominence which encouraged the leading intellectuals of the day to compete for his patronage.™ Philip, who was undoubtedly the most pragmatic of political leaders, also actively encouraged intellectuals to lend their abilities and prestige to the justification of his conquests, to oppose the anti-Macedonian opposition in the Greek states and to publicise his claims to lead the Greeks. There is no indication that Philip at any time during his reign looked favourably on Plato or on the Speusippean or Xenocratean Academy, whereas he clearly encouraged good relations with Isocrates, Theopompus and Aristotle amongst others. In broad outline this is the context in which I propose to interpret the Letter of Speusippus.

i. Plato and Philip II The testimony preserved in the third century CE writers Diogenes Laertius and Athenaeus (who had access to the works of many more writers than we do today) agrees that Philip made no secret of his dislike for Plato. The background is as follows. We read that Plato sent his associate Euphraeus of Oreus in Euboea to the court of Perdiccas III at the latter's request, probably soon after the king's accession in 365. The evidence for this is Plato's Fifth Letter, which commends Euphraeus as a political adviser to Perdiccas, and Carystius of Pergamum, a Hellenistic writer from the late second century BCE, quoted by Athenaeus.9? The authenticity of the Fifth Letter has frequently been challenged, but whether it was written by Plato or by a near contemporary writer, the presence of Euphraeus at

the court of Perdiccas III is not in dispute. Of Carystius, we can say that he € Sec Isocrates Philip 15: καὶ πλοῦτον xai δύναμιν κεκτημένον ὅσην οὐδεὶς τῶν Ἐλλή-

νων. 65 For the date of Carystius see F. Jacoby, RE 10.2 col.2254 s.v. ‘Karystios’. 6 Wilamowitz (Beilagen p.280; Leben p.576 n.1), for example, concurred with Dümmler

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus’ Letter

33

appears to have been a serious historian, perhaps in the vein of Theopompus, and

consequently worthy of credit.®’ We are told by Carystius that Perdiccas permitted Euphraeus to organise court life to the extent that he even decided on who should be admitted to the king’s entourage (Etatpia) and accompany him at dinner. So overbearing was Euphraeus that he appeared to be in authority at court no less than the king

himself. While Athenaeus emphasised the domineering nature of Euphraeus, the philosopher cannot have acted without Perdiccas’ full support. For all his youthfulness, Perdiccas displayed courage and energy in both internal and external affairs and was not one to be easily lead. By calling on the services of an outside adviser he was asserting his independence of action against the faction ridden Macedonian nobility that had been the ruin of his brother Alexander II and that, in the person of Ptolemy of Alorus, had sought to prevent him from attaining his rightful position as king. The reforms enacted by Perdiccas with the assistance of Euphraeus, whatever their exact nature may have been, aimed at providing the king with an independence that, as we will see, caused significant disgruntled elements within the Macedonian nobility to look to Perdiccas’ younger brother Philip in order to restore their lost influence. [p.121] that the letter was not the work of Plato but like our letter was based on a genuine letter of Speusippus and preserved much factual information. Momigliano [Filippo p.36 n.1] pointed out that this hypothesis must be dismissed in consequence of the general acceptance of the authenticity of our letter. While he declined to comment on the style of the letter, Momigliano felt that its authenticity was unobjectionable on grounds of content. Pasquali [pp.226-233] condemned the letter both on grounds of content and style. Isnardi Parente [Filosofia pp.39—43;

Studi p.258 n.33] likewise rejects the Fifth Letter arguing that it is a product of the Academy under Speusippus' leadership and she dates it shortly after spring 341, soon after the death of Euphraeus. She believes that it was intended by Speusippus to remind Philip of his debt to Plato, the Academy and Euphraeus and to combat Demosthenes’ portrayal of Euphraeus in the Third Philippic as merely an anti-Macedonian martyr. W. Neumann & J. Kerchensteiner [Platon: Briefe, München: Heimeran, 1967 p.180] reject the letter on internal grounds but note that "Der Anlaß des Briefes ist also historisch einwandfrei". Griffith [HM II, 207 n.2] has recently stated his emphatic agreement with the objections of R. Hackforth (The Authorship of the Platonic Epistles, Manchester 1913). A.E. Taylor (Plato: the Man and his Work 7th ed. London: Methuen 1960, pp 541-2). however, thought Hackforth's objections 'trivial' and stated that both the language and content appeared to be consistent with Plato's authorship. Harward [pp.183-185] reached a similar conclusion. I find myself in agreement with Harward's arguments and incline to accept the Fifth Letter as a genuine work of Plato. The relationship between Plato and Euphraeus is confirmed by Harpocration s.v. Εὐφραῖος and that between Plato and Philip is, of course, confirmed by $12 of Speusippus' letter.

67 See above pp. 23-24. 68 Evepaios μὲν yap παρὰ Περδίκκᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ διατρίβων £v Μακεδονίᾳ οὐκ ἧττον αὐτοῦ ἐβασίλευε φαῦλος ὧν καὶ διάβολος᾽ ὅς οὕτω ψυχρῶς συνέταξε τὴν ἑταιρίαν τοῦ βασιλέως ὥστε οὐκ ἐξῆν τοῦ συσσιτίου μετασχεῖν εἰ μή τις ἐπίσταιτο γεωμετρεῖν ἢ φιλοσοφεῖν (Carystius of Pergamum F 2, FHG 4.357 = Athenaeus 508d]. The context in which Athenaeus raised the presence in Macedonia of Euphraeus is significant, for it occurs as part of the argument that a number of Plato's followers were tyrannical and noted for slanderous attacks on their opponents. The anti-Platonic bias in Athenaeus is to be distinguished from the testimony of Carystius which he cited.

34

Introduction

Events which took place at the Syracusan court of the younger Dionysius a few years earlier provide an informative comparison with the situation that occurred at this time at the Macedonian court. Both situations concerned young, inexperienced rulers and both saw the involvement of the Academy. Unlike Perdiccas, the younger Dionysius did not have to fight for his position. Because of his inexperience, however, he found himself reliant on men who had served his father and especially on Dion, whom he distrusted, perhaps with good reason. If Plutarch's statement of Dion’s intentions is correct, then Dion would either convert Dionysius into a responsible ruler or else overthrow him.9? Dion's preeminence overshadowed the young tyrant in the same way as the father he detested and finally rejected had similarly overshadowed him.’® Like his Macedonian counterpart, albeit for different reasons, Dionysius strove to assert his independence by appointing his own advisers. To this end, one of his first acts was to recall Philistus, whom the elder Dionysius had banished from Sicily.’! Philistus would be Dionysius' man and a counterbalance to Dion who had been his father's righthand man. Although he was wary of Dion, Dionysius had also been influenced by him towards the philosophic way of life. With Dion's assistance he persuaded Plato to make the journey to Syracuse and cooperated with him in introducing

reforms to court life. According to Plutarch,’2 Plato's arrival at Syracuse in 366 had the effect of making the court a more orderly place and the tone of the symposium became more thoughtful and less boisterous.’ The study of geometry and philosophy became popular, for the moment at least, and Dionysius appeared to be ameliorating the severity of his rule under Plato's influence.’* These changes were a matter of grave concern to Philistus and those around him, who feared that their influence with Dionysius would suffer. For this reason they took action to 69 Plutarch, Dion 12. Another reason to distrust Dion was that he was the brother of Aristomache, the Syracusan wife of the elder Dionysius. During the last days of the elder Dionysius" life Dion had attempted to influence the succession in favour of Andromache's son. See Plutarch Dion 6.2.

70 According to Plutarch Moralia 338b, Dionysius declared that his real father was Apollo. Compare Alexander the Great, who strove to free himself from the influence of Philip's advisers and who rejected his human paternity in favour of Zeus. Ogden p. xxix places the rejection of paternity in both cases in an amphimetric context. ™ Plutarch Dion 11.2-13.1.

7

Dion 13; Moralia 52d. Plutarch’s Life of Dion was based on the near contemporary

account of Timaeus of Tauromenium, which itself may have utilised the work of Timonides of Leucas, who together with Speusippus and other Academicians supported Dion in his return to Syracuse. See Plutarch, Dion 22.3; 35.3.

7 We may well imagine that the Academic regimen would have weighed heavily on Dionysius and Philip, both of whom are reported to have been heavy drinkers and revellers. See in regard to Dionysius Aristotle, Politics 1312a; Athenaeus 10.435e=Aristotle Syracusan Constitution; Theopompus FF 134, 283a, 283b FGrH 115; Plutarch Dion 7.4, 34.1; Moralia 52d; and for Philip. Theopompus F 236 = Athenaeus 10.435b-c. 14 The requirement to have studied geometry and philosophy is also mentioned by Carystius [F2].While the study of geometry was an important part of the Platonic curriculum, the allusions we have here probably reflects the attempt by their opponents to ridicule the Platonists. The essential point is that the presence of the Platonists upset the balance of power at court.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

35

counter the increasingly influential position of Plato and Dion by means of a

campaign of slander and innuendo.?? Returning now to the Macedonian court, we can appreciate that Euphraeus' reforms would have had a similar effect there. Those who had enjoyed the confidence of the former king Alexander II, and particularly those who had supported Perdiccas in the overthrow of his guardian Ptolemy of Alorus, would naturally expect to exercise influence at Perdiccas' court. These noblemen must have felt their position threatened seeing that their new king had submitted himself to an uncompromising foreign intellectual, whom he had permitted to alter the established pattern of court life. As a result of this situation Perdiccas appears to have lost the support of a significant section of his family's traditional backers amongst the Macedonian nobility, who turned to Philip in an attempt to preserve their own influence within the state. The realisation that his own ability to influence the course of Macedonian policy had suffered due to the weakening of his relationship with the king his brother cannot have pleased Philip and would have disposed him to listen to those disgruntled barons whom the thirty-first Socratic

Letter refers to as oi φαῦλοι. These contemptible men, the letter writer stated, would be pleased to see Philip challenge his brother for the kingship.’® Deriving also from Carystius of Pergamum is the information that Euphraeus was instrumental in persuading Perdiccas to apportion part of his kingdom to Philip." On any reckoning this was a radical step to take, although not unprece-

dented.’® Moreover we must assume that Euphraeus brokered the settlement in 15 Whereas Perdiccas seems to have had a genuine interest in philosophy, and in the way philosophy could benefit his rule, Dionysius appears to have valued more the association with intellectuals and the prestige which their presence could impart to his tyranny, as Plato's assessment in his Seventh Letter [329d-330b, 338e, 344e-345a] suggests. On the opposition of Philistus and the tyrant's bodyguard see Plutarch Dion. 14.1-2; 19.5; Nepos Dion 3. Cf. Plato, Letter 7 329b; 330b; 333a-c. It is difficult to assess just how close Dionysius came to resigning his tyranny in favour of a constitutional government. The scene of sacrifice in the palace a few days after Plato's arrival as described by Plutarch [Dion 13.3], at which Dionysius expressed his wish to end the tyranny, if true, represents only the tyrant's initial and unconsidered response. The point of the story was to show how the possibility of this happening alarmed Philistus and, we may add, the powerful bodyguard which owed its continued existence to the tyranny. See H.W.Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers, O.U.P.. 1933 (1970), p.115.

76 The thirty-first Socratic Letter is discussed in Appendix | where a text and translation is offered. Schaefer [v.2 p.15] considered the possibility that the Macedonian nobility were alienated by the extraordinary alliance of Perdiccas and Euphraeus: "Ob der makedonische Adel. aufgebracht durch den ausschließlichen Einfluß eines fremden, Euphraeos von Oreos, ... sich von dem Kónige abwandte." ™ Fl FHG 4.356 =Athenaeus 11.506e-f.

78 Hammond has suggested [HM p.188) that events in the reign of Perdiccas II may provide a precedent for the settlement brokered by Euphraeus. Two of Alexander I's sons, Philip and Alcetas, are thought to have possessed separate principalities over which they exercised some form of authority. In the case of Philip this is established by Thucydides 2.100.3, where the construction πρῶτον μὲν ... ἔπειτα δὲ clearly shows that Thucydides believed that Philip had ruled over a discrete territory. As to Alcetas, the evidence of Plato Gorgias 471b is more open to dispute. The doubt arises over the meaning of Perdiccas' ἀρχή, which Archelaus promised to restore to him. The word is used four times in the passage and certainly refers to the Macedonian

36

Introduction

order to benefit Perdiccas, and not Philip as Speusippus implied in section 12 of his Letter. Given that this assumption is correct and given also that the brothers did quarrel, it is legitimate to postulate that the territorial settlement was directly

related to the quarrel.’? Extreme measures imply desperate situations. It was only by giving the ambitious Philip a share of real power that Euphraeus felt he could avert a potentially disastrous challenge to Perdiccas and the ruin of the experiment he had begun in the practical application of philosophical principles. Support for each side would appear to have been evenly balanced, for had the supporters of one side clearly predominated they may have been more inclined to force the issue. Daniel Ogden, whose thesis, as it relates to the present events, I discuss in the following paragraph, has shown that among the Argead kings of Macedon and their hellenistic successors disputes were rare amongst full siblings, whereas they were common in amphimetric relationships, that is relationships where siblings share the same father but not the same mother. Consequently, the fact that Perdiccas and Philip were full brothers also made it more likely that they would settle their differences peacefully. These considerations, combined with Plato's well attested abhorrence of conflict within states and the throne on the other three occasions. Plato, I would say, intended the reader to understand that Perdiccas had usurped his brother's right to the kingship upon the death of Alexander I. Once Perdiccas died, Alcetas was next in line and the ambitious Archelaus had to remove all possible claimants. This is certainly the interpretation of the scholia on Aelius Aristides, /n defense of the four 120,2 (Dindorf v.3 p.450) who seems to be well informed on Macedonian affairs. The same scholia imply that Alcetas was, initally at least, driven into exile by Perdiccas [ὃν (sc. ‘AAxéta) ἐκβαλλὼν Περδίκκας εἶχε τὴν βασιλείαν). We know, however, from an inscription recording

an Athenian-Macedonian treaty [IG i? 89.60—61] that at some stage during Perdiccas' reign both he and Alcetas were joint oath-takers and therefore must have been reconciled. See Hammond p. 135; Ogden pp.6—7. Therefore, although the Gorgias passage does not prove that Alcetas ruled a principality within Macedon, based on his brother Philip's situation and his presence in Macedonia during Perdiccas' reign I think it highly likely that he did so. See also F. Geyer Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II. München: Oldenbourg, 1930 pp.50-52; Momigliano Filip-

po pp.14—16. Hammond [p.188] is correct in pointing out that, 'there is no indication that there was any hostility between Perdiccas and Philip’, but this is not to doubt that they had quarrelled short of open hostility.

79 That the brothers had quarrelled is not in doubt, for this is certainly the necessary inference both from $12 of the Letter of Speusippus and also from the thirty-first Socratic Letter.

This is also the assessment of Griffith HM, p.207. The evidence suggests that it was Euphraeus who, as intermediary, brokered a settlement acceptable to both parties, although it needs to be said that our sources do not make explicit the connection between the quarrel and the territorial settlement. We are simply told by the historian Carystius of Pergamum [F1 FHG 4.356 = Athenaeus

11.506e] that Euphraeus persuaded (ἔπεισεν) Perdiccas to assign some territory to

Philip, and it would seem logical to conclude that he did so as the result of compulsion. The fact that we find the territorial settlement juxtaposed in the Letter of Speusippus (12] with the clear suggestion that the brothers had quarrelled leads also to this conclusion. That the connection was not explicitly stated in the Letter of Speusippus should occasion no surprise in view of Euphraeus’ anti-Macedonian activities at the time. I argue in Appendix 1 that there was a

potentially destructive rivalry between Philip and his brother Perdiccas, who were near in age. This together with the destabilising effects of Euphraeus' influence on the Macedonian nobility and Philip's ambition would account for the quarrel.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus’ Letter

37

knowledge that civil war would strengthen the enemies of Macedon and so jeopardise the viability of the state, influenced the brothers to settle their quarrel amicably. Philip was content for the moment to take his leave of the court and establish himself in the territory over which it had been agreed that he should exercise authority. Here he built up a strong military force, as Carystius further

stated,®° and observed the progress of what he no doubt regarded as a foolish and dangerous experiment and, moreover, one for which he held Plato and Euphraeus responsible. The interpretation I have proposed in the previous paragraph of the partition of the Macedonian kingdom is not widely held by other scholars, some of whom do not acknowledge even the possibility of a quarrel between the royal brothers. Worle, for example, accepts at face value the assertion that Euphraeus used his influence with Perdiccas to benefit Philip, but he does not ask why Euphraeus did so.?! The same is true of Sonnabend, who is at a loss to explain why Philip later at Oreus in 342 failed to support Euphraeus, in whose debt he should logically have been if Euphraeus had rendered him a great service. For this reason Sonnabend is led to doubt the evidence that Euphraeus benefited Philip at all.82 Ogden's attempt to deny that Perdiccas and Philip quarrelled is no more than an assertion made in order to support his thesis that ‘...full brothers normally exhibit solidarity

among themselves.’3? In fact Ogden's argument would be stronger were he to acknowledge the evidence for a quarrel and argue that the fact that Perdiccas and Philip were full brothers meant that they were more inclined to settle their disagreement peacefully through the agency of Euphraeus. The emphasis placed on kinship in the thirty-first Socratic letter would further support such a position. To the casual reader of The Letter of Speusippus it is Isocrates and Theopompus who are portrayed as calumniators of the admirable Plato. According to Speusippus, Plato had always sought to promote good relations between Philip and his brother and had even been the cause of Philip's becoming king. It comes as a surprise to read in Athenaeus' account that, according to Carystius of Pergamum, Speusippus actually wrote to Philip because he had heard that Philip was slandering Plato. Athenaeus then quotes from $12 of our letter, where Speusippus referred to Philip's indebtedness to Plato, and the story of the allotment of land discussed earlier follows by way of explanation. Athenaeus (or rather his character Pontianus) felt that the whole story was so extraordinary as to be 50 Fl FHG 4.356 = Athenaeus 506f. 81 Worle pp.1 17-118. See also Dusanic (p.120] who writes of ‘Euphraeus’ intervention in favour of Philip’. In contrast, P. Scholz [Die Philosoph und die Politik, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998 p.114 n.145], who is also interested in the relationship between philosophers and practical politics, recognises the striking nature of the land grant to Philip and canvasses possible explanations.

82 Sonnabend pp.55-56. 83 Ogden p.16. Judging from his note 86, Ogden seems to be unfamiliar with section 12 of Speusippus' letter (which he writes ‘appears to be an incorrect reference’) or with the thirty-first Socratic letter.

84 Σπρύσικκος κυνθανόμενος Φιλίκπκον βλασφημεῖν Πλάτωνος εἰς ἐπιστολὴν ἔγραφέ τι τοιοῦτον: ΕἸ FHG 4.356 = Athenaeus 506e.

38

Introduction

incredible: ‘God knows’, he exclaimed, ‘whether the story is true or not!’® The reason why Pontianus doubted the story that Plato had been very friendly (¢tAtatov) with Philip and had once performed a great service for him which led to his becoming king must be related to the argument in Book 11 of the Deipnosophists [506a] that Plato was ‘hostile (Svopevnc) towards everyone’ and so could not be

friendly with anyone; but also, I would argue, because of the strength of the received tradition in the third century CE, (which we see reflected in the statement that Philip had been slandering Plato), that Philip and Plato had been enemies.3® We find the same tradition represented in Diogenes Laertius, where we read

that Philip had censured Plato.®’ So well known was Philip’s attack on Plato that the mere juxtaposition of the two names caused Diogenes to recall the event. It is significant that the source cited by Diogenes is Theopompus, whom we know to

have written a work against Plato.?? It is also possible, if not likely, that Carystius 85 τοῦτο δ᾽ εἴπερ οὕτως ἀληθείας ἔχει, θεὸς Gv εἰδείη: Athenaeus 506f. 56 οὗτος δ᾽ ἐστὶ Πλάτων, ὃν Σκεύσικπός φησι φίλτατον ὄντα [᾿Αρχελάῳ] Φιλίππῳ τῆς βασιλείας αἴτιον γενέσθαι (Athenaeus 11.506e]. The word ApyeAdo was probably added later by a copyist who either misunderstood the argument at this point in the Deipnosophists or, what is more likely, inadvertently wrote ᾿Αρχελάῳ because of the preceding mention of Archelaus. Certainly the justification for the claim which Athenaeus makes in the following sentence (γράφει γοῦν Καρύστιος...) concerns Philip alone. See also the discussion of Gomperz [p.112 n.11] who, in view of the fact that Perdiccas is mentioned in the ensuing quotation from Carystius, suggested Mepdixxg for ᾿Αρχελάῳ. But it is probably better to remove the reference to Archelaus altogether. The explanation of Schuhl ['Platon et l'activité politique de l'Académie" REG 59 (1946) p.48] that Plato had been on good terms with Archelaus prior to his writing the

Gorgias,

in which

he criticised the king

[471a-d]. does not ring true. Ritter [p.381] also

attempted to reconcile the contradiction with the Gorgias. 87 Diogenes Laertius 3.40 = Theopompus F294 FGrH 115: ὑφ᾽ οὗ xai ἐπιτιμηθῆναί φησιν αὐτὸν Θεόπομπος. The Loeb edition is probably incorrect in translating ἐπιτιμηθῆναι αὐτόν by ‘honours were paid to him at his death’ citing Herodotus 6.39 as precedent. Schaefer [v.2 p.40 n.3] had earlier interpreted the passage similarly. See Boehnecke p.451 and also Wilamowitz, Leben p.571 n4, who based his interpretation on the meaning of ἐπιτιμάω in Diogenes’ time. The fact that Diogenes cited Theopompus as his authority makes it likely that the reference is to the censure of Plato, as Jacoby remarked in his comment on F294. It is not possible to say certainly whether Diogenes had direct knowledge of Theopompus’ writings, which he cites on eight occasions, once [1.8] citing a book number from the Philippica. He may have been working from notes he excerpted from Theopompus directly or via a secondary source. For the technique of excerpting see J. Meier, 'Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic background', Hermes Einzelschriften 40 (1978), pp.16-29. It is true that Aelian [4.19] wrote that Philip had honoured Plato

and Theophrastus as well as Aristotle: Φίλιππος

ὁ Μακεδὼν ... καὶ Πλάτονα δὲ ἐτίμησε xai

Θεόφραστον. Aelian is known to have mined the work of Theopompus for topical references, but it is significant that on this occasion he cited no authority for his claim, using the vague ἐλέγετο. For fourth century usage compare Plato, Phaedrus 237c; Demosthenes Against Leptines 148; Hegesippus at Pseudo-Demosthenes On Halonnesus 22 and, of course, $11 of our letter. Despite the judgments of Boehnecke, Wilamowitz and Jacoby, this passage continues to be misinterpreted, as, for example, by Shrimpton p. 257, and in an article published in 1993 by Brunt [p.294 n.34].

88 The work is cited by Jacoby [FGrH

2B.591] as Καταδρομή τῆς Πλάτωνος διατριβῆς

and is referred to in the Rhodian Book List [see T48 FGrH 115 and by Athenaeus [11.508c = F259 FGrH 115]. The word διατριβή is probably best translated by ‘teaching’ or ‘instruction’ rather than 'school'. See Flower p.37 n.48. See also p. 58 below.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

39

made use of Theopompus’ works, but we do not know this for sure. What is sure is that Carystius and his source were familiar with our letter of Speusippus to Philip and that they believed it had been written in response to Philip's open censure of Plato. Theopompus was in a good position to have known these things during his stay at the Macedonian court and, if he is the ultimate source for what Carystius wrote, then we should accept his word as broadly accurate in regard to these matters.5? Carystius, then, interpreted Speusippus' letter in the light of what he already knew from his other source or sources, which may well have included Theopompus, who we know recorded Philip's censure of Plato.” We may say, therefore, that the initial impression given by Speusippus' letter of friendly relations between Plato and Philip appears to be false, contradicted by the evidence of Theopompus and Carystius. The reasons for this false impression will become clear when later we come to examine the rhetorical structure of the letter. For the moment, it is necessary to assess the evidence concerning the interactions of Plato's associates and former pupils with Philip in order to determine whether these men enjoyed friendly relations with Macedon, or whether the hostility between Plato and Philip for which I have argued can be traced in their interactions.

ii. Plato's Associates and Philip II a. Euphraeus, Python of Aenus, Delius, Phocion and Leon of Byzantium Euphraeus of Oreus, as we have seen, was instrumental in brokering the territorial settlement which granted Philip independent authority over a part of the Macedonian kingdom. This drastic measure, I have argued, was primarily intended to benefit Perdiccas by averting a quarrel with Philip that threatened the King's position. According to Carystius of Pergamum, Euphraeus' influence at court had been so obnoxious (οὕτω ψυχρῶς) that Philip recalled it some eighteen years later when, having captured Oreus in Euboea, he specifically ordered the killing of Euphraeus, who had by that time become the leader of the anti5? We can say that the story regarding Euphraeus’ activities is unlikely to have come from the Katadpoun τῆς Πλάτωνος διατριβῆς, a work with which Athenaeus was sufficiently familiar to quote from at 11.508c. for rather than attribute the story to this work he cited Carystius as his source. The fact that Athenaeus was familiar with Theopompus' Philippica. as numerous quotations attest, would seem to cast doubt on this work as a possible source also. But then again, it was Athenaeus" practice to cite a single source and he may have decided to cite Carystius rather than Theopompus on this occasion. Wilamowitz's curt dismissal of Theopompus as a credible source for these matters seems to me unjustified: ‘ihm [Theopompos] wäre nur die Erwähnung eines Tadels zuzutrauen, und das ist denn auch mit einem gróberen Worte bezeugt durch Karystios, Athenaeus 506e'. Beilagen p.571 n.4. % 1 note also Bertelli’s conjecture that Carystius and Diogenes Laertius inadvertently transferred to Philip the opinions rightly belonging to Theopompus, because they confused the opinions expressed by Theopompus in a letter to Philip with Philip's own opinion. See Lertera p.100.

40

Introduction

Macedonian resistance in his native city.?! Many changes take place over eighteen years, but Euphraeus' later history, known not only from Carystius but also from Demosthenes' Third Philipic, tends to confirm the reconstruction of events in the reign of Perdiccas for which I have argued. Clearly Philip regarded Plato's former student and associate as a dangerous enemy in 342, and not someone to whom he felt in any way indebted for a past service. Equally clearly Carystius believed that Philip harboured resentment against Euphraeus (and, we must assume, against Plato as well) because of the influence he had previously exerted in Macedonia over his brother Perdiccas. Similarly we must conclude that during the time he resided at the Macedonian court Euphraeus viewed Philip as an opponent both of himself and of Plato. It is not surprising, therefore, that we have no report of Euphraeus continuing to reside in Macedonia after Philip became king, nor do we possess a single reference of any sort to contact between Plato and Macedon during the twelve years from the accession of Philip in 359 until Plato's

death in 347.?? Another Academic connected with Philip was Python of Aenus, who together with his brother Heracleides assassinated the Odrysian king Cotys I in 359. These two men subsequently fled to Athens where they were honoured by the state and

granted Athenian citizenship.?? According to Demosthenes, Python repudiated his Athenian citizenship and went into Philip's service sometime before date of the speech against Aristocrates.?^ Based on this statement of thenes, Schaefer identified the Aenian with Python of Byzantium, the Isocrates who served Philip in 346 and, most conspicuously, in 343

352, the Demospupil of when he

91 Carystius of Pergamum F 2, FHG 4.357 = Athenaeus 508d, quoted in n. 4 above. Athenaeus' words Φιλίππου mv ἀρχὴν καραλαβόντος indicate that Euphraeus met his end sometime after Philip became king, and not as Griffith [HM, p.206] appears to suggest ‘when Philip ascended the throne'. Athenaeus was concerned purely with cause and effect and not with chronological accuracy. Demosthenes [9.62] recorded that Euphraeus took his own life. Whilst it may be the case that Carystius or his source inferred from Philip's known hostility to the philosopher that Philip had specifically ordered the killing of Euphraeus, in effect there is little real difference between Euphraeus choosing to commit suicide rather than falling into Philip's hands and suffering the same fate.

92 [t is also noteworthy that Diogenes Laertius knew of letters by Speusippus and Aristotle to Philip, but not letters of Plato to Philip. The thirty-first Socratic Letter, which I argue in Appendix I is likely to be a genuine letter of Plato to Philip, was written before Philip had become king. It would admittedly have been difficult for Plato or Speusippus, had they wished to do so, to have renewed active ties with the Macedonian royal family between 357 and 346 when a state of war existed between Athens and Macedon. Despite this we must ask why it took Speu-

sippus more than three years after the Peace of Philocrates to approach Philip and why he did so in such a cautious manner.

93 The later tradition represented by Philodemus Academica col.6 15-20, Plutarch Moralia 1126c;542 e-f;816e, Diogenes Laertius 3.46; 9.65 and portrayed the Aenians as pupils of Plato and tyrant slayers “..hätten Kotys quasi mit Platons Schriften in Händen however, who was contemporary with the events, ignored only the persona] motive of revenge to the assassins.

% Against Aristocrates

119; 127; 163.

Philostratus Life of Apollonius 7.2 who in the words of Sonnabend [p.73] getötet”. Aristotle [Politics 1311b]. the ideological motive and attributed

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus’ Letter

41

visited Athens as Philip's ambassador.?? This identification seems to me highly unlikely for a number of reasons. In relation to the assassination of Cotys, Demosthenes referred specifically to Python of Aenus in the speech Against Aristocrates, whereas later on in the speech On the Crown and in his Letter 2 in reference to events of 343 he referred to Python of Byzantium, thereby clearly distinguish-

ing the two men.” If we may believe Demosthenes, Python of Aenus was regarded as a traitor by Athenians after his defection to Philip at a time when Athens and Macedon were at war. Philip cannot have contemplated using a person so despised by Athenians on an important and sensitive mission in 343. Nothing more is known of Python of Aenus after he moved to Macedon. Consequently, we cannot say whether he retained a connection with the Academy that would argue for good relations between Plato and Philip.

We also hear of a certain Delius of Ephesus, an ἑταῖρος of Plato, who according to Plutarch was sent by the Greeks of Asia to convince Alexander to make war on Persia. Philostratus tells a similar story of one Dias who had earlier

approached Alexander's father, Philip, in the same matter?" Philostratus adds that Dias also attempted to persuade the mainland Greek states to follow Philip. The argument has been made that it was because of his Academic connection that Delius/Dias was chosen by the Asiatic Greeks to represent them at the Macedonian court, the implication being that through his association with the Academy Delius could expect a favourable reception from Philip and by extension from Alexander.?® However there is no direct evidence for this hypothesis. We know only that Delius/Dias was acting in the interests of the Greek cities of Asia Minor and nowhere is it suggested that his Platonic association endeared him to Philip and Alexander or, indeed, to the other Greek cities he visited. According to Plutarch, Delius exemplified the kind of philosophical training that, unlike the political and social quietism of Epicurus, led its adherents to benefit society by striving to implement their philosophical beliefs. Philostratus, on the other hand, emphasised the oratorical skills of Dias the sophist, which enabled him to persuade Philip to free the Asiatic Greeks and to convince the mainland Greek cities to support Macedon. We are, it seems to me, entitled to deduce from the evidence only that his higher education prepared Delius/Dias to be a forceful and eloquent diplomat and that it was for this reason that he was chosen to represent the Asiatic Greeks. Other former pupils of Plato are known to have stood in opposition to Philip. Leon of Byzantium, for example, played a prominent part in the resistance of his 95 Schaefer [v.2 pp.375—6] speculated that Python had been born in Aenus and later acquired Byzantine citizenship.

36 See On the Crown 136; Letter 2, 10. See also H. Schmitt, 'Python 4' in RE 24, col. 611.3. If this reasoning is not accepted, then we must postulate a contradiction in Demosthenes who, as Worle [p.158] pointed out, knew both men.

37 Plutarch, Moralia 1126d; Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 485-486. The story is generally held to apply to the same person, whatever his true name may have been.

98 See Worle p.124; Sonnabend p.128. parate approaches to Philip and Alexander.

Both these scholars believe that Delius made se-

42

Introduction

native city when it was besieged by Philip in 340. According to Plutarch, it was the collaboration of Leon and the Athenian general Phocion, both of whom had studied together under Plato, that resulted in a humiliating defeat for Philip

before the walls of Byzantium and the failure of his campaign in the Hellespont.” The extent to which the actions of these two men were motivated ciation with Plato or purely by their sense of patriotism in resisting of Macedon is impossible to say. Their successful cooperation in was unquestionably facilitated by the trust engendered as a result

by their assothe aggression 340, however, of their earlier

association with Plato.!®

b. Speusippus Apart from the Letter of Speusippus, the significance of which I will discuss later, there are two pieces of evidence which have been used to argue that Speusippus, who succeeded Plato as head of the Academy in 347, was on terms of friendship with Philip. The first of these is the report preserved by Athenaeus [279f] that Speusippus paid debts left owing (presumably to creditors in Athens) by Hermias the ruler of Atarneus after the latter's death at Persian hands in 341. Based on this evidence Markle has argued for a 'strong link...between Speusippus, Aristotle,

and Philip in the late 340’s’.'°' The logic of Markle's argument seems to be: 1. Speusippus and Aristotle were friends in the late 340's (because at that time Speusippus paid the debts of Aristotle's father-in-law Hermias). 2. Hermias and Aristotle are known to have been supporters of Philip. 3. Therefore Speusippus also must have been on friendly terms with Philip. Even if the first two propositions were certainly true (and there would be varying degrees of agreement here) the conclusion does not hold necessarily, because it still remains possible for Speusippus to be friendly with Aristotle but not with Philip. Moreover, the credibility of the source for the first proposition is extremely doubtful. It derives 39 Plutarch Phocion. 14.4.5. Phocion had also studied under Xenocrates [Plutarch Phocion. 4.1]. The story that Leon had been prepared to betray his city to Philip for money is rightly dismissed by Griffith, HM pp.574 n.1, 716 n.2.

100 Gomperz made the valid point that those who studied under Plato represented a variety of political positions and certainly cannot be held to represent the Academy in any political sense [See especially pp.115-116]. However he went too far in his criticism of Bernays' thesis by dismissing all suggestion of Plato's involvement in practical politics beyond the Syracusan adventure. Plato was clearly interested in the implementation of his political ideas not only at Syracuse but also in Macedonia and elsewhere, as the various approaches made to him by cities for constitutions indicate. In general on the relationship of Plato and his associates to practical politics see Worle. The attempt by Gomperz to show that Euphraeus acted independently [pp.110-112] seems misguided to me, and his failure to discuss the Letter of Speusippus, as distinct from its citation by Carystius in Athenaeus, weakens his argument. The evidence adduced by Sonnabend for the theory that Plato sought to promote not only the interests of the Academy but also the foreign policy interests of Athens through his friendships with former students and associates such as Euphraeus is largely inferential.

!0! See Markle p.97.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

43

from a letter or letters supposedly written by Dionysius Il of Syracuse to Speusippus in which, according to Athenaeus, Dionysius accused Speusippus of an excessive love of (specificially sexual) pleasure (φιληδονία), of avarice (φιλαρyupia) and of the desire to profit by shameful means (αἰσχροκέρδεια). In support of the latter charge, Speusippus is said to have attempted (cf. ἐπιχειρεῖς) to realise a profit for himself after paying Hermias' debts by collecting contribu-

tions, presumably from friends of Hermias.!% The story as it stands is obviously false and must be rejected as part of the spiteful invective against the Academy which we often find represented in the works of Diogenes Laertius and Athenae-

us.!03 What we have here is an instance of the type of story that looked to portray its subject as a hypocrite, and the only element of truth it contains is that Speusippus in fact deprecated avarice (cf. σύ τισι φιλαργυρίαν ὀνειδίζεις). Similarly, the charge of φιληδονία contradicts the fact that Speusippus is known to have

advocated the avoidance of pleasure, which he saw as an evil.!® The real 102 σύ no φιλαργυρίαν ὀνειδίζεις αὐτὸς μηδὲν ἐλλελοιπὼς αἰσχροκερδείας; ti yap ov πεκοίηκας; οὐκ ὑπὲρ ὧν Ἑρμείας ὥφειλεν αὐτὸς ἐκτετικὼς ἔρανον συνάγειν ERIXEIPEIG... [Athenaeus 279f] The implication contained in the word aioxpoxépóeta is that Speusippus sought to profit monetarily from the situation. This point has generally been overlooked. Merlan [Biographie p.209; cf. Ritter, p.386 n.73], for example, ignored the profit motive in writing that Dionysius II in his letter wilfully interpreted as a gift what was in fact a loan, and Tarán [p.223] writes that Speusippus tried to ‘reimburse himself". Merlan's attempt to impart some credibility to the situation by comparing it to the case of Dionysius I's debts mentioned in Plato Lerter XIII does not amount to much. To begin with, Merlan was not justified in assuming that the debts of Dionysius I were left after his death rather than during his lifetime, as this is not implied in Plato's text. Furthermore, it is possible (albeit unprovable) that the forger of the letter of Dio-

nysius II quoted by Athenaeus actually had Letter XII] in mind when he accused Speusippus of loving money to such an extent that he sought to profit from an act of friendship. For in Plato's

letter the theme is also friendship. It was reasonable and only human (cf. εἰκότα xai ἀνθρώπινα - 362b) for Andromedes to decline to provide the entire loan to Dionysius II when he had experienced difficulty in recovering an earlier debt from the tyrant's father, but the readiness of Leptines to make the loan available was proof of his friendship (cf. ἐπιτήδειος — 362c). In both cases a man's character is illustrated in terms of his regard for friendship over profit. Letter 34 (Köhler = Letter 36 Orelli/Hercher) in the collection of Socratic Letters purporting to have been written by Dionysius II to Speusippus appears to be a forgery cobbled together from references in Athenaeus, Diogenes Laertius and other unknown sources and is of no independent value. See Sykutris, [Briefe pp.97-98].

103 The force of the charge of ‘loving money’ should not be underestimated. Philostratus [Life of Apollonius 1.34) explained that a wise man (ὁ σοφός) might be excused if on occasion he were to be overcome by laziness or anger or passion or alcohol; but if he should become the slave of money then he would be despised, for the love of money is inexcusable in that it encompasses all vices, implying as it does that the lover of money is already addicted to food and wine or to fine clothes or courtesans.

104 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1172b, may be evidence that Speusippus was charged with secret hedonism in his own lifetime. See also Tarán p.79. 438—443 for a discussion of Speusippus' view on the relation between pleasure and the good. For this type of invective see Tarán pp.3—4 and p.178, where he attributes it to ‘The tendency of Hellenistic biographical writers to invent anecdotes and charges in order to illustrate the incongruity of a philosopher's doctrines with his life...'. In regard to the correspondence between Dionysius and Speusippus, Tarán [p.223] argues that one or more later rhetoricians fabricated it purely on the basis that the

44

Introduction

challenge for the historian is to judge whether the slander of Speusippus has a basis in fact, namely that Speusippus really did pay Hermias’ debts, or whether

on the balance of probabilities it is best to discard the story altogether.!05 Given the absence of any confirmatory report from the classical or Hellenistic period, the sum total of our knowledge, it seems to me, is that the letter extant in the second and third centuries CE which Athenaeus cited and which was probably known to Diogenes Laertius [4.5] is a forgery. Based on this evidence we are not justified in postulating the existence of genuine letters; for to suggest that the existence of a forgery (and an obvious one at that) should presuppose the existence of a genuine letter is surely illogical. There are no solid grounds whatsoever to credit the story that Speusippus' paid debts owed by Hermias. The second piece of evidence for good relations between Speusippus and Philip is even less credible than the first. It occurs in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius [1.34; cf. Diogenes Laertius 4.1] where we read that Speusippus journeyed to Macedonia on the occasion of Cassander's wedding.!99 The passage is usually understood to mean that he attended the celebrations as the invited guest of Cassander and that he took the opportunity to make money on the side, so to say, by giving public recitals of the celebratory songs he had composed for the occasion. However, we are not specifically told that Speusippus was in fact the guest of Cassander. The meaning may equally well be that he went to Macedonia on his own initiative at the time of the public festivities in honour of Cassander’s marriage with the intention of making money by performing before the assembled crowds odes specially written for the occasion, in much the same way as poets and orators provided entertainment at the great national religious festivals.!0? Once again it is the disreputable profit motive that betrays the anti-Platonic invective in the anecdote. However, the major difficulty with the story is the fact two men were known to have been enemies in consequence of Speusippus' support for Dion. "The authors of such letters', writes Tarán, 'sometimes take their "information" from the biographical tradition (reliable and unreliable); but often they make up the charges and anecdotes which are later taken as facts by new "biographers"". 105 Taran [pp.4—5], who is prepared to credit very little of the biographical tradition relating to Speusippus, justly criticises Merlan's tendency to utilise and reconcile almost everything. However, it must be said that Merlan was right in his observation that 'Lügen pflegen wahrscheinlicher, Verleumdungen selten glatte Lügen zu sein’. [Biographie p.212]. Flower [p.207] makes a similar point in regard to Theopompus" attack on Hermias. But if we are dealing with lies, which this fictitious letter appears to be, and not merely calumnies, then we would not expect them to have a basis in fact.

106 Σπεύσιππον τὸν 'AO0nvaiov οὕτω τι ἐρασιχρήματον γενέσθαι φασίν, ὡς ἐπὶ tov Kaσάνδρου γάμον ἐς Μακεδονίαν κωμάσαι ποιήματα ψυχρὰ ξυνθέντα καὶ δημοσίᾳ tavO' ὑπὲρ

χρημάτων doar. Diogenes Laertius wrote simply (Σπεύσιππον) ὑφ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἐλθεῖν εἰς Μακεδονίαν ἐπὶ τὸν Κασάνδρου γάμον.

107 This interpretation is strengthened if we read with Mullach [p.65 n.72] κομίσασθαι in place of κωμάσαι, and translate ‘...on the occasion of Cassander‘s wedding he took with him to Macedonia uninspired compositions...'. We might compare the present story with that told about Philoxenus the dithyrambic poet who, because of his excessive love of fish, presented himself uninvited at a wedding feast and, in order to ingratiate himself with the host, performed a wedding song. Athenaeus 6a-b.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

45

that Cassander’s marriage to Thessalonice took place in 316, more than twenty years after the death of Speusippus. Attempts to account for this apparent anach-

ronism have been ingenious but unconvincing.' In short, then, there is no real evidence for the ‘Akademische Reunion’ of Speusippus, Menedemus and Aristotle in Macedonia in the year 340 postulated by Merlan. Taken at face value both the anecdotes discussed here are preposterous and I can find no convincing reason for believing that behind either of them there lies a kernel of historical truth that would suggest that Speusippus and Philip were on friendly terms with one another.

c. Xenocrates

There is evidence to suggest, superficially at least, that Xenocrates, who succeeded Speusippus as head of the Academy, did not enjoy a good relationship with Philip. Diogenes Laertius has preserved the story that Xenocrates, present on an otherwise undocumented Athenian embassy to the court of Philip, refused to accept gifts from the King or even the official invitation to dine with him. Be-

cause of this Philip refused to receive him.!” In addition to this there are a number of other anecdotes which show Xenocrates in conflict with Antipater and Alexander. The best attested of these occurs in Plutarch's Life of Phocion [27.14], where we learn that Antipater refused to greet Xenocrates or listen to his representations when in 322 following the Athenian defeat at Crannon he arrived at Thebes accompanying the official Athenian ambassadors. We hear from Dio108 It was suggested by Droysen that the Cassander referred to here was the brother of Antipater and not his famous son. See Stähelin, RE 10.2 s.v. Kassandros (1). P. Maas ["ANTITONAZ OYTTATHP , Rivista di Filologia 55(1927) p.70] rightly felt that this was unlikely given that the unqualified mention of Cassander would naturally be taken to refer to the future ruler of Macedon rather than to a nonentity and so he postulated an earlier unattested first marriage for Cassander at which Speusippus was present. Merlan [ Biographie, pp.210-212] concurred with Maas and found additional support for Speusippus' journey from a reference in the Chronica of Eusebius-Jerome [p.126.11 Helm] where, under the year 316, it is reported that Menedemus and Speusippus 'flourished' (insignes habentur). Merlan argued that the chronicler had confused the date because of the story that Speusippus had attended Cassander's wedding, which he mistakenly took to be that of 316 to Thessalonice. The evident weaknesses in these arguments have been exposed by Tarán [pp. 197-8, 210-211]. See also Ogden p.56, who dismisses the possibility that Cassander's son Antipater may have been the product of an earlier marriage.

109 Diogenes Laertius 4.8-9. Bernays [pp122-123] argued against Schaefer (who believed the embassy to be fictitious) that Xenocrates, although he was a metic, accompanied the official Athenian embassy of 346 sent to receive the oaths ratifying the Peace of Philocrates. This ts, however, unlikely, because we know that Xenocrates left Athens after Plato's death in 347. Merlan [Biographie pp.205-206] preferred a date around 359 at the time of Athenian negotiations with Philip over Amphipolis. See also the arguments of Gomperz [pp. 108-110], M. Isnardi Parente [‘Per la biografia di Senocrate' Rivista di filologia classica 109 (1981) pp.151-152] and D. Whitehead ['Xenocrates the Metic’ Rheinisches Museum für Philogie 124(1981) pp.234— 235) to explain how what they regard as a fictitious embassy to Philip came to be included in Diogenes' account.

46

Introduction

genes Laertius [4.11] that the philosopher could give as good as he got, for when Antipater greeted him in Athens on one occasion Xenocrates affected to ignore him until he had finished what he was saying. Xenocrates was also said to have declined a gift of money from Antipater and to have returned the bulk of a large gift from Alexander, actions which would have been considered highly insult-

ing.'!9 Stories such as these led Dörrie to conclude that "X. hat also nicht, wie Speusippos, zur makedonisch orientierten Partei gehórt, sondern im Gegenteil zu

deren Kritikern."!!! [n actual fact, however, these anecdotes were cited as examples of Xenocrates' reputation for personal integrity and not his political alignment. They belong primarily to the genre of writing which sought to glorify the moral strength and probity of the philosopher who took a conscionable stance in

opposition to the improper actions of those in power.!!? Such was undoubtedly the primary function of stories like these and in the absence of evidence from a period close to the events of Xenocrates' life I am reluctant to accord them any basis in historical fact. When it came to advising Alexander on the principles of monarchic rule Xenocrates, displaying no sign of anti-Macedonianism, was prepared to write, at the request of the young prince, four books of precepts on the

subject.!!? There is, therefore, no compelling evidence for the belief that Xenoc!!? Diogenes Laertius. 4.8; cf. Plutarch Alexander 8.4; Suda s.v. 'Xenocrates'. According to Plutarch (Phocion 18.4—5), Alexander's reaction was said to have been one of anger when Phocion refused his gifts of money. The king declared that he could not consider as friends those who wanted nothing of him.

ΠῚ RE 9 AQ, col. 1513. More recently G. Maddoli ('Senocrate nel clima politico del suo tempo', Dialoghi di Archeologia, v.1 (1967), pp.304—327] has, on the basis of these stories, argued that Xenocrates placed himself, and presumably also the Academy of which he was head, politically on the side of the Athenian democrats and openly in opposition to Macedon. Based on this mistaken interpretation of the evidence as I see it, Maddoli constructs an interesting but essentially tenuous case for Xenocrates being actively involved in the opposition to Philip through his support for Arybbas, the exiled king of Molossia, and for Olympias and Alexander in their quarrel with Philip over the latter's marriage to Cleopatra the daughter of Attalus.

12 The examples cited by Diogenes [4.8] were intended to illustrate Xenocrates' independence (cf. καὶ δὴ καὶ αὐταρκέστατος ἦν). and not his anti-Macedonianism. Cf. Index Academicorum col.vii 19-21 (Gaiser). Diogenes also referred to an anecdote according to which Xenocrates declined a golden crown from Dionysius II of Syracuse. Sonnabend [pp.106-107] recognises the tendency of the philosophical sources to glorify Xenocrates' upright character. However, while he relies on these sources for Xenocrates! presence on the two embassies, which he claims was due to Phocion's influence and to Xenocrates' supposed close acquaintance with the Macedonian leadership, the sources themselves state specifically that Xenocrates only made himself objectionable to Philip and Antipater. Sonnabend's argument [pp.116-126] that Xenocrates was offered but declined Athenian citizenship in recompense for his services on these embassies does not convince me. !!5 Στοιχεῖα πρὸς ᾿Αλέξανδρον περὶ βασιλείας δ΄ Diogenes Laertius 4.14; cf. Plutarch Moralia 1126d. Maddoli [op. cit. n. 111 above, pp.315-319] argues that Alexander had become estranged from Philip over the latter's marriage to Cleopatra and also from Aristotle, who had been Philip's choice as his preceptor, and so asserted his independence around the years 337 and 336 by approaching the philosophical opposition, namely Xenocrates. The Στοιχεῖα in four books emphasised, according to Maddoli, genuine Platonic views against the heterodoxy of Aristotle.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

47

rates actively opposed Philip or that the bad blood between Philip and Plato for which I have argued left any trace in the accounts of Xenocrates' life. By the same token the evidence certainly provides no support for an ongoing close connection, such as argued by Bernays, between the Academy under the headship of Xenocrates and the Macedonian power.!!^ It is rather the case that Xenocrates maintained the independence of the Academy during a time of great political uncertainty when Athenian public opinion was antagonistic towards Macedon.

d. Aristotle

It might be objected that the uniform tradition of hostility between Philip and Plato for which I have argued is contradicted by the fact that Plato's pupil and

associate Aristotle is known to have enjoyed good relations with Philip.!!5 Aristotles’ intimate connection with the Macedonian royal family is not in doubt and predates his association with the Academy. His father Nichomachus had been both physician and friend to Philip's father Amyntas and we may suppose that the

bond of philia extended to their children.!!9 Aristotle is recorded as having addressed a number of letters to Philip, some of which, if they are authentic, may

date to the period before he left the Academy in 347.117 According to Demochares, Aristotle betrayed Stagira, his native city, to Philip and, following the destruction of Olynthus, revealed who the wealthiest men were in order to assist Philip in realizing the spoils. If this were accurate it would constitute evidence for 114 Bernays, pp.42-44. His arguments were successfully refuted by Gomperz [pp. 102ff.]. !15 See, for example, Momigliano, Filippo p.36 n.1; A-H. Chroust, ‘Plato's Academy: the first organised school of political science in antiquity', The Review of Politics, v.29(1967) p.35 and Isnardi Parenti, Studi p.284. Merlan [/socrates pp.64—65 and n.1; p.69 n.2; Biographie pp.206-210] holds that Aristotle retained a close connection with the Academy after Plato's death but qualifies this by proposing the existence of a "pro-Aristotle faction within the Academy, opposed to Speusippus, and thus the nucleus of the Peripatos." Vatai [pp.98, 111] recognises the paramount influence of the family connection of Aristotle and Philip but portrays Aristotle's appointment as a victory for the Academy over Isocrates' school. The most emphatic recent statement of this position is that of Markle [pp.96-97] who argues that Aristotle's appointment as tutor to Alexander is evidence for the success of Speusippus' letter.

!!6 Diogenes Laertius 5.1: συνεβίω ᾿Αμύντᾳ τῷ Μακεδόνων βασιλεῖ ἰατροῦ καὶ φίλου χρείᾳ. See also Ibn Abi Usaibia, Life of Aristotle 2 (Düring). Aristotle was also a personal friend of Philip's general Antipater, who was the executor of his will. See Diogenes Laertius 5.11.

117 Diogenes Laertius 5.27; Aristotle F651—655 (Rose). None of these letters survive, unless they are to be found among the three certainly spurious letters printed by Hercher, pp.172173. One letter referred to in the Vita Aristotelis Marciana [S Düring/F652 Rose] purports to summarise for Philip the philosopher's earlier career. A-H. Chroust [Aristotle, London: Routledge. 1973, ν.] p.129] suggested 343 as a possible date for this letter, which he somewhat facetiously described as a ‘letter of application’ for the position of Alexander's tutor. Demochares mentioned letters written by Aristotle critical of the Athenians (F2, Baiter/Sauppe Oratores Attici 2.341—2 = Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 15,2 p.791). On the other hand, the Vita Aristotelis Marciana [15-20 Düring/F655 Rose] refers to letters in which Aristotle benefited the Athenians through his intercession with Philip.

48

Introduction

close contact between Philip and Aristotle about the year 348 or earlier when Plato was still alive; but Griffith is right to dismisses these charges as ‘not even plausible’ and ‘part of the attack on him (Aristotle) in 323'.!!5 If we ignore the defamatory remarks of Demochares, the first datable contact between Philip and Aristotle occurred in 342 when Aristotle was appointed as tutor to the fourteen year old Alexander. By then Plato had been dead five years and Aristotle had

distanced himself from the Academy under Speusippus’ headship.!!? At the time Philip approached him to be Alexander’s tutor, Aristotle was pursuing his research at Mytilene and there is no convincing evidence that he maintained an intimate relationship with the Speusippean Academy either at this time or earlier when he (and Xenocrates also) lived at Assos with Plato’s former pupils Erastus

and Coriscus of Scepsis.!?? Philip's decision to approach Aristotle was motivat!!5 HM p.518 n.2. The charges against Aristotle were part of Demochares' ultimately unsuccessful attack on the schools of philosophy in 306. See Demochares F2; Diogenes Laertius 5.38. Compare the charges made against the Olynthian Euthycrates, who was said to have betrayed the Olynthian cavalry to Philip and to have assessed the prices of the Olynthian prisoners: Hyperides F19 (LCL) = F76 (OCT).

119 Whether Aristotle left the Academy before or immediately after Plato's death matters little. The evidence suggests that Aristotle held Plato in high regard as friend and teacher while

differing openly with some of his doctrines. See Düring. Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition, Göteborg, 1957, p 318. Aelian [3.19], it is true, recorded Aristotle's open hostility towards Plato, but the story deserves no credit. What is certain, however, is that Aristotle often criticised Speusippus and, in Düring's words, 'Speusippus and his followers...regarded Aristotle as a renegade because of his persistent and stubborn opposition to the main doctrine of the Academy, the theory of ideas’ [op. cit. pp.462-3]. The departure of Aristotle and Xenocrates is paralleled by the departure in 338 of Heracleides Ponticus and Menedemus of Pyrrha upon the election of Xenocrates to head the Academy. This suggests that those who were overlooked did not care, for whatever reason, to remain. The most eminent of the philosophers Plato had gathered around him in Athens were proud and independent men who, without Plato's personality to unite them, naturally sought to further their careers outside the Academy once Speusippus had taken charge of the school. Jaeger's assessment is essentially correct in my opinion: 'The departure of Aristotle and Xenocrates was a secession. They went to Asia Minor in the conviction that Speusippus had inherited merely the office and not the spirit'. Aristotle, 2nd ed. trans. Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948 p.111. 120 In describing the election of Xenocrates in the year 339 to succeed Speusippus as scholarch, Philodemus commented: 'ApiototéAouc μὲν ἀποδεδημηκότος εἰς Μακεδονίαν [Academica col.6.42—col.7.2 (Gaiser) = Taran T2, 17-19, p.116 = Düring F3, op. cit. p.259). Düring takes this as proof that in 339 'Aristotle was still regarded as a member of the Academy'. Cf. Taran, Speusippus p.10. If Philodemus was here quoting Philochorus (a later contemporary of Aristotle) as has been thought then this argument would carry weight. But probably he was not. Rather, the words seem to me to have the character of an aside by means of which Philodemus intended to explain to his readership in the first century BCE the reason why Plato's most famous pupil, Aristotle, was not chosen to succeed Speusippus. See Tarán, Speusippus pp.200— 208 for a discussion of some of the problems surrounding the text and the extent of Philochorus" contribution. The story attributed to Hermippus that Aristotle was on an embassy to the court of Philip at the time of the election of Xenocrates appears to be a variant of that given by Philodemus [Diogenes Laertius 5.2 = During 71a with comment p.406). In fact Aristotle was in Macedonia in 339. Attempts to argue that Aristotle, from his position in Macedon, agreed to support an unnamed Athenian embassy (for which he was later honoured by a decree of the Demos) do not convince me. See Wórle p.24; Sonnabend pp.141-143.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus’ Letter

49

ed by the philosopher’s personal relationship with the Macedonian royal family together with his standing as teacher and scholar. Philip did not allow his own unpleasant encounter with Plato and Euphraeus or Aristotle's earlier association

with the Academy to influence his decision.!?! Philip's choice of Aristotle was undoubtedly a disappointment to Isocrates, as the two philosophers had been bitter opponents. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that Philip was any less ready to maintain contact with Isocrates or Isocrates with him. Philip's friends and associates did not have to be of one mind. Similarly, it is illogical to argue that as a pupil and associate of Plato Aristotle must have had the same friends or the same political convictions as Plato. Leaving aside for the moment the interpretation of the Letter of Speusippus, we can say with a good deal of assurance that all contact between the Academy and Macedon ceased following the death of Perdiccas III and did not resume during Plato's lifetime. As we have seen, the relationship between the ambitious Philip and his brother Perdiccas was exacerbated by the activities of Euphraeus at the Macedonian court. Philip resented the interference of the foreign intellectuals and we know from Theopompus that he made no secret of his dislike for Plato but openly reproved him. Carystius of Pergamum, moreover, believed that Speusippus wrote his letter to Philip because it had come to his attention that Philip had attacked Plato publicly. Apart from his letter, there is no good evidence that Speusippus had any contact with Philip. The anecdotes concerning the payment of Hermias' debts and Cassander's marriage are late inventions without any discernible basis in fact. On those occasions when we glimpse Plato's pupils or Xenocrates interacting with Philip, Antipater and Alexander, it would be easy to find evidence of opposition and even hostility. Because of the nature of the evidence, however, I have argued that only in the case of Euphraeus are we entitled to conclude that this constitutes proof of concerted oppositon to Macedon which can be related to the quarrel between Philip and Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, was undoubtedly pro-Macedonian in his connections and his sympathies. His appointment as tutor to Alexander is best seen in this context and certainly not as a result of his association with the Academy. Those who assert that Aristotle's appointment was a victory for the Academy over Isocrates' school cannot point to any tangible benefit accruing to the Academy as a result. When Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 he established himself with Macedonian patronage and in opposition to the Xenocratean Academy. The tendency for modern historical writing to depict relations between the Academy and Macedon from the mid-360's onwards as uninterruptedly good, culminating in the 'victory' of the Academy over Isocrates' School in 342 with the appointment of Aristotle

as tutor to Alexander, is not supported by hard evidence.!?? 7! See, for example, Griffith (HM p.517-519], who (together with the vast majority of commentators) emphasises the family connection. 12 Bernays [p.35] held that there was an uninterrupted connection between the Athenian philosophers and Macedon from the time of Socrates until the end of the Macedonian empire. Wilamowitz [Antigonos von Karystos, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1881 (Philologi-

50

Introduction

iij. The Academy's Rivals and Philip Il If Philip support pursued of these absence

wanted no truck with the Academy, he was pleased to encourage the of a number of Greek intellectuals, some of whom are known to have their interests at the Macedonian court. I propose to look at the activities men, whose close association with Philip contrasts sharply with the of the Academy.

a. [Isocrates

The first public reference to Philip in the works of Isocrates occurs in the speech On the Peace of 355. There may also be an indirect reference to Philip in Letter 9 addressed to Archidamas in the same year. In the first passage Philip is associated with Chersobleptes as a distant but painful thorn in Athens' side, and in the second Isocrates was content, as Smith wrote, to 'snub' Philip, with whom Athens was then at war.!?? Neither passage suggests any familiarity. At some point during the following eight years Isocrates began to take a greater interest in Philip, whose military success, wealth and newly acquired influence in Greece sche Untersuchungen IV) p.339] contradicted Bernays’ position arguing largely on the basis of Euphraeus' opposition to Philip that there exists no evidence for friendly relations between Plato and Philip but rather the opposite. Similarly he dismissed the notion that Xenocrates was on friendly terms with either Antipater or Philip. For the vitriolic attack of Gomperz against Bernays see n. 114 above. A useful critical overview is given by H.- J. Gehrke, Phokion, München: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1976 (Zetemata Heft 64) pp.209-213. Robin Lane Fox in his book Alexander the Great [London: Allen Lane, 1973, p. 509; cf. p.53] reflects the prevailing position: 'Philip's Platonic links were through Euphraeus, Xenocrates, the tyrants of Sicyon and Hermias and so forth'. Griffith [HM p.517] argued for an unbroken connection despite the lack of evidence because '...the letter of Speusippus to Philip (of 342) would seem an even odder production than it does seem, if really it were breaking a silence of some twenty years, or even of five years since Plato's death’. See also Badian [p.38], who deduces from Aristotle's appoint-

ment the resumption (albeit cautiously) of Philip's ties with the Academy following the Euphraeus affair.

123 On the Peace 22. The claim of M. Marzi ('Isocrate e Filippo II di Macedonia: l'autenticità della II epistola a Filippo’, Atene e Roma 39 no.1 (1994) p.6; cf. S. Fuscagni p.71] to have discovered in Isocrates! reference to Philip in this speech ‘...un primo germe di fiducia e di simpatia verso il sovrano macedone' does not convice me. In $3 of Letter 9 (which is in reality a discourse and not a letter at all), Isocrates stated that the Spartan royal family alone could claim descent from Heracles and Zeus. Because of the well known claim of the Macedonian royal family to descent from Heracles, Smith [p.20; cf. Dümmler pp.121-122] argued that ‘Isocrates went out of his way to deny the claims of Philip and his family. In other words he took the same view that Demosthenes uttered much later, namely that Philip was not a Hellene'. Isocrates felt inclined to slight Philip at this time because Athens had been at war with Macedon since 357 and Philip was generally detested by Athenians due to his capture of Amphipolis in particular, but also of Pydna and Potidaea, and the threat he posed to the remaining Athenian interests in the

north Aegean. If the despatches which Isocrates wrote for Timotheus date from the late 360's, as I have argued [see Commentary $13: ἐπιστολὰς aioxpag], then his critical attitude to Macedon predates Philip's accession.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

51

ensured that he must be taken seriously.!?^ It was in about the year 347 that he first concerned himself closely with Philip's affairs in a discourse on the subject of Amphipolis, which he saw as the major cause of friction between Athens and Macedon.!?* This work, which he claimed he was revising for publication just before the conclusion of the Peace of Philocrates, appears to have been limited in scope to the question of Amphipolis and did not include an appeal to Philip. There can, however, be little doubt that Isocrates had already identified Philip as the man most likely (in concert with Athens) to realise his political program for Greece, but due to the state of war then existing between Athens and Macedon it

was not yet possible for him to address Philip in this way.'2° There were various reasons why preeminent intellectuals such as Plato or Isocrates might choose to associate themselves with wealthy and powerful rulers like Dionysius II of Syracuse or Philip of Macedon. For the intellectual such an association might mean the prospect of lucrative patronage as well as the conferral of prestige on his school. There may also be the strong desire which the in-

tellectual has to see his ideas put into practice.!?? The association of the intellectual with the preeminent figures, and hence major events, of his time was a symbiotic one in that it served to sustain the memory of both in the eyes of posterity and thus aimed to achieve a kind of immortality.!?5 In 346 after the conclusion of peace when he was finally free to address Philip publicly royal patronage can have meant little to the wealthy nonagenarian who genuinely wanted Philip to implement his plan for benefiting his fellow Greeks. It was influence and fame

124 [socrates stated as much in $15 of the Philip: .. καὶ κλοῦτον xai δύναμιν κεκτημένον ὅσην οὐδεὶς τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ἃ μόνα τῶν ὄντων καὶ πείθειν xai βιάζεσθαι πέφυκεν. From his own statement in the second of his letters to Philip we can be confident that Isocrates had not been personally acquainted with the king prior to addressing him publicly in the Philip (ov yap συγγεγενῆσθαί σοι πρότερον: 3, with Smith's comments, pp.34—35). In the year or years immediately before 346 Isocrates may, however, have received some report of the Macedonian court from his former student Theopompus of Chios, who we learn from Speusippus' letter had taken up residence there sometime before 342, but there is no proof of this.

5 Philip 1-7. Why Isocrates felt it necessary to recapitulate in detail the main conclusions of this work on Amphipolis in the preface to the Philip may be best explained in rhetorical terms. See Commentary $14: ἐπὶ μὲν yap ᾿Αμφιπκόλεώς φησι κωλῦσαι τὴν γενομένην εἰρήνην γράψαι λόγον. 126 On the dangers of writing even a private letter to an enemy power in war time see [socrates Letter 4.1. About 344 in the first of his letters to Philip (22-23; cf. Antidosis 4-7) Isocrates wrote frankly of the antipathy of his fellow Athenians. 127 See Isocrates’ concluding remarks in his second letter to Philip. Speusippus [$13] saurised [socrates' persistent efforts to implement his political program. For Plato's wish to see his political philosophy implemented see the Seventh Letter 328b—c.

128 [socrates stated this explicitly at Evagoras 3-4. Philip, as Demosthenes recognised (see, for example, On the Crown 67-68), was obsessed by notions of honour and renown (δόξα) and it was to this heightened sense that Isocrates appealed in the Philip (see 13, 114-115, 118-119, 123 (εὐδοκιμήσεις), 134-135, 149). Isocrates likewise was very conscious, especially in his later years, of his reputation with posterity. See, for example, the astonishing eulogy of himself which Isocrates put into the mouth of a former student at Panathenaicus 260-261. Vatai provides a useful overview of the role of the intellectual at this time.

52

Introduction

that he sought, not patronage. The Philip is a public letter in which Isocrates presented himself as an independent adviser to the Macedonian king and as the representative of the best interests of Athens and the other Greek states.!?? Consequently, his intention was to influence not only Macedonian policy but also the actions of influential individuals in Athens and, to a lesser extent, in the rest of Greece. It is a symbouleutic work in which Isocrates advised Philip how he might best win the goodwill (evvoia) of the Greek states and so unite them under his leadership for a war against Persia. Referring to the Philip on a subsequent occasion, Isocrates stated that by heeding his advice Philip would be acting properly and in a manner most conducive to the achievement of glory or reputation (86&0).1?0 There can be no room for doubt that Isocrates placed the onus on Philip to win the goodwill and support of the Greek states and in fact cautioned him

politely but unmistakably not to attempt to coerce them.!?! And herein lies a fundamental distinction in emphasis between the Philip and the Letter of Speusippus. Whereas Isocrates employed the historical tradition in paradigms that emphasised to Philip his duty of responsibility to the Greek states, Speusippus employed historical paradigms solely to provide legal justification for Philip's conquests. We hear of no immediate effect resulting from Isocrates' Philip, but its success can be measured by the dual facts that Speusippus in his letter to Philip singled it out for attack, and that Antipater of Magnesia is said in the same letter to have acknowledged the validity of its overall argument (cf. τὴν μὲν ὑπόθεσιν

ἐπήνεσεν: 1).!?? In the years that followed, the relationship between Isocrates and Philip appears to have progressed well, although the tone Isocrates adopts is always that of the senior counsellor. Two letters survive from the period 346—

341, one addressed to Philip and the other to his son Alexander.!?? In the first 173 The date of the Philip can be established on internal evidence between April 346, the date of the Peace of Philocrates, and July of the same year when the Phocians surrendered to

Philip. Sections 50 and 74 of the Philip refer to the Sacred War as still in progress. For the Philip as a public letter see Philip 1: ἵνα δηλώσω καὶ σοὶ xai toig ἄλλοις, and also $1 of Speusippus’ Letter, from which we learn that the Philip of Isocrates had been discussed in the Academy. [socrates saw himself acting xai τῆς κόλεως ἕνεκα τῆς ἐμαντοῦ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων (Letter 11.2). 130 See Letter II .1 : ...EE ὧν ἐδόκεις μοι τὰ πρέποντα μάλιστ᾽ Gv σαντῷ πράττειν..... by which he intended ὑπὲρ δόξης (2).

131 See, for instance, the indirect but very clear warning at $77. In summarising the main thrust of his argument at $154 Isocrates emphasised firstly that Philip must become the benefactor of Greeks (φημὶ yàp χρῆναί σε τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας εὐεργετεῖν) and so obtain the blessing of their good-will (evvoia) on his leadership. 132 [t may be that Philip was sufficiently impressed with Isocrates’ discourse that he quoted from $73 in a letter he addressed to the Athenians in 340. See Pseudo-Demosthenes Philip's Letter 19. The quotation was pointed out by Wendland

[('Beitrüge zur athenischen Politik und

Publicistik des vierten Jahrhunderts', Nachrichten der Kóniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische-Klasse, 1910 p.309]. See also Griffith HM p.716.

133 [t is probably best, on the basis of internal evidence, to date Isocrates Letter 2 to 345 or 344, that ts during or shortly after Philip's Illyrian campaign of 345. The reference to the

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

53

section of the letter to Philip [1-12] Isocrates raised his no doubt genuine concern for Philip's personal safety, on which his hopes for realizing the program expounded in the Philip rested. In sections 10-11 he exhorted Philip to strive after the greatest of all δόξα (cf. τῆς τηλικαύτης τὸ μέγεθος) by waging war against Persia, thereby showing the Greeks who they should be fighting against. The letter's concluding section displays a pronounced concern that Philip might become impatient with the attacks of his detractors in Athens, where the longstanding suspicion of his intentions was now fuelled by disappointment over the recent treaty with Macedon and the settlement of the Third Sacred War. Isocrates advised Philip to defeat his Athenian opponents by proving them wrong through his efforts to confer benefits on Athenians and so achieve their goodwill and

support for his plans.'* Philip, it seems, concurred with Isocrates' advice for in 343 he sent his ambassador and friend Python of Byzantium (a former pupil of Isocrates) to Athens with a virtually open-ended offer to revise the treaty of 346 and settle outstanding differences. For Isocrates the uncompromising and unrealistic reply which his fellow Athenians made to Philip's offer must have been a great disappointment. By 342 Isocrates will have realised that there was little or no chance of reconciliation between Macedon and Athens, but he continued to correspond with Philip. The year 342 or 341 is the probable date for the short letter to Alexander, which accompanied a letter to Philip no longer extant. The date is important for our purposes in assessing Philip's likely response to Speusippus’ letter. If the letter is to be placed in or after 342 then it shows that Isocrates was on familiar and informal terms with the Macedonian royal family at that time and suggests that he experienced no adverse effects as a result of Speusippus' letter. Two more letters have survived from Isocrates' Macedonian correspondence. Letter 4, which dates from 340 or 339, is a letter of recommendation addressed to Philip's general Antipater. Letter 3 purports to have been written to settlement of Thessaly in $20 appears to reiterate a similar reference in the Philip [20] to the

settlement of 352 and consequently to antedate the later settlement of 344. The goodwill of most Athenians towards Philip to which Isocrates referred [2, 12] accords better with the feeling in Athens in the year or two after the Peace of Philocrates than in 342, when the tide of Athenian opinion had turned against Macedon. It is tempting also to associate the injury implied in $12 of the letter with the wound which according to Didymus [Commentary on Demosthenes 12.64—66] Philip received in battle against the Illyrian king Pleuratus, although we know from Demosthenes [On the Crown 67, cf. Didymus Commentary on Demosthenes 13.3—12] that Philip received a number of serious wounds at various times. The dating of Letter 5 addressed to Alexander also

depends on internal evidence difficult to interpret. From $1 we learn that it accompanied a letter to Philip, both men being on campaign together at the time. As Letter 2 was also written while Philip was on campaign (see $11) the temptation is to associate the two letters. Blass (pp.327328]. for instance, placed both letters in 341 during Philip's Thracian campaign. However, if we date Letter 2 to 345 or 344, as seems appropriate, then the synchronism becomes doubtful because the letter to Alexander would appear to reflect a later period after the prince had begun his instruction under Aristotle in 342. Consequently, Mathieu [pp.167-168] placed Letter 5 in 342 or 341 and so inferred the existence of another letter of Isocrates to Philip that has not survived. The authenticity of the letter to Alexander has been accepted by most authorities. 14

815. As in the Philip Isocrates wrote as an independent adviser, insisting that Philip's

aspiration to lead the Greeks must be based on εὐνόια. See $818, 21, 24.

54

Introduction

Philip soon after the Battle of Chaeronea. In it Isocrates pragmatically accepted the outcome of the battle, which compelled the Greek states to put an end to wars among themselves. He urged Philip to pursue the war against Persia, which he hopes and anticipates willnow become a reality, thereby vindicating the program he first announced in the Panegyricus. It seems likely given the authenticity of the letter that right up until his death in 338 Isocrates continued to correspond with Philip.!?3 Among the pupils and former pupils of Isocrates three are known to have been associated with Philip. The first was Python of Byzantium, who appears to have been at Pella in 346 and may have played a role in the negotiations around the Peace of Philocrates.!?* Then in 343, as we have seen, Python represented Philip in Athens with an offer to revise the Peace of Philocrates. On this occasion Hegesippus remarked pointedly that the orator was following the instructions of

his ‘schoolmasters’ in Athens.!?? It is clear from this remark that Isocrates could be portrayed to the Athenian public as an outright supporter of Philip who retained some influence with his former pupil, Python. Another of Isocrates’ students who had an involvement with Macedon was Isocrates of Apollonia Pontica. This shadowy figure was identified by Blass as the student referred to in sections 11 and 14 of Speusippus' letter.!?? The identification is based on the Suda, where he is described as μαθητὴς Kai διάδοχος tod

μεγάλου Ἰσοκράτους.5 The reluctance of some historians to accept the identifi135 The question of the authenticity of Letter 3 has provoked a lively debate. Smith [pp.3ff. especially 30-43) summarised the controversy and, following a comprehensive discussion, declared the letter genuine. In recent days Griffith [HM p.645 n.3] has also accepted its authenticity. M. Marzi ['Isocrate e Filippo II di Macedonia: l'autenticità della II epistola a Filippo’. Atene e Roma 39 no.1 (1994) pp.9-10] attempts to reconcile the letter with the tradition of Isocrates' suicide after Chaeronea, a difficulty that had concerned Momigliano [Filippo p.192; cf. Fuscagni. p.82 n.47] and Wilamowitz [Aristoteles und Athen, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhand-

lung, 1893 v.2 pp.395-397] before him. See also J. Balsdon, [Τῆς ‘divinity’ of Alexander’ Historia 1 (1950), pp.366-368] who is inclined to doubt the letter on the ground that it is a précis of the Philip and as such betrays the forger's hand. During the years 342-339 Isocrates was engaged in writing his Panathenaicus, in $72 of which some have detected in the description of Agamemnon a covert (because Athens was then at war with Macedon) and highly favourable reference to Philip. This theory should be put to rest, for it fails to comprehend the essential nature and purpose of the digression on Agamemnon within the discourse as a whole. See W. Race, 'Panathenaicus 74-90. The rhetoric of Isocrates" digression on Agamemnon’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 108 (1978) 175-185.

136 Aeschines On the Embassy

125 with the Scholion; Olympiodorus

Commentary on

Plato's Gorgias 447c [Westerink p.15]; The Anonymous Life of Isocrates p.104 in Dindorf's edition of Scholia Graeca in Aeschinem et lsocratem, Oxford:1852 (rep. Hildesheim:1970).

On

the basis of Demosthenes Against Aristocrates 127, 119, Python of Byzantium has been identified with Python of Aenus, the slayer of the Odrysian king Cotys I, but this is highly unlikely. See above p.40-41.

137 Pseudo-Demosthenes On Halonnesus 23: ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνθάδε διδασκάλων προδεδιδαγμένος.

138 Blass p.450; cf. von Scala, p.112. 119 Suda s.v. Ἰσοκράτης ᾿Αμύκλα (Adler iota 653). In later times he was referred to simply

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

55

cation is explicable in terms of their opposition to the authenticity of the letter.'“ Speusippus declined to mention the student by name or even by the name of his polis, thereby intending to show him scant respect. Sykutris attributed the vehemence of Speusippus’ attack in part to the fact that the Apollonian had been a

former pupil of Plato.'*' In fact Isocrates of Apollonia was an opponent not to be underrated by Speusippus and the Academy. If as the Suda states he competed at the funeral contest for Mausolus in 353 we may conclude that he had by that year achieved a sufficiently high reputation to warrant an invitation.!^ Subsequently he published an ᾿Αμφικτυονικὸς, which we may suppose treated favourably Philip's role in settling the Third Sacred War. Based on the evidence of section 14 of the letter, it is probably fair to conclude with von Scala (followed by Sykutris) that the Apollonian had brought Isocrates" Philip to the Macedonian court in 346,

but whether he continued to reside there up until 342 is unclear.!4 There is evidence from the title of another of his works (the Περὶ tov τάφον μὴ ποιῆσαι Φιλίπκω) that he continued to remain on good terms with Philip after the death of Isocrates in 338, for, if Sykutris was correct, in this work he lauded the king's

achievements in terms which sought to render him immortal in men's memory.'“ The third of Isocrates" pupils known to have been connected with the Macedonian court was the orator and historian Theopompus of Chios. But before turning to him it is necessary to examine briefly the evidence that Theopompus had indeed attended the school of Isocrates, for the association of these two men

has been denied.!^ The argument against a pupil-teacher relationship holds that as ᾿Απολλωνιάτης. See Suda s.v. Geodéxme (Adler theta 138); Harpocration s.v. ἐπακτὸς ὄρκος. 40 See Schering p.69, Köhler pp.119-120 and Bertelli Lettera, pp.91—92. Bertelli [Lertera, p.92 n.60], actually undermines his own position by citing the Panathenaicus as evidence that Isocrates was still at the height of his powers in 342 and had no need to concern himself over a successor. In fact Isocrates, who was ninety-four years of age in 342, himself stated [Panathenaicus 266-270] that he was so ill during the time when he was writing the Panathenaicus that he only managed to complete it with difficulty. See A. Natoli, ‘Isocrates XII 266-272. A note on the composition of the Panathenaicus', Museum Helveticum, v.48 (1991) pp.146-150.

M! BS p.74 n.2. We might add that his father Amyclas may also have been a pupil of Plato. See Aelian 3.19; Diogenes Laertius 3.46; 9.40. 142 S. Hornblower (Mausolus, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982 p.334] tentatively accepts the identification. See also Flower pp.56-57.

143 Von Scala p.112; Sykutris BS p.74; Usener p.54 n.24. Blass (pp.315, 450], on the other hand. argued that the Apollonian was at Philip's court in 342 as the bearer of Isocrates' Letter 2 addressed to the king, and had nothing to do with the Philip of 346.

14 BS p.74. Sykutris associated the title with the sentiments Isocrates expressed at Philip 134, 143. Boehnecke [p.477 n.2], on the other hand, interpreted the title as an attack on Philip, whose memory the Apollonian sought to suppress by arguing that no tomb should be erected to honour him. The Apollonian was motivated by the love he bore his teacher Isocrates, whose cherished hopes of Philip had been dashed at Chaeronea.

145 See the article ‘Ephorus’ by E. Schwartz in RE 6.1 cols 1-2, where the evidence of Speusippus' letter is not mentioned; Jacoby FGrH 70 Comm. pp.22-23; K. Reed, Theopompus of Chios: history and oratory in the fourth century, diss. Berkeley Calif., 1976 pp. 7-50: Flower, pp. 42-62. A similar case is made against the pedagogical relationship between Isocrates and Gorgias. See Too pp.235-239.

56

Introduction

all the evidence for it derives from late sources (the earliest being Cicero) and that

the tradition arose only in Hellenistic times, when the relationship was inferred from the similarity of the two men’s prose style. Because they lacked information themselves, Hellenistic biographers and literary critics felt it necessary to invent biographical details and provide pedagogical and literary antecedents for their subjects. This argument is not without merit, especially as it applies to the lives of philosophers, but in the case of Theopompus it not only flies in the face of the unanimous ancient tradition but, more importantly, also denies the contemporary evidence of Speusippus’ letter.!^? Despite his statement that the letter's ‘...primary purpose is to attack Isocrates', Flower denies that the letter presupposes a relationship between Theopompus and Isocrates, and he regards the mention of Theopompus at section 12 as a ‘digression and not integral to the argument of the letter’.'47 But the notion of a digression in Speusippus' tightly argued epistle seems extraordinary to me, especially when the immediate context is clearly Isocrates and those (like the Apollonian) who were intimately associated with him. Flower seems not to appreciate the unity of the letter and misses the connection with section 2, where Speusippus announced his intention to raise the matter of Isocrates' slander of Plato. In fact, for reasons I discuss in the following chapter, Speusippus raised only Theopompus' attack on Plato, something he would only have done if he knew that Philip could be expected to appreciate the

close association between the historian and Isocrates.!4?

b. Theopompus of Chios The fifth century CE lawyer and church historian Sozomen addressing Theodosi-

us II in the preface to his Ecclesiastical History cited Philip as Theopompus' patron amongst other well-known patrons of learning and literature such as the Cretans

in the case of Homer,

the Aleuadae

(of Simonides),

Dionysius

II (of

Plato) and Severus (of Oppian).!^? The notion of Philip as patron of the arts in the sense that Sozomen intends is doubtless more rhetoric than reality. Sozomen does

not appear to know of any specific emoluments or honours bestowed on Theopompus by Philip, but probably he is right that Philip would wish to appear the munificent patron. To talented intellectuals like Theopompus who honoured his court with their presence, performed their works for his entertainment and who 146 For the tradition, see Theopompus TT 1, 5a, 6b, 8, 20a, 24, 38, 39, FGrH 115. G. Shrimpton in his review of Flower correctly, in my view, makes the point that the argument undervalues the weight of the tradition. See Bryn Mawr Classical Review

(electronic version).

95.11.09.

147 Flower pp.52, 54. 148 My views on the rhetorical construction of the letter are presented on pp.94-99 below. 149 5. 7 2nd rev. ed. Bidez, 1995. This testimonium does not appear in FGrH 115. While it is possible that Sozomen inferred Philip's patronage from the title of Theopompus' Philippic Histories, it is more likely that he reflects a long tradition (compare Simonides and Plato) and one which finds confirmation in Speusippus' letter.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

57

recorded his achievements Philip could be expected to be generous. We know from section 12 of Speusippus’ letter that Theopompus was in fact resident at the Macedonian court in about 343 and in receipt of Philip’s patronage (xopnyia).

What exactly this patronage comprised is not stated but I would suppose that it included gifts, preferments and honours.!?® During the years prior to his Macedonian sojourn Theopompus had travelled widely and built up a reputation for

himself as a stage orator.!?! He is credited with a number of epideictic discourses including a Laconicus, Corinthiacus, Panathenaicus and a Mausolus, the last of which he probably delivered at the funeral games held in honour of the Carian

ruler Mausolus in 353.132 It is likely that he had published part if not all of the twelve books of his Hellenica, which covered the years 411 to 394, prior to his

arrival at the Macedonian court.!5? Amongst his minor works published before this time there is the Epitome of Herodotus, which as a condensed version, I would suggest, was better suited to a more compact recitation and which Theopompus may have 'enhanced' along rhetorical lines with a view to perform-

ance.'*4 An accomplished orator himself, Theopompus would have performed from the Epitome in the same way as he presumably did from various other works on his travels and during his stay at Pella. On the temple-treasures plundered from Delphi was probably the settlement of the Phocian War in 346 and may also have Philip's court, where it would have pleased the king who championed the god's cause. The subject of this work was Theopompus' interests in moral issues and history. It gave him

his Hellenica and The work entitled written soon after been presented at had successfully ideally suited to the opportunity to

139 Flower [p.21] proposes that it included a stipend. Theopompus, however, boasted that he possessed independent means and so did not need to teach or write speeches for a living. See F25 FGrH 115. Rich gifts could express the monarch's appreciation, without the negative connotations of a stipend.

151 Photius quotes Theopompus as boasting that he had visited all parts of the Greek world and every noteworthy city and performed his repertoire (cf. tac τῶν λόγων ἐπιδείξεις ROLODHE-

νος) to great acclaim. F25, cf.F26. Note the performance aspect, which places him in the tradition of other writers of poetry, history, and epideictic literature. 152 T48. Cf. T6 and F345.

133 This is to be inferred from the fact that he abandoned the Hellenica abruptly with the year 394 and presumably began researching and writing his Philippica during his stay at Pella. Section 12 of Speusippus' letter has been cited as evidence for the same conclusion, but this is based on a misreading of that section of the letter. See Commentary $12: iv οὖν Θεόπομπος ... τυγχάνων. 154 As he did with sections of his Hellenica which, according to Porphyry [as quoted by

Eusebius = F21] Theopompus reworked in a more rhetorical or showy form (cf. ἐπιδείκνυσθαι) from Xenophon's work of the same name. M. Christ [“Theopompus and Herodotus: a reassessment’, Classical Quarterly 43 (1) 1993, pp.47-52] makes a strong case for the Epitome being originally part of the Philippica, but I am not entirely convinced. The title itself would in that case be very strange and also demeaning to Theopompus, unlike the well attested Marvels and On the Demagogues, which undoubtedly were names given to sections of the Philippica. See Flower pp.28. 253-255 for a summary of other theories regarding the Epitome and for his criticism of Christ's argument that in its usual sense the word 'epitome' applies to a whole work and not a part only.

58

Introduction

narrate the sorry tale of the desecration of the sacred treasures, the repercussions suffered by the perpetrators and perhaps also the origins of the dedications

themselves.55 Of particular interest in relation to Speusippus’

letter is the work entitled

Against the teaching of Plato.'*© In F259, which derives from this work, we read that Theopompus declared Plato's dialogues Kal ψευδεῖς) and accused him of plagiarising others. Plato's liking for definition is criticised Plato's theory of ideas. If F294 derives from

to be useless and false (axpeious Aristippus and Antisthenes among in F275, and F359 appears to deny this work, then Theopompus also

referred to Philip's own censures of Plato.!?’ Clearly Speusippus was not exaggerating when at section 12 of his letter he complained of Theopompus' slanders

against Plato.!?5 Indeed, this work is likely to have been the subject of Speusippus' complaint in the letter. Given Philip's dislike of Plato, we may be sure that the critique of Plato's teaching made a favourable impression at court. There is a reference in a work by the second century CE Alexandrian rhetorician Aelius Theon to an encomium in praise of Philip composed by Theopom-

pus.'?? It would seem appropriate to place such an encomium after Philip's death, perhaps at his funeral, just as the encomium for Mausolus already mentioned was delivered at that dynast’s funeral contest.!9 If this were the case then it would indicate that Theopompus remained living in Macedonia until 336 or at least returned there in that year. But the evidence points in the opposite direction for, as Flower argues, Theon's language appears to assume an encomium of the living Philip. In addition I would make the point that the words ἐγκώμιον and ἐγκωμι-

άζειν as used during the classical period never presuppose praise of the dead.!6! According to Theon, Theopompus declared that if Philip should resolve to continue with his current practices he would end up ruling all of Europe as well 153 See FF247- 249. The theory that this work was a digression excerpted from the Philippica cannot be substantiated. See Flower p.36.

156 Κατὰ τῆς Πλάτωνος διατριβής. For the meaning of διατριβής see Flower p.37 n.48 and Commentary $1: παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναγνωθέντος Ev διατριβῇ tov σοὶ πεμφθέντος UR’ Ἰσοκράτους λόγου. The title is attested in F259. The Rhodian Book List [Τ48] gives the title as Καταδρομὴ tig Πλάτωνος) διατριβῆ[ς]. Other fragments we may attribute to this work are 275, 294-295, 359. 13? The fragment comes from Diogenes Laertius 3.40, but it seems likely to me that Diogenes' source was the first book of Theopompus' Philippica, which discussed the origins of Philip's power. See n.87 above. 158 If Philip possessed a genuine regard for Plato or viewed him as a benefactor, as Speusippus implied, then he would not have countenanced Theopompus' invective, but clearly he did countenance it. 159 FF 255-256. 160 We might compare Isocrates’ encomium of Evagoras and that of Agesilaus written by Xenophon, both of which eulogised their subjects after death. Unfortunately no account of Philip's funeral has survived, only the information given by Diodorus [17.2.1] that it was organised by Alexander, and the testimony of Justin [11.2.1] that those involved in Philip's assassination were executed at his tomb.

16! Flower pp.38-39. See Dover's comment on Aristophanes Clouds 1205. Plato in the Laws [8024] declared the encomium of the living to be unsafe

(οὐκ ἀσφαλές).

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

59

(xai τῆς Εὐρώπης πάσης). When we ask ‘as well as what?’ the answer must surely be ‘as well as those places in Europe that he already controls’. There is no way of knowing whether Theopompus referred to Philip’s Asian ambitions, but probably he did not, because the encomium form celebrated a person's achieve-

ments and Philip had not achieved much in Asia before his untimely death.!9? The encomium, then, praised Philip's achievements, which presumably included the consolidation of his own country and the extension of his influence in Europe into Thessaly, Magnesia and areas to the west, north and east of Macedonia. We may safely date the encomium later than 346 when Philip's reputation and achievements were first recognised by many Greeks, but a more precise date is not possible. Shrimpton's suggestion that it was written in about 343 'to secure a favourable reception at the Macedonian court' seems to me a possibility, but that it had something directly to do with obtaining the tutorship of Alexander (which he sees as a secondary motive) is wide of the mark.'® There is absolutely no evidence that Theopompus ever had anything to do with education; neither school

nor pupils are attested for him.!6* We may be certain that Philip was impressed with his encomium and that it ensured for Theopompus that he continued to enjoy the king's favour and patronage. All the evidence, therefore, points to Theopompus being well received at the Macedonian court, where his talents as writer and orator were appreciated: quite the reverse of what Speusippus implied in his letter to Philip. In view of Theopompus' disapproving judgment on the morals of Philip and his retinue it is

probable that the relationship between the two men was cordial but not close.!6^ But then, there was no requirement that it be any more than a mutually advantageous relationship. There is no evidence that Philip took the slightest bit of notice of any censure Theopompus may have directed against his morals or that he gave a second thought to the attempt by the historian to influence him against Hermias

of Atarneus.!66

c. Anaximenes of Lampsacus All too little is known of the life and work of Anaximenes of Lampsacus. He is generally thought to have been born sometime between 390 and 380. Diodorus 162 Aristotle's definition of encomium in the Rhetoric [1367b = 1.9.33] stipulates that an encomium must praise a person's deeds and not necessarily his virtues. This is something that Theopompus could honestly do in regard to Philip's martial achievements, whereas we know for certain that he could not honestly have praised Philip's moral virtues.

163 Shrimpton p.6. R. Lane Fox [p.112] makes a similar suggestion. The belief (erroneous in my opinion) that Aristotle retained an association with the Academy under Speusippus and that his appointment as Alexander's tutor was a victory for the Academy over Isocrates" school (represented by Theopompus) underpins these misconceptions. See n.115 above.

164 Flower [p.55 n.41] makes the same point citing F25 in support. 165 Theopompus only later published his judgment on Philip's personal morality in the Philippica. See FF 27, 224, 225a, 225b. 166 [n a letter written some time before the dynast’s death in 341: F250.

60

Introduction

placed him together with Isocrates, Aristotle, Plato, the Pythagoreans and Xenophon among the great men noted for their cultural contributions who flourished in

the mid-fourth century.!6’ Diogenes Laertius implies that he was a leading teacher of rhetoric based in Athens and this would appear to be supported by

other testimony.!6® At some point during Philips’ reign we find Anaximenes at the Macedonian court. The evidence for this is Pausanias, from whom we learn that Anaximenes knew Philip and Alexander personally, presumably at Pella

rather than at Athens.!9? The story that Anaximenes tutored the young Alexander in rhetoric would fit in well with his being in Macedon in the late 340’s, but it is

probably to be rejected as a late inference.!' We can say with certainty, however, that the two men were personally acquainted well before 334, the year in which Anaximenes interceded with the king for the safety of his fellow citizens of

Lampsacus. If Berve is correct, their meeting and the dedication to Alexander by Anaximenes of his treatise on rhetoric, the so called Rhetorica ad Alexandrum,

would have taken place prior to Aristotle's arrival in Macedonia in 342. Jacoby suggested that the dedication was an attempt by Anaximenes to secure royal

patronage.!?! Flower canvasses the possibility that both Anaximenes and Theopompus were at the Macedonian court in 343/2 and that their rivalry for Philip's patronage resulted in Anaximenes publishing the Tricaranus, a vitriolic pamphlet written in the style of Theopompus and intended to arouse enmity against him.!?? Anaximenes was both rhetor and historian and in the latter capacity he set himself the ambitious task of writing a universal history beginning with the birth

of the gods and comprising both Greek and non-Greek history.!?? As with a number of other intellectuals, Anaximenes seems to have been attracted to Philip's rising star and as a result broke off the first part of his history with the death of Epaminondas in order to begin the work he entitled Philippica. If the surviving

fragments are indicative, Anaximenes appears to have abandoned his universal coverage in order to concentrate on Macedonian history. Book 1 probably includ-

ed a discussion of the organisation of the Macedonian state, if indeed this is a valid deduction from the fact that the question of the origin of the pezhetairoi was

discussed there.!”* In book 4 he discussed the Third Sacred War (presumably supporting the Macedonian intervention) and Philip's dispute with Athens over Halonnesus.!5 Hermias of Artaneus appeared in book 6 and Philip's lengthy

167 15.76.4 = Τά FGrH 72. 168 6.57 = T11. See also Jacoby.

FGrH 72 Commentary p.105, who argued that Anaximenes

ran his own school in Athens. 169 6.18.3 = T6.3.

170 Suda s.v. Anaximenes (Adler alpha, 1989) = Tl; also T8. 171 H Berve, Das Alexanderreich, München: Beck, 1926 v.2, pp. 35-36; Jacoby,

FGrH 72

Commentary p.105.

IT2 See Flower's discussion on pp.21-23.

173 Diodorus 15.89.3 = T14 . In the first book he also dealt with the origin of the Delphic Amphictyony. See Harpocration s.v. ᾿Αμφικτύονες = F2.

174 F4. Cf. Jacoby [FGrH 72 Commentary p.107]: ‘die Φιλικπικά begannen also mit einem überblick über die vorgeschichte Makedoniens.' The unassigned reference to Anaximenes'

discussion of the reign of Perdiccas II [F27) may also belong to book 1. 175 FF 7-8. Add to this the unassigned F28 mentioning the Persian embassy to Athens of 344.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

61

Thracian campaign (342-339) in books 7 and 8.176 The work would therefore appear to have covered the history of Philip's reign in some detail, an impression that is confirmed if, as is generally agreed, the lengthy Reply to Philip's Letter

preserved amongst Demosthenes’ speeches derives from the Philippica.'"? It may be that Philip's Letter itself (preserved as the twelfth of Demosthenes' works)

was also written by Anaximenes.!?5 If this is so, and if another letter cited by Didymus which is less conciliatory towards the Athenians is the authentic letter of Philip, then, as Pearson observed, '...the whole diplomatic episode was presented in the Philippica with a pro-Macedonian bias, so as to show Demosthenes

reacting with unreasonable hostility to Philip's peaceful move'.!?? Exactly how much time Anaximenes spent at the Macedonian court of Philip II, whether he wrote his Philippica there or in Athens or elsewhere and even when he published his work is not known, but that he supported Macedonian policies in his writings is clearly more than an inference from his known personal

association with Philip and Alexander.!99

176 FF9, 10, 12.

17 Didymus [Commentary on Demosthenes 11.7-14 = Flla], who is the source of this attribution, seems not to have referred to the actual work of Anaximenes but relied on what he considered to be a commonly held opinion (cf. οἵ φασιν).

178 This was strongly denied by Pohlenz [pp.54—62], who argued that Wendland [Anaximenes, pp.21-22] a rewriting by und Publicistik senschaften zu

later unawares undermined his own hypothesis that Pseudo-Demosthenes 12 was Anaximenes of Philip's letter. For Wendland ['Beitráge zur athenischen Politik des vierten Jahrhunderts', Nachrichten der Kóniglichen Gesellschaft der WisGóttingen, philologisch-historische-Klasse, 1910 p.309] had observed that Philip

(not Anaximenes) in $19 of his letter pointedly quoted Isocrates Philip 73.

19 Didymus Commentary on Demosthenes 10.24-30. This letter of Philip is most likely the same as that cited by Didymus earlier at 9.46-47. We know from Demosthenes statement in his

speech On the Crown [76, 79) that Philip in one letter mentioned certain men (cf. ἑτέροις ἐγκαλῶν and toig ἅλλοις ἐγκαλῶν) whom he held responsible for the war, but whether this letter is identical with the letter cited by Didymus which contains a reference to a certain Aristomedes is impossible to say. See L. Pearson, The lost histories of Alexander the Great, Philadelphia: American Philological Association, 1960 (reprinted 1983) p. 245 n.11. Wendland [Anaximenes, p.16] like Pearson later on noted 'das Streben der Milderung und Versóhnung der Gegensáütze' in the letter preserved amongst Demosthenes’ works when compared to that quoted by Didymus. Wendland also noted the non-avoidance of hiatus in 1.29 and the less sophisticated stylistic and rhetorical features of the letter cited by Didymus. Griffith [HM pp.714; also pp.524 n.6, 567] following Pohlenz, on the other hand, holds that the letter quoted by Didymus basically preserves the later of two letters sent by Philip some weeks apart to the Athenians and that the time delay accounts for the more conciliatory tone of the earlier letter. 180 If Griffith [HM pp.405—406, 705-713; cf. R. Develin, 'Anaximenes (FGRHIST72) F4', Historia 34 (1985) pp.493—496] is correct in arguing that the Alexander referred to in F4 is

Alexander the Great, then Book 1 of the Philippica must have been published or revised later than 336. However, the Alexander referred to by Anaximenes might also be Alexander I, as P.A. Brunt argued convincingly in 'Anaximenes and King Alexander I of Macedon', JHS, 96(1976), pp.151-153. Based on what to me seem only superficial similarities between F11.22 and Demosthenes On the Crown 67 (noticed by Wendland), Jacoby [FGrH 72 Commentary p.105]

concluded that Bk. 8 of the Philippica must post-date 330, the assumption being that Anaximenes made use of the Demosthenic speech.

62

Introduction

d. Callisthenes of Olynthus The relations of Callisthenes of Olynthus (b. circa 370 or earlier) to the Macedo-

nian court of Philip II must be pieced together from the little that is known of his life and writings, for there is no direct testimony that Callisthenes spent any time

at Philip's court.!*! On the other hand. one did not have to be resident in Macedonia to receive patronage from Philip or Alexander. The close relationship between Callisthenes and Aristotle (his uncle and fellow Chalcidian Greek), with whom he resided for some time and with whom he collaborated on the List of Pythian Victors, assumes some importance in view of Aristotle's known close links with Macedon.'®2 From the encomium he wrote commemorating Hermias of Atarneus we may deduce that Callisthenes was closely associated with the philosophical community established at Assos under the patronage of that dynast,

a community that included amongst its members Aristotle and Theophrastus.!9? The fact that sometime before his death in 341 Hermias had entered into negotiations with Philip of Macedon may provide a connection between the philosophers and Macedon.!®* The work Callisthenes or On Grief composed by Theophrastus after the death of Callisthenes in 327 suggests that a very close relationship existed between these two men, a relationship which probably began in Assos or Mytilene

in about 347 (if not earlier in Athens) and most likely continued

in

5! That he did, however, is generally assumed by the majority of modern day authorities. See, for example, Jacoby RE 10.2 cols.1675, 1698 s.v. Kallisthenes (2); H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich, München: Beck, 1926 v.2, p. 191; D. Wormell, “The literary tradition concerning Hermias of Atarneus', Yale Classical Studies v.5 (1935) p.75; T. Brown 'Callisthenes and Alexander’, American Journal of Philology v.70 n.3 (1949) pp.226-228; S. Fuscagni 'Callistene di Olinto e la "Vita di Pelopida" di Plutarco' in Storiografia e propaganda ed. M. Sordi (Contributi dell'Istituto di storia antica v.3) Milano:

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,

1975 p.38; P.

Pédech, Historiens compagnons d’Alexandre, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1984 pp.15-16; L. Prandi ‘Callistene. Uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni', Milano: Jaca Book, 1985, pp.2021. Contra see A. Bosworth ‘Aristotle and Callisthenes', Historia v.19 (1970) p.412, who interprets statements of Justin [12.6.17] that Callisthenes was ‘summoned by the king himself’ (ab ipso rege...accitus) and of Plutarch [Moralia 1043d] that Callisthenes ‘sailed’ to Alexander

(πρὸς ᾿Αλέξανδρον ἔπλευσεν) to mean that the historian was not in Macedonia at the time. But one may equally well be summoned from within a place and it is possible that both expressions may simply mean that Callisthenes joined the expedition 'by sea' after the commencement of the campaign. 132 The evidence of Callisthenes' contemporary Chares of Mytilene ( FGrH 125 F15 = Plu-

tarch, Alexander 55.5] is decisive and confirms the later tradition of the close relationship between boration 185 6.18]. A

the two men. An honorific inscription from c. on the List of Pythian Victors [SIG 275 = Tod The encomium is quoted in part by Didymus quotation by Pollux (9.93 2 FGrH 124 F4] from

334 found at Delphi records their colla187]. [Commentary on Demosthenes 5.64 the Apophthegmata of Callisthenes also

provides an association with Atarneus. I see no reason to believe that Aristotle commissioned Callisthenes to write the encomium, as has been suggested as a possibility by A. Bosworth | Aristotle and Callisthenes', Historia v.19 (1970) p.409]. Aristotle was quite capable of composing his own tribute to Hermias, and did so. See Didymus Commentary on Demosthenes 6.19— 35; Diogenes Laertius 5.5-8. 18% Concerning Hermias and his relations with Macedon see Griffith HM pp.519-522.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

63

Macedonia, to where Theophrastus accompanied Aristotle in 342 when the latter

was appointed preceptor to Alexander.'®> We may dismiss as unhistorical the claim of Justin [12.6.17] that in Macedonia Callisthenes was a fellow pupil of Alexander, but the error is significant because it implies that Justin and/or his source Pompeius Trogus believed that Callisthenes had accompanied Aristotle to Macedonia in 342. The picture that emerges of Aristotle, Theophrastus and Callisthenes is of men who associated closely with one another over a period of time, in Athens perhaps, and then in Assos, Mytilene and Macedonia. All three were philo-Macedonian in their sympathies and benefited from Macedonian patronage. When we look at the writings of Callisthenes we find a similarly close connection with Macedonian interests. His two volume work on the Third Sacred War (and the Hellenica of which it originally formed the last part) was written during the years following the Macedonian brokered settlement of that conflict in 346 and his departure on the Persian campaign in 334.!56 It was the Third Sacred War that brought about Philip's decisive and controversial intervention in Greek affairs and for this reason (however we judge the political orientation of the Hellenica) Callisthenes' lengthy account of the war must have completely justified that intervention and settlement. In view of the close relationship between the Sacred War monograph and the Hellenica it is likely that the latter (the ten books of which covered in some detail the thirty years from the King's Peace to the capture of Delphi by Philomelus) also served the interests of Macedonian foreign policy. The intriguing theory of Fuscagni (followed by Prandi) argues that the depiction of Pelopidas in Plutarch's biography of him derives from Callisthenes' Hellenica. The strong anti-Spartan sentiments in the Pelopidas together with its pro-Macedonian and pro-Persian tendencies its support for the independence of less powerful states in the Peloponnese and Thessaly and an ambiguous attitude towards Athens are held to reflect similar tendencies evident in the fragments of Callisthenes' Hellenica, which in turn correspond closely with Philip's foreign policy in the years 346—340. By taking as his starting point the King's Peace, so the argument goes, Callisthenes set out to illustrate the progression from the imposition of Persian influence on Greek affairs to the implementation of panhellenism (as preached by Isocrates) in the person of Philip, who after 346 sought to promote himself as the champion of Hellenic liberty. 185 Diogenes Laertius 5.44. Cicero [Tusculan Disputations 3.21] referred to Callisthenes as sodalis of Theophrastus in a context which makes it sure that Theophrastus was grieving for someone who was an intimate companion. If the tradition preserved by Diogenes Laertius [5.3839] is accurate, Theophrastus studied in Athens under Plato. It would have been there that he first met Aristotle, and probably Callisthenes also, who we learn from Plutarch [Alexander 55 = T2) was supported or maintained (cf. € t€0paxto) by Aristotle at some time, perhaps most likely after the destruction of his native Olynthus in 348. See Prandi. op. cit. p12. From references to Macedonia in his writings we may deduce that Theophrastus had a close scientific association with that country. See, for example, his Enquiry into Plants 3.11.1; 4.16.3 and the comments of Hammond HM 1, p.149 n.3. 18 We should accept the clear statement of Cicero on the relationship between these two works. See Ad Familiares 5.12.2 = T25.

64

Introduction

Callisthenes aimed in this way to predispose his audience to accept the presence

of Philip in Greece.!5? Whether or not one accepts this theory of the Hellenica, it seems clear to me that the man whom Alexander chose as his official historian was at the time of his calling in 336 regarded as a loyal and trusted proponent of Macedonian foreign policy aims who had in all likelihood lived and worked in Macedonia with Aristotle and Theophrastus since 342 and produced under Philip's patronage major historical works acceptable to the king.

iv. The timing of Speusippus' letter Now that we have scrutinized the evidence for Philip's relations with the intellectuals with whom he is known to have associated we are better able to evaluate the position of Speusippus and the significance of his letter. As we have seen, Philip had gathered around him a number of powerful intellects, men such as Callisthenes, Anaximenes and Theopompus to popularise the Macedonian version of Greek history and especially to commemorate his own deeds and achievements.

Isocrates, then at the height of his reputation, had associated himself with Philip in the role of adviser. In this role he appears to have had a degree of influence on Philip and enjoyed respect and even familiarity from the Macedonian royal family. As we have seen, it was also possible for the Athenian opponents of Macedon to suggest that the master exerted further influence through his former students, whatever the extent of that influence may really have been. Aristotle and perhaps also Theophrastus seem also to have played a role in lending their prestige to the Macedonian cause.

Amongst this lot of intellectuals who, during Philip's reign, consistently supported the Macedonian position to a greater or lesser extent there was considerable diversity, as might be expected, and even open hostility as in the case of

Anaximenes and Theopompus or of Aristotle and Isocrates. Yet Philip bestowed 187 Callisthenes Hellenica would seem to have been one of the major sources used by Ephorus (and hence Plutarch) and also by Diodorus for their accounts of the Theban hegemony. See S. Homblower, Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed. (1994) v.6 pp.10-11. See also the

conservative assessment of H. Westlake ‘The sources of Plutarch's Pelopidas’, Classical Quarterly 33 (1939) pp.11-22. The conclusions of Fuscagni, Prandi and Pédech in the works cited above differ little in substance from those published by Jacoby in his influential 1919 article on Callisthenes for RE. His conclusions, which Momigliano accepted in his important work on Philip published in 1934 [see Filippo pp.196-197] held that *K's Hellenika gehören, wie ... die

Broschüre über den Heiligen Krieg, wie sein zweites großes Werk, die Πράξεις ᾿Αλεξάνδρον, in den Kreis der promakedonischen Publizistik. Er schrieb sie am Hoffe und im Dienste Philipps, als Vertreter der von Philipp im eigenen Interesse gefórderten panhellenischen Idee' (cols. 1697-1698]. The theory is condemned in passing by A. Bosworth ['Plutarch, Callisthenes and the Peace of Callias', Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990) pp.5—6] who, despite the persuasiveness of his argument in regard to Callisthenes F15, fails to do justice to the arguments of those who view the Hellenica in terms of pro-Macedonian propaganda. If we may believe the

statement attributed to Callisthenes that his work was to promote Alexander's fame among men then Callisthenes clearly saw himself as a paid Macedonian propagandist. See Arrian 4.10.1-2.

4. The Historical Background to Speusippus' Letter

65

his patronage on all of them; but not on the Academy. Apart from the letter of Speusippus to Philip we hear of no correspondence by Plato or his successor with

Macedon during Philip's reign.'®* This is a telling fact in view of the correspondence and pro-Macedonian historical works which, as we have seen, emanated from non- Academic sources. The history of Antipater of Magnesia was presumably never published because Philip did not relent in his opposition to the Academy. The total absence of the Academy from all this vibrant intellectual activity is apparent and, if the case I have argued is correct, to be expected in view of the Euphraeus affair. When considered in this perspective Speusippus' letter, interesting though it is from a number of viewpoints, was completely ineffectual in its central aim of reinstating the Academy in Macedonian favour. For us today it flickers brightly in the history of the later 340's but at the time it was a dismal

failure.!5? Given that the focus of power and patronage in the Greek world had turned towards Macedon in the 340's and given the total exclusion of the Academy from this sphere it is not surprising that Speusippus should have decided to test the waters to see whether Philip was prepared to accept the good services of the Academy. Plato had been dead for some years and Speusippus may have felt that with his passing the old animosities would be lessened. The timing of his approach was carefully chosen, as one would expect. When Speusippus wrote to Philip in 343 or 342 anti-Macedonian sentiment amongst Athenians had reached a level higher than at any time since the conclusion of war in 346. The Athenian response in spring of 343 to Philip's offer to revise the Peace of Philocrates was totally uncompromising, an insult to the king's goodwill gesture. Philocrates fled Athens in the same year rather than stand trial for his part in the peace treaty that bears his name and Aeschines who, like Isocrates, had trusted in Philip's promis158 That Speusippus found it necessary in section 12 of the letter to remind Philip of his carlier relationship to Plato suggests that Speusippus had no actual contact with Philip during the years 347—342. See Sonnabend p.93. On the impersonal style of the letter, see p.22. 189 Fuscagni [pp. 81-82] takes a quite different position to that I propose here. She argues that the worsening relations between Athens and Macedon had outpaced the potential usefulness of the myth based propaganda we find in Speusippus' letter. She finds confirmation of this in Philip's letter of 340, in which he based his claim to Amphipolis not on myth but on the right of dynastic inheritance and capture in war. See [Demosthenes] 12.21-23. Pohlenz [p.56] earlier made the same observation. In reply I would make the point that “il diritto dinastico-ereditario e il diritto del vincitore" were precisely the bases for Speusippus' arguments justifying Macedonian conquests. For a Greek audience the victories of Heracles and the transmission of the places he conquered to his Macedonian heirs were as persuasive as those of Alexander I or Philip himself, all being part of the continuum of the historical tradition. See the discussion on pp.66ff. Griffith [HM p.716] also, it seems to me, misses the point when he attributes Philip's omission in his letter of Speusippus' myth-based arguments to their being 'pitiful'. In any case, it must be conceded that Speusippus in $7 of the letter where he referred to the conquests of Alexander I in the territory of the Edones made the very same point as Philip himself made in his letter to the Athenians. See [Demosthenes] 21. Had Philip been disposed to look favourably on the Academy, it seems to me that he would have been only too pleased to acknowledge the clever legalistic arguments of Antipater and Speusippus which gave him title not only to Amphipolis but to all the other places he claimed as his own.

66

Introduction

es to benefit Athens, was only just acquitted for his part in the treaty negotia-

tions.'% The Thracian campaign which Philip embarked on at this time was perceived as a direct threat to the remaining Athenian interests in the North Aegean and particularly to the vital Athenian corn route. In 342 it must have seemed the remotest of possibilities that Philip could still win the goodwill

(eunoia) of Athenians, which was central to Isocrates’ advice.!?! Speusippus perceived that his rival’s relationship with the king was now vulnerable due to Philip's realisation of and disappointment at the apparent failure of Isocrates’

consistent advice to win Athenians over by proofs of his goodwill.!?? If ever Philip was to be reconciled with the Academy this must have seemed the propitious moment. Speusippus criticised what he portrayed as the failure of Isocrates" Philip to combat unfair attacks on Macedonian policies as well as its failure to achieve the eunoia of Athenians and Greeks. He offered in its place a vigorous defence of Philip against the scandalous criticisms he was being subjected to and a cleverly argued justification for Macedonian conquests based on ancient traditions.

S. THE RHETORIC

OF SPEUSIPPUS'

LETTER

i. Historical Traditions

The distinction we make today between mythological and historical personages and events would have seemed artificial to most Greeks of the classical period,

who prised and preserved the traditions of their respective states.!?? The historian Thucydides, for example, accepted as historical events both the death of Eurystheus at the hands of the Heraclids and the Trojan War, even if he would have disregarded the more improbable stories that surrounded them. He likewise acknowledged the royal families of Argos and Mycenae, founded respectively by Pelops and Perseus, and the kings of Attica from the time of Cecrops to Theseus (a near contemporary of Heracles). In this he was not alone, for the local historians of Attica (the so-called Atthidographers) and those of other states, who flourished during the fourth century, invariably began their local histories in

190 [t is amazing that Aeschines survived his prosecution so narrowly given the weakness of Demosthenes case against him and the fact that Eubulus, Phocion and Nausicles all testified on his behalf. See E.M. Harris, Aeschines and Athenian Politics, N.Y. and Oxford: OUP, 1995 p.118. 191 Compare the judgment of J.R. Ellis [The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., 1994, p.771] that from the outset of his Thracian campaign in 342 '...Philip had given up hope of reconciling Athens by friendly generosity’.

192 This point is made by Markle p.93. 193 "We call it a myth, a fiction, but we must liberate ourselves from this modern prejudice if we would understand the importance of mythological arguments in the political controversies of the Greeks." Nilsson p.88. Philip's use of myth as also Speusippus' letter are discussed by Nilsson on pp. 101-105.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

67

heroic times. The gods of the state and the heroes with whom they associated in the distant past formed, therefore, part of a continuum which extended into what we today call the historical period. Speusippus expressed this notion of the continuum of history when he criticised Isocrates for including in his Philip ‘neither ancient events (tac ἀρχαίας πράξεις) nor your victories of more recent date nor events which took place in the intervening period'.!?* Because of the constraints on memory and the lack of written records, events of the distant past were less precisely known than those of more recent date and depended on

received traditions, which the historian or orator sought out by enquiry.!?5 The practice of the Attic orators is well summarised by M. Nouhaud: 'Souvent, les orateurs passent des exploits mythiques aux guerres médiques par un simple peta ταῦτα. Il est vrai qu'Isocrate distingue à plusieurs reprises le «mythe» et la «vérité» ... mais c'est simplement pour indiquer que le degré d'approximation est plus grand dans le premier. Et, en tout état de cause, il utilise les deux de la méme maniére.’! In writing his history of Greece Antipater of Magnesia, the authority cited by Speusippus in his letter, appears to have acquired a good knowledge of the ancient traditions of the Greek states, a knowledge which he and his Academic associates would like to have placed at Philip's disposal. We know of a number of instances in which heroic traditions provided the basis for political claims. The closest parallel to the proofs cited in Speusippus' letter is to be found in the Archidamus of Isocrates, which I discuss in the following section. Perhaps the most celebrated instance of the use of heroic tradition in political debate occurred in about the year 343. In that year Hyperides delivered his Delian Speech before the council of the Delphic Amphictyony in support of the Athenian claim to manage the temple of Apollo on Delos. From the surviving fragments of his speech and from the testimony of the Byzantine grammarian Maximus Planudes it is certain that Hyperides made extensive use of the tradi-

tions relating to the origin of the shrine to justify the Athenian position.!?? Just two or three years earlier in 346 Aeschines, in attempting to persuade Philip of the justice of Athens’ claim to Amphipolis, began his speech with proofs (σημεῖα) from ancient times (£v toic ἀρχαίοις μύθοις). He related the story of how

194 89. See Commentary μύθους εἴρηκε.

$5: ὁ φέρων

τὴν ἐπιστολὴν μόνος Kal πρῶτος ἀξιοκίστους

195 Thucydides [1.9.2], for example, stated his reliance on such traditions when he referred to the arrival of Pelops from Asia: λέγουσι δὲ xai oi σαφέστατα Πελοποννησίων μνήμῃ παρὰ τῶν πρότερον δεδεγμένοι. Likewise Aeschines [On the Embassy 31] presented the Athenian claim to Amphipolis based on the dowry of Acamas, son of Theseus, ‘as precisely as possible’ (cf. ὡς ἐνεδέχετο ἀκριβέστατα). 196 [utilisation de l'histoire par les orateurs attiques, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982 p.8

n4. For Speusippus' use of the word μῦθος see Commentary $5: ὁ φέρων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν μόνος kai πρῶτος ἀξιοπίστους μύθους εἴρηκε.

197

βουλόμενος γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἐξ ἀρχαίον δεῖξαι τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις τὰ ἐν Δήλῳ ἱερὰ

προσήκοντα πολλῷ κέχρηται τῷ μύθῳ [Maximus Planudes Rhetores Graeci 5,481 (Walz); see also Bickermann BS p.44. For an attempt to reconstruct Hyperides' argument see R. Parker, Athenian Religion, Oxford: O.U.P., 1996, pp.223-225.

68

Introduction

Acamus, son of Theseus, had originally acquired the region of Amphipolis as the dowry of his wife, the Thracian princess Phyllis.!%® It was precisely this claim that Antipater of Magnesia attempted to refute with the counter argument that Heracles had legally acquired the region of Amphipolis some two generations before Acamas and left it in trust to his descendants, the kings of Macedon. Another striking instance (albeit from a later period) occurred in the year 209. At that time the Athenians, as Bickermann remarked, ‘hastened to discover’ their own kinship to Aias through Heracles in order to counter the acquisition of

Aegina by Attalus I.! An incident which occurred in 371, although it does not relate to the question of land title (but does touch on the argument in section 2 of Speusippus’ letter) points to a willingness to accept the use of heroic argument in serious political discourse. In that year Callias, son of Hipponicus, represented Athens on an embassy to Sparta which had the aim of persuading the Spartans to consider favourably Athenian overtures of peace. To this end, Callias cited the traditions that Heracles and the Dioscuri had received the honour of being the first non-Athenians initiated into the Mysteries and that Demeter had, before

anywhere else, bestowed the knowledge of agriculture on the Peloponnese.” When presently we come to examine Antipater’s arguments in support of Macedonian imperialist claims, based as they are on ancient traditions, we will be wise to judge their persuasive force not by what we might expect today but by the standards of the fourth century. For while the letter itself may be a cynical rhetorical exercise, Speusippus himself clearly held the arguments of Antipater to be sophisticated, clever and compelling as instruments of propaganda.

a. Heracles

In about the year 366 Isocrates published his Archidamus, in which he gave to the Spartan king of that name arguments from the heroic tradition justifying the 198 On the embassy 31 with the scholia. On this occasion also Aeschines claimed that he lectured Philip on the correct way to act in regard to the Delphic temple and the Amphictyony by citing the relevant history from the distant past. See Commentary $8: τίνα τρόπον πρῶτον oi ᾿Αμφικτύονες συνέστησαν.

199 IG IVIII pt.1 885: Cf. ...&1à τὴν Ἡρακλέους κρὸς Αἰακὸν συγγένειαν.... Bickermann's cynicism [BS ρ.43] was not entirely warranted, for Aias enjoyed a prominent place in Attic cult.

See Farnell, Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality, Oxford: O.U.P., 1920, pp. 307-308. 200 Xenophon Hellenica 6.3.2—6. Callias was daduch, that is second priest of the Eleusinian Mysteries, and so spoke with authority on these matters. In addition Bickermann [BS p.43—44] cited three others instances of the use of mythological arguments which, it must be said, are of doubtful veracity. Callistratus on an embassy to win over the Arcadians in 366 invoked the matricides Orestes and Oedipus as evidence for the bad character of the Argives and Thebans [Nepos Epaminondas 6; Plutarch Moralia 193c-d; 810f]. Similarly improbable is the story in Diodorus [10, F27], possibly deriving from Ephorus, of Datis' demand in 493 that the Athenians submit to him on the grounds that his ancestor Medus, the half-brother of Theseus, was the son of the Athenian king Acgeus. The appeal of the otherwise unknown Theban Cleadas to Alexander's devotion to his ancestor Heracles, who had been born in Thebes and was worshipped there, did not succeed in saving the city from destruction in 335. See Justin 11.4.5-6.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

69

Heraclid claims to Argos, Sparta and Messene. In the case of Messene, where the tradition quoted in the Archidamus is similar to that in our letter, we can supplement and so better understand Speusippus’ sketchy justification for Philip's conquests. In the case of Sparta, where the tradition employed by Isocrates varies subtly but significantly from that utilised by Speusippus, we shall be able to obtain a clearer idea of the way in which both writers used the heroic traditions to serve their separate rhetorical purposes. Beginning, then, with Messene, we see that Speusippus merely stated that Neleus was a violent and lawless man whom Heracles killed before depositing Messene with Nestor for safekeeping (δοθῆναι παρακαταθήκην φυλάττειν). Isocrates’ account is altogether fuller. He explained the lawlessness (τοὺς μὲν ἀδικήσαντας) of Neleus and his sons, who had robbed Heracles of the cattle from Erytheia, and then went on to explain why Heracles found Nestor (unlike his brothers) a suitable person with whom to deposit the city (cf. καρακατατίθεται

τὴν πόλιν). The arguments of both authors are similar, but Isocrates emphasised the legal basis of Heracles' title to Messene, which was merely assumed by Speusippus in his description of Neleus as ὑβριστής. Messene was won by the spear (Μεσσήνην δὲ δοριάλωτον ληφθεῖσαν), a city captured in war (λαβὼν αὑτὴν αἰχμάλωτον) and so at the disposal of the victor. Importantly, the war was not one of aggression but a just war, and hence the emphasis in both accounts on the

lawless character of Neleus.??! An important concept here is that of legal deposit (napaxata@jKn,

xap-

ακατατίθεσθαι). In order to fully appreciate the force of the argument based on deposit it is necessary to realise that in times before the proliferation of banks transactions involving deposits entrusted by one man with another were com-

monplace. These transactions relied on the good faith of the person receiving the

20! |socrates Archidamus 19. The Greek common law position seems to have held that conquest could only be justified and provide lawful title when it resulted from an act of retaliation for wrong committed against oneself or in support of another wronged party. See Andocides On the Peace 13 and Bickermann's discussion in BS pp.27-30. A possessor must be capable of establishing legal title to property should the occasion arise and, once established, title extended to the owner's most distant descendants. Hence Aeschines could argue in his speech On the

Embassy [33] that it was not right for Philip to retain Amphipolis as a prize in war taken from the Amphipolitans because the city did not belong to the Amphipolitans but to Athens its founder. Philip argued against this that he possessed Amphipolis as the inheritance of his ancestor Alexander I, who captured it in war from the Persians, and by right of his own conquest. See Pseudo-Demosthenes Philip's Letter 21-23. The closest parallel we could hope for to Heracles’ conquests and appropriations is provided by the case of Halonnesus. Philip simply claimed the island as his by right of conquest as he had taken it from lawless pirates. According to Hegesippus he offered to give the island to Athens as a gift. See Pseudo-Demosthenes On Halonnesus 2ff. Hegesippus, writing at around the same time as Speusippus' letter, also provided the counter argument, namely that stollen property continues to belong to its rightful owner. The legal and moral issue of spear-won territory would seem to have been much discussed at the time, and it would be interesting to know what position Theopompus and Anaximenes took in their respective Philippic Histories, for according to Harpocration [5.ν.᾿Αλόννησος) they both discussed the matter.

70

Introduction

deposit, who was usually someone known and trusted by the depositor. The nonreturn of deposits was considered a serious breach of faith.2°? The notion of deposit was usually applied to money, but in the present case we find it transferred to an entire state. An instance of the concept being applied in this way in historical times occurs in Thucydides’ Histories, where we find Archidamus suggesting to the Plataeans that they deposit their city into the care of Sparta for

the duration of the Peloponnesian War.?0? Athenian orators employed the concept to remind juries of their solemn responsibility in delivering judgment. In the speech Against Ctesiphon, for example, Aeschines reminded the jurors that their fellow citizens had placed the city with them as a deposit and entrusted its

constitution to their care.2% The argument based on deposit thus possessed for the Greeks a real and compelling force. When combined with the person of Heracles, who had travelled extensively throughout the Greek and non-Greek world, it became an ideal vehicle for justifying the claims of the Heraclids to the states of the Peloponnese and to other places settled by Dorians during the Archaic period. A notable case in point is the foundation of Eryx in Sicily by the Heraclid/Spartan 202 The concept always implied a duty of care and the return of the deposit upon request. For the expectation that the person receiving a deposit should act honourably, see Isocrates

Demonicus 22. In particular note the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems [29.2]: Διὰ ti παρακαταθήKTIV δεινότερον ἀποστερεῖν ἢ δάνειον; ἢ ὅτι αἰσχρὸν ἀδικεῖν φίλον; ὁ μὲν οὖν παρακαταθή«rv ἀποστερῶν φίλον ἀδικεῖς οὐδεὶς γὰρ παρακατατίθεται μὴ πιστεύων. The dire consequence of not returning a deposit and the religious sanction involved is nowhere better stated than in the story of the Spartan Glaucus, son of Epicydes, as told by Herodotus [6.86]. Cases involving deposits appear to have been a frequent source of litigation in Athens. Demosthenes [Against Aphobus [1.15] used the term metaphorically to emphasise the high duty of care expected of a guardian in respect of those placed in his charge. See also Isocrates, Letter to Antipater 12; Letter to Philip 1.24. Two of Isocrates dicastic speeches, the Trapeziticus and Against Euthynus concern deposits. R.J. Bonner (‘Note on Isocrates’ Panegyricus 188', Classical Philology 15 (1920) p.385) thought it probable that Speusippus' speech πρὸς tov ἀμάρτυρον [Diogenes Laertius 4.5], like that of Antisthenes entitled πρὸς tov Ἰσοκράτους ἀμάρτυρον [Diogenes Laertius 6.15], replied to Isocrates' πρὸς Εὐθύνουν ayuaptupos. On deposits in general see W. Hellebrand in RE 18,3 cols. 1186-1202 s.v. Παρακαταθήκη. 203 5 72.3. Amyntas III is known to have given a section of Macedonia adjoining the Chalcidice to the Olynthians in 393 when Macedonia was threatened by an Illyrian invasion. The arrangement appears to have given the Olynthians the right to enjoy the produce of the country until such time as Amyntas should request its return. See Diodorus 14.92.3, 15.19.2, where it is stated that the land was granted (δωρέομαι) by Amyntas; but Amyntas clearly regarded it as a deposit. For the 'depositing' of a city see also Herodotus 3.59.1 (Hydrea); Diodorus 15.76.1 (Oropus);

Aeschines Against Ctesiphon

85 (used metaphorically of Euboean

cities); Plutarch

Timoleon 16.2 (Thurii), Themistocles 10.2 (Athens deposited into the care of Athena prior to the Battle of Salamis); Xenophon Hellenica 6.1.2; 18 (Pharsalus). The moveable property of one state might also be deposited in the territory of another state for safekeeping during time of war, as the agreement between Erythrae and Hermias of Atarneus from about the year 350 confirms. See Tod GHI 165. 204 νυνὶ πάντες οἱ πολῖται παρακαταθέμενοι τὴν πόλιν ὑμῖν καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν διακιστεύσαντες: $8. See also [Demosthenes] Against Aristogeiton I, 11: πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ πόλει καλὰ καὶ δίκαια καὶ συμφέροντα φυλάττειν ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν παρακαταθήκην EvopKov εἰληφὼς παρὰ τῶν νόμων καὶ τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τῆς πατρίδος. Cf. Demosthenes Letter 111.27, Dinarchus Against Demosthenes 9; 81 (of the politician in whom the city places its trust).

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus’ Letter

71

Dorieus towards the end of the sixth century.9 Antipater of Magnesia found that a similar argument could be used to buttress the claims of Philip of Macedon (himself a descendant of Heracles) to the places he acquired by force. Turning now to Sparta, we read at Isocrates Archidamus 18, (the earliest account to have survived), that Lacedaemon belonged to the Heraclids by testamentary right (κατὰ 5601). Tyndareus' own sons, the so-called Dioscuri Castor and Polydeuces, had been translated to Olympus and so could not inherit the country." Tyndareus therefore decided to bequeath the state to Heracles in recompense for his service in restoring him to the throne and because of the hero's kinship with the Dioscuri (cf. διὰ te τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ταύτην καὶ διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς παῖδας). In Isocrates" account, therefore, Heracles’ claim to the throne of Sparta is based not on conquest but on bequest, for it is Tyndareus who bequeaths the state to him. According to Speusippus’ version, on the other hand, Heracles entrusted (cf. παρακαταθέσθαι:

6) to Tyndareus the

country which he had won by the spear. That is to say, the legal basis for the Heraclid claim to Sparta is the same as in the case of Messene. We find this latter version expanded with almost legalistic detail in Diodorus: τὴν δὲ Σπάρτην ἑλὼν (sc. ὁ Ἡρακλῆς) κατὰ κράτος, κατήγεν ἐπὶ τὴν Βασιλείαν Τυνδάρεων tov πατέρα τῶν Διοσκόρων, καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ὡς δορίκτητον Τυνδάρεῳ παρέθετο, προστάξας τοῖς ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ γενομένοις φυλάττειν.208. Speusippus is the earliest writer we know to have claimed for Heracles the spear-won right to dispose of Sparta by placing it in trust for his descendants. Apollodorus in his account was not directly concerned with justifying the Heraclid claim to Sparta and so ignored the idea of custodianship. He stated merely that Heracles handed Sparta over to Tyndareus, using similar language as when he described Tyndareus’

handing the kingdom over to his son-in-law Menelaus.?” 205 See Herodotus 5.43; Diodorus 4.23.2-3 and in general the discussion by I. Malkin, Myth and territory in the Spartan

Mediterranean, Cambridge:

C.U.P.,

1994 pp.22-25,

205-218.

According to Diodorus [4.37.3—4; see also Apollodorus 2.7.7] Heracles also won a third share in

the land of Doris, which he entrusted to King Aegimius until his descendants should reclaim it. 706 [socrates was here referring to the law of succession, a fine point that Bickermann [BS pp.27-29] in his otherwise insightful discussion failed to notice. Norlin's translation also misses the point. Aristotle [Politics 1309a] distinguishes between inheritance by bequest and by family:

τὰς κληρονομίας μὴ κατὰ δόσιν eiat ἀλλὰ Kata γένος. See A.R.W. Harrison, The Law of Athens v.1: The Family and Property, Oxford: O.U.P., 1968 p.150. 207 This is an important point because, under Athenian law, a will would have been superfluous if Tyndareus had sons (natural or adopted), to succeed him. Heracles was not related to

Tyndareus and so had no claim κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν to Sparta, such as he had to Argos (§18). Polydeuces was, however, the half-brother of Heracles by Zeus, and so it was possible for Isocrates to establish an albeit tenuous relationship (συγγένεια). For the distinction between ayxloteia and συγγένεια see Harrison, op. cit. p.143.

208 4.33.5. Compare [Ὁ 14.1293.58—65 from the Villa Albani in Rome: Σπάρταν te λαβὼν (sc. ὁ Ἡρακλῆς) δορνάλωτον Ἱπποκόωντα καὶ τοὺς xaióac φονεύσας Τυνδάρεων σὺν Káctoot καὶ Πολυδεύκᾳ φεύγοντα κατάγαγε καὶ ἔδωκε Λακεδαίμονα.

209 Compare τὴν βασιλείαν καρέδωκε (sc.

ὁ Ἡρακλῆς) τούτῳ [2.7.3] and τούτῳ τὴν

βασιλείαν παρέδωκεν (sc. ὁ Τυνδάρεως) [3.11.2]. Frazer's translation οὗ παρέδωκε as 'entrusted’ in the first passage (but not in the second) adds a concept absent from Apollodorus' account. Under Athenian law Tyndareus, having no more immediate male, heirs would have been expected to adopt his son-in-law as his successor.

72

Introduction

It would be interesting to know how Alcman, who wrote on the struggle between Heracles and Hippocoón, treated the story, for he would presumably

have given the official Spartan version.2!? But in the absence of Spartan sources, it is not possible to reconstruct in sufficient detail the mythical justification adduced by the Spartans themselves for their title to Sparta and so to compare it with the conflicting accounts described in the previous paragraph. Consequently, we cannot know whether Isocrates invented the bequest of Tyndareus or whether Antipater of Magnesia was the first to introduce the notion of the custodianship of Sparta in lieu of Heracles’ descendants. As interesting as it would be to learn the answer to this problem, it is not necessary to solve it in order to understand the rhetorical arguments we are dealing with. What is essential, however, is to determine what purpose the argument based on deposit served. The key here, I would suggest, is the realisation that the argument from deposit always occurs in conjunction with title based on conquest, that is to say, in circumstances in which Heracles never actually assumed possession of the territory he conquered and so never established a dynasty to succeed him. Where no hereditary nght had been established, such as clearly existed in the case of Argos, or was provided κατὰ ööcıv as in the case of Sparta, it was necessary to introduce a mechanism which would guarantee that title would be preserved for the future, and that mechanism was the widely known and highly respected practice of deposit in trust pending redemption. Hence Isocrates only invoked the argument based on deposit in the case of Messene but Antipater for both Messene and Sparta. We must now pose the question why Isocrates and Antipater, both of whom aimed to justify the claim of the Heraclids to Sparta, chose different versions of the myth to support their respective arguments. The answer in the case of Isocrates, it seems to me, is that he employed what he believed to be the stronger argument. Sparta was the testamentary bequest of the legitimate ruler of the land who, being without heir and motivated by a sense of gratitude and, importantly, in view of the partial consanguinity of Heracles and his own sons, chose Heracles to succeed him. An argument such as this based on συγγένεια, although inferior to one based on ayxıcteia as in the case of Argos, nevertheless guaranteed hereditary right of title ad infinitum to the descendants of Heracles. Such an argument was obviously superior to one based on conquest, which required an additional argument from deposit to ensure the legitimate transfer of title at some future time. The obvious next step is to enquire why it was that Antipater, even though he would have been familiar with Isocrates’ argument in respect of Sparta in the Archidamus nevertheless chose to overlook it in favour of the argument from conquest and deposit. The answer is likely to be that Antipater was not primarily concerned with justifying the return of the Heraclids to the Peloponnese. Rather he was concerned to use the claims of the Heraclids as precedent on which to base those of Philip of Macedon. Because the myths associating Heracles with the places conquered by Philip did not appear to allow arguments based on hereditary 210 See Alcman Fr.1 (Campbell, LCL].

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

73

ownership (or, indeed, even on length of possession) those based on conquest and deposit were the next best thing. Once he had decided on the most appropriate argument, the precedents he adduced in support of it all had to operate in a similar

manner.?!! b. The Delphic Amphictyony The other major section of the letter in which Speusippus drew on the heroic tradition in support of his rhetoric was in relation to the expulsion of the Phocians from the Delphic Amphictyony and the admission of Philip in their place, events which provided ammunition to Philip's opponents in Athens for years afterwards. From about 343 Athenian public opinion was beginning to swing noticeably against Macedon. Athenians, who had been allies of Phocis during the Sacred War, became more inclined to see Philip's hand behind the destruction of Phocis than that of the Thebans and Thessalians. The clearest statement we possess of the accusations directed against Philip at this time is that of Demosthenes in his speech On the Embassy of 343, in which he mentioned among the calamities resulting from the Peace of Philocrates the harsh treatment of the Phocians, their expulsion from the Amphictyony and the unlawful inclusion in their place of the barbarian Macedones.?!? It was precisely these charges that the argument in section 8 of Speusippus' letter was designed to counteract. As in the previous section of the letter, where Antipater employed an argument based on precedent in order to justify Philip's conquests, so here also he appealed to precedent from the heroic past to prove that Philip's actions conformed to honourable and pious Hellenic tradition. According to Antipater's reading of the tradition, the Phlegyae, Dryopes and Crissaeans had once been Ampichyons. In punishment for crimes committed against the Delphic temple and Amphictyony, these peoples had suffered the most severe penalties and ceased to participate further in the Amphictyony. Their voting rights were thus

forfeited and passed to others, who in consequence became Amphictyons.?!? The 211 [t is an intriguing possibility that Antipater missed or chose to ignore a possible argument based on hereditary claim to the territory of Amphipolis, because Heracles in one version of the myth married the daughter of Syleus and so became Syleus' heir. See Commentary $6: Συλέα δὲ περὶ τὸν ᾿Αμφιπολιτικὸν τόπον. The argument that possession over a lengthy period of time constituted title was used by Isocrates in the Archidamus (26-27) to justify the Spartan claim to Messene.

212 oi μὲν ὄντες ᾿Αμφικτύονες φεύγουσι καὶ ἐξελήλανται, καὶ ἀνάστατος αὐτῶν ἡ χώρα γέγονεν, οἱ δ᾽ οὐπώποτ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν χρόνῳ γενόμενοι, Μακεδόνες καὶ βάρβαροι, νῦν

᾿Αμφικτύονες εἶναι βιάζονται: [327]. The loss of their priority in consulting the Oracle (xpoμαντεία) was also mentioned by Demosthenes as an affront keenly felt by Athenians. The Athenians showed their disappointment over the settlement of the Sacred War by their refusal in 346 to send a delegation to the Pythian Games, over which Philip presided. See Demosthenes On the Embassy 128.

213 See §8: οὗτοι γὰρ πάντες ᾿Αμφικτύονες γενόμενοι τῶν ψήφων ἀφηρέθησαν. ἕτεροι δὲ τὰς τούτων ψήφους λαβόντες τῆς τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων συντελείας μετέσχον. What is known of the crimes and punishments of these peoples is set out in the relevant sections of the Commenta-

ry.

74

Introduction

parallel with the punishment of the Phocians and the forfeiture of their two votes to Philip could not be closer. Speusippus doubtless intended that Philip, who had himself championed the Amphictyony, would be pleased to find himself com-

pared to Apollo and Heracles, who in heroic times had championed the cause of Delphi against the lawless Phlegyae and Dryopes. The problem with accepting Antipater’s argument is that he is the only source for the tradition on which it rests. His assertion that the Phlegyae, Dryopes and Crissaeans were Amphictyons is not attested elsewhere, nor do we know of any people achieving amphictyonic membership through the acquisition of a forfeited

vote.2'4 The absence of any corroborating evidence for the traditions cited by Antipater, together with the extreme brevity of Speusippus’ account, has ensured

a harsh assessment of the rhetoric in this section of the letter. Bickermann, for instance, observed that Speusippus had distorted history somewhat by stating that the Phlegyae and Dryopes had the right to vote in the Amphictyony; but he dismissed this historical falsification (Geschichtsfalschung) on the grounds that it was the usual practice of the orators, who relied on the public’s ignorance of

history.?!? Bertelli, who challenges the authenticity of the letter, is not so understanding. In his opinion it defied the limits of credibility that Speusippus could make such a claim in a document addressed to an audience intimately involved with the facts under discussion and who, he asserted, had ample evidence to

contradict it in the writings of the historians and orators of the time.?! The charge of falsification is one which, if substantiated, has implications for Speusippus’ rhetorical method and in particular his use of ancient tradition. In assessing Speusippus’ rhetoric it is not necessary to determine whether the original Amphictyony was founded at Anthela or at Delphi or whether it actually included the peoples mentioned in the letter, for we are dealing with contemporary traditions and not modern interpretations of history. Rather, I will argue that there are sufficient indications in the sources to show that the traditions cited in the letter are genuine traditions, which Antipater and other writers drew upon in pursuit of their historical or propagandist aims. That is to say, Antipater followed 214 The Phlegyae, Dryopes and Crissaeans do not appear as members on any of the surviving lists of Amphictyons. See Aeschines On the Embassy 116; Theopompus F.63 FGrH 115; Diodorus 16.29.1—2; Pausanias 9.8.2. Only Theopompus and Pausanias claim to reproduce the original membership. Theopompus ' list includes the Achacans (who together with the Phthioti-

ans account for the absence from his list of the Thessalians) and the Delphians, two peoples not mentioned by any other source. Although there are significant differences between the lists, there is sufficient common ground to make it unlikely (but not impossible) that the Phlegyae,

Dryopes and Crissaeans would have been included in their own right on a list that has not survived. On the other hand, the divergence we find between the lists proves the existence of

differing traditions and might also be taken to suggest that even in so conservative a religious body as the Amphictyony (be it Pylaean, Delphian, or Pylaean-Delphian) some change in membership did occur, one group of people replacing another, as suggested in the letter. 21$ BS p.42.

216 Bertelli argued that Speusippus had reached the heights of historical falsification by deliberately confusing the history of the Delphic temple with that of the Amphictyony. See Epistola pp.295-298 and n.72.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus’ Letter

75

the usual practice of the orators (and also of the poets and dramatists) in choosing from among the different versions of traditions in circulation. A writer's success

in utilising tradition was a measure of his skil].?!? Firstly, then, Androtion (a contemporary of Speusippus) is evidence for the tradition that Delphi was part of the original Amphictyony. Androtion recorded that the representatives of the neighbouring states which constituted the Amphictyony met at Delphi from the beginning, and in this he is supported by Aeschines

and other contemporary sources.2!® Furthermore, the story of the foundation of the Amphictyony by King Acrisius of Argos, the grandfather of Perseus, places it in early heroic times, before the Trojan War, and at a time which accords well with the battles of Apollo and Heracles against the Phlegyae and Dryopes.?!? The existence of these traditions dating the foundation of the Amphictyony very early in the heroic past and associating it with Delphi from the outset compromises Bertelli's claim that Antipater deliberately confused the history of the Delphic temple with that of the Amphictyony. Antipater simply selected the tradition which best suited his argument. One thing that has not been generally understood is what exactly Antipater meant by describing the Phlegyae, Dryopes and Crisaeans as Amphictyons with voting rights. In the case of the Crissaeans there is a straightforward explanation for the claim that they possessed voting rights in the Amphictyony. It is quite likely that their right to vote resulted from their being a tribal subdivision of the Phocian ethnos. As a result of their punishment they forfeited their voting rights. The same is probably true of the Phlegyae and Dryopes, although we know so little of these peoples that even the ethne they belonged to are not clear. Support for the solution suggested here is provided by Aeschines who emphasised that the devastated cities of Boeotia were as much Amphictyonic cities (Apouxtvovidec) as Thebes. The representatives from Dorion and Cytinion, he asserted, had voting rights equal to Sparta in the Dorian ethnos, and the same was true for Eretria and

Priene within the Ionian ethnos.??? When properly understood, therefore, Antipater's argument in regard to the three instances he cited conforms to tradition. Where his rhetorical sleight of hand becomes evident is in his use of the punishment and expulsion of Phlegyae, Dryopes and Crisaeans as precedent for the punishment and expulsion of an entire ethnos, for which there was clearly no precedent. Furthermore, these people had, like the Phocians, indeed been Amphictyons and like them been punished and forfeited the privileges of membership; but Speusippus was unable to cite a single instances of another people 217 Isocrates, for example, explicitly acknowledged this practice when he stated in the Panathenaicus [172] his intention to use a version of the Adrastus story different from the one he had

used in the Panegyricus. See M. Nouhaud, L'utilisation de l'histoire par les orateurs attiques, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982 pp.17-19. 218 Androtion F58 FGrH 324 = Pausanias 10.8.1. Aeschines On the Embassy 115. See Commentary $8: tiva τρόπον πρῶτον oi ᾿Αμφικτύονες συνέστησαν.

219 Scholia Euripides Orestes, 1094; Strabo 9.3.7. 220 On the Embassy 116. The point in regard to Crissa's representation was made by G. Forrest 'The First Sacred War', Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 80 (1956), p.43.

76

Introduction

admitted in their place. These factors certainly weaken the persuasiveness of his rhetoric. It is difficult to know what measure of originality Antipater displayed in these arguments from precedent and in his vivid depiction of Philip as Apollo's champion receiving the forfeited Phocian votes as a victor's prize at the Pythian Games. Whereas we may accept Speusippus' assertion at section 5 that Antipater's argument justifying Philip's conquest of Olynthus and other places was original, in the case of the Third Sacred War a number of writers are known to have exercised their talents. Antipater was not alone in mining the traditions surrounding the Delphic Amphictyony. Callisthenes of Olynthus, for example, in his treatise on the Third Sacred War discussed the so-called Crisaean War.??! Probably he, like Antipater, raised the crimes and punishment of the Crisaeans as precedent in support of the Macedonian position. Antipater was likewise not alone in discussing the Phlegyae in the context to the Third Sacred War. The evidence for this is a scholiastic comment on the /liad of Homer. The scholiast provides the information that Ephorus discussed the Phlegyae in the final book of his universal history, which dealt with the theme of the Third Sacred War.?2? The punishment of the Phlegyae (and quite possibly of the Dryopes also) would probably have been cited as evidence by the victorious states in the war, especially the Thebans and Thessalians, to support the punishments they wished to inflict on the Phocians. There is also the intriguing reference to a work entitled ᾿Αμφικτυονικὸς written by Isocrates' pupil Isocrates of Apollonia Pontica who, as we know from Speusippus' letter, visited Philip's court at some time during the years 346 and 342. It is probably fair to say that this work handled its theme in a way favourable to Philip. Sykutris suggested that it treated the same question in the same way as our letter, that is, by providing parallels from heroic tradition. The evidence suggests, therefore, that the rhetoric in this section of the letter is based on genuine traditions which we, who have access to far fewer sources of information than existed in the fourth century, know only from the explicit statements of Speusippus and from a number of chance references which lend support to his statements. Other writers dealt with the same Amphictyonic theme as Antipater and, as we have seen, employed in their arguments similar examples 221 ΕἸ FGrH 124. For Callisthenes see Introduction pp.62—64.

22 ἐπὶ πλεῖον δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν (sc. tv Φλεγυῶν) διείλεκται Ἔφορος ἀποδεικνὺς ὅτι τὴν Δαυλίδα καὶ οὐ τὴν Γυρτῶνα ᾧκησαν᾽ ὅθεν καὶ παρὰ Φωκεῦσι τὸ ὑβρίζειν φλεγνᾶν λέγεσGav ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ τριακοστῇ τῇ Δημοφίλον. Scholia /liad 13.302 = Ephorus F93 FGrH

70. 223 Suda s.v. Ἰσοκράτης ᾿Αμύκλα, Adler iota,653. For the identification of the Apollonian as Isocrates’ successor referred to in the letter see Commentary $11: tov δὲ Ποντικὸν μαθητὴν

ἀπέδειξε τῆς αὑτοῦ σοφίας διάδοχον. BS p.74. The theme was undoubtedly a popular one, for we learn from the Suda [s.v. Φιλίσκος, Μιλήσιος, Adler phi, 360] that Philiscus of Miletus (a teacher of rhetoric who is said to have studied under [socrates) also wrote an ᾿Αμφικτνυονικός.

Theopompus of Chios treated the war in his Philippica and also in a separate work cited by Athenaeus as Περὶ τῶν συληθέντων Ex Δελφῶν χρημάτων. See FF 247-249, 232, 312 FGrH 115. Leon of Byzantium also published a monograph on the Sacred War. See Suda s.v. Λέων

(Adler lambda, 265) = ΤΊ FGrH 132.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus’ Letter

77

as precedents, but in the absence of their accounts we cannot say whether they were any more convincing. Had the history which Antipater carried with him to the Macedonian court survived, we may surmise that it would have provided the full version of his arguments and so made it easier to evaluate his rhetorical method. The traditions preserved in the Letter of Speusippus are valuable in that they provide insights which increase our understanding of history. We have seen how Antipater’s arguments in support of Philip's conquests and his entry into the Delphic Amphictyony have extended our appreciation of the kinds of justifications that were published during this period of history, a period which saw one of the earliest propaganda campaigns pursued through the print media that we know of. In Appendix III I argue that an historical tradition introduced at section 10 of the letter in order to strengthen the comparison with Alcibiades has added considerably to our knowledge of events surrounding the expulsion from Macedonia of Philip’s father Amyntas. Similarly, when now we come to examine Speusippus’ treatment of the role of Alexander I of Macedon in the Persian Wars and his criticism of Isocrates in regard to the foundation of Cyrene, we will find that the traditions he brought forward in support of his rhetoric possess an historical value independent of the rhetorical arguments of which they form a

part. c. The Depiction of Alexander I The depiction of Alexander I as benefactor of Greece is crucial to Speusippus' argument. Not only does it represent a criticism of Isocrates, who overlooked Philip's ancestor Alexander completely in his Philip, but (as I will later show) it is central to the argument from euergesia and so to the aim of Speusippus' rhetoric. In presenting Alexander's benefactions Speusippus made no claim to originality, such as he made at section 5 in justifying Philip's conquests. Indeed, his criticism of Isocrates rests on his assertion that the benefactions of Alexander were easily verifiable from the accounts of Herodotus and Damastes, which Isocrates ignored in the Philip. When we come to examine the three incidents involving Alexander presented in the letter, I will argue that Speusippus' debt to Damastes can be accepted with a degree of confidence in the description of Alexander's intervention at Tempe. As regards Herodotus, however, although all three incidents are present in the Histories, there are significant differences in

detail and emphasis. Beginning with the second of Alexander's exploits as described by Speusippus, namely the saving of the Greek expeditionary force at Tempe, it can be shown that it derives from a non-Herodotean tradition. Herodotus, as was his usual practice (compare his presentation of traditions for the foundation of Cyrene, discussed in the following section) provided alternative explanations for the Greek withdrawal. He began with what he implied was the usual explanation current at the time he wrote, namely that on Alexander's advice the Greeks

78

Introduction

withdrew fearing that their position would be overrun by the massive size of the

Persian invasion force.??^ This story reflects badly on the Greeks, whose abandonment of northern Greece would thus have been motivated by an undignified fear of the enemy. Consequently Herodotus expressed his own opinion that the Greeks withdrew because they feared that their position would be turned due to the existence of an alternative route over the shoulder of Olympus through the town of Gonnus. In the version of events according to Speusippus, on the other hand, Alexander warned the Greeks that they were in danger because Aleuas and

the Thessalians in their rear had gone over to the Persian side. This all too brief statement raises a number of difficulties. Firstly, it is plain from Herodotus that the pro-Persian sympathies of the Aleuadae of Larissa were well-known to the Greeks and they did not require Alexander to inform them of this fact. Secondly,

the ‘betrayal’ of the other Thessalians diametrically conflicts with what Herodotus reported, namely that the Thessalians (as good as their word) committed their

cavalry force to the defence of Tempe and only went over to the Persians after

they had been abandoned by the Greeks.? According to Herodotus, then, the Greek decision to pull out was made despite the whereas in Speusippus’ account the defection of the factor. Herodotus took pains to distinguish between and the good will of the majority of Thessalians, but

loyalty of the Thessalians, Thessalians was the crucial the Medism of the Aleuadae Speusippus lumped them all

together as traitors, thereby enhancing Alexander's reputation at the expense of the Thessalians. Diodorus (who made no mention of Alexander) provides the only other account to have survived of what took place at Tempe. He, like Speusippus, attributed the Greek withdrawal to the fact that most of the Thessalians and other Greeks whose territories controlled the passes leading into Thes-

saly had submitted to Persia.??° Now, it is generally agreed that Diodorus relied on Ephorus of Cyme (a contemporary of Speusippus) for his account in book

11.227 Based on the evidence of the letter Bickermann reasoned that, since Diodorus’ account contradicted that of Herodotus, Ephorus had used Damastes as

his source for the events at Tempe. If one accepts with Bickermann Speusippus’ statement at section 4 that the major sources for the period of the Persian Wars available in his day were Herodotus and Damastes (and I see no reason to doubt

it), then it follows that Bickermann is likely to be correct.223 It must be considered 24 3.173.3-4. Herodotus remarked that the Macedonian seemed to the Greeks to be welldisposed to them. 225 Θεσσαλοὶ δὲ ἐρημωθέντες συμμάχων οὕτω δὴ ἐμήδισαν προθύμως: Herodotus 7.174. The Thessalians submitted unwillingly through necessity (ὑπὸ ἀναγκαίης: 7.172.1). 226 11.2.6. Note also that the fact that Diodorus [11.2.5] made Synetus the commander of

the Spartans at Tempe, whereas Herodotus [7.173.2] gave Euaenetus, son of Carenus suggests an independent tradition; although it is just possible that this has resulted from a simple error on the part of Diodorus or his source or at some point in the transmission of his text. See the Commentary of How and Wells on Herodotus 7.173.2. We might also note that Herodotus omitted to

mention a Theban contingent at Tempe, which Plutarch [Moralia 864e] attributed to his antiTheban bias.

227 See recently S. Hornblower, Greek Historiography, Oxford: OUP, 1994, pp.36-37. 225 See Commentary $4: Ἡρόδοτον xai Δαμάστην. Our reliance today on Herodotus for the

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

79

probable, then, that Speusippus followed (how closely we cannot say) the version of events at Tempe given by Damastes, and that he did so because he judged that Damastes' version presented Alexander in the better light. In the historical context of the late 340's the mention of Aleuas by Speusippus assumes a particular contemporary significance. During the years 344—342 Philip reorganised Thessaly into administrative units known as tetrarchies, with the aim of breaking the power of the dynastic families in the major cities, especially Pherae and Larissa. It was at this time that Philip expelled the Aleuadae, a family with whom he and his predecessors had formerly enjoyed a close relationship. In 342, therefore, Speusippus wrote in the knowledge that the Aleuadae were no longer favoured by Philip and in the expectation that his naming of the Aleuadae as traitors to the Greek cause, in juxtaposition to the philhellene Alexander I, would be well received by his correspondent. Speusippus' account here in fact complements the line of Macedonian propaganda which sought to depict their intervention in Thessaly in 344 as an operation to suppress the tyrants of Larissa and Pherae and return the Thessalians to their ancestral federal political

organisation??? In an account which otherwise provides no unique information about the events of 480, the seemingly gratuitous detail that the Greek forces assembled to oppose the army of Xerxes near Macedonian Heracleum stands out. Damastes, who is known to have had an interest in geographical matters, may well have been Speusippus' source here, but whether Speusippus derived this detail from Damastes or not, his decision to include it is best explained in terms of his rhetoric. By specifically associating Alexander's service with the Macedonian sanctuary of

Heracles (cf. τὸ ὑμέτερον Ἡράκλειον) Speusippus was making a subtle connecevents of the Persian wars tends to overlook the fact that other versions of events also existed. Thucydides’

[1.97.2] statement that

a number

of writers before his time had written on the

Persian Wars should be a warning to us not to deny a tradition simply because it does not appear in Herodotus. Thucydides mentioned Hellanicus of Lesbos, but he probably had Herodotus and Damastes in mind as well. See also Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thucydides 5. An obvious example of a tradition recorded by Diodorus but not found in Herodotus is the night attack on the Persian lines at the Battle of Thermopylae. See Diodorus 11.9.3-10.4; Justin 2.11.12-18; Plutarch Moralia 866a. Ephorus was probably Diodorus' source here, but it has been suggested that the poet Simonides of Ceos, who like Herodotus was contemporary with the events described, may be behind Ephorus' account. See M. Flower, 'Simonides, Ephorus, and Herodotus on the battle of Thermopylae', Classical Quarterly v.48 n.2 (1998) pp. 365-379. Flower, however, does not take into account the clear statement of Speusippus (whose letter he regards as genuine) that Damastes and Herodotus were considered in his day and that of Ephorus to be the two major sources for the events of Xerxes invasion. Speusippus' statement of fact deserves greater acknowledgment than it has received. We may be sure that Simonides never alluded to the role of his patrons the Aleuadae at the time of the Persian Wars. The evidence for Simonides" association with Thessaly are given by D.A. Campbell in his Loeb edition of Simonides p.341 n.l, to which should be added Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Hypothesis 5.

229 The nature of the Macedonian propaganda has been convincingly explained by G. Squillace 'L'ultimo intervento di Filippo II in Tessaglia nella propaganda Macedone e antimacedone’, Aevum 74 (1) 2000 pp.81—94. The evidence for the expulsion of the Aleuadae is discussed by Griffith HM pp.525-526.

80

Introduction

tion between Alexander the saviour of the Greeks at Tempe and Heracles in his role as Σωτήρ, an association doubtless intended to impress Philip with its

aptness and to reflect well on the ability of its author.2° We turn now to the first of Alexander's services to Greece, namely the slaying of the seven Persian envoys sent to receive the submission of the Macedonian Kingdom. The first observation that I would make is that Speusippus has placed the incident in the immediate context of Xerxes' invasion of Greece when Alexander was king, whereas according to Herodotus it occurred some thirty years earlier in the reign of Alexander's father, Amyntas. Secondly, Speusippus implied a very different explanation of Alexander's motivation to that given by Herodotus. According to Herodotus, Alexander was motivated not by any Hellenic sentiment (as Speusippus would have it) or even by patriotic opposition to the subjection of his country but by outrage at the affront to women of the royal

family.??! These discrepancies might be explained in a number of ways. Perhaps Speusippus drew on a tradition independent of Herodotus, as we have seen he did in his description of events at Tempe. A careless mistake might also be to blame, or else Speusippus might have wilfully misrepresented for rhetorical purposes the Herodotean account, with which he was by his own admission familiar. The story presumably derived from an original Macedonian source (perhaps even from Alexander himself); for how else, we must ask, could it have become

known at all?232 Unfortunately it is not now possible to compare the details of this original, and especially its chronology, with later versions. When we examine what Speusippus wrote, we find that the first part of his story, namely that Xerxes 2% “Aber auch die Heroen werden als σωτῆρες begrüßt, besonders Herakles, der übrigens. wie sich zeigen soll, auch der εὐεργέτης par excellence ist.’ E. Skard, Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe euergetes-concordia (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse: 2) Oslo, 1932 p.28. Note also that the notion of σώζειν places Alexander in the superior moral position, even though in truth he was much compromised by Macedonian allegiance to Persia. We might compare the distinction Isocrates made at Panathenaicus 40 between tac σώζεσθαι δεομένας and tac σώζειν δυναμένας, which shows how closely this notion is related to the concept of hegemony, a major concern of Philip.

23! [t has usually been thought that Herodotus reflects traditions favourable to Alexander, but this view has convincingly been questioned in recent times. In fact Herodotus' portrayal of Alexander in general is not flattering. See Commentary $3: Ξέρξου yàp ... ἀπέκτεινεν and $4: Ἡρόδοτον xai Δαμάστην.

232 The story, although generally disbelieved by commentators today, is important for the insight it provides into Macedonian propaganda post 479, which sought to promote an image of Alexander as a supporter of Greek independence and thus disguise the fact that he had fought on

the Persian side. Hammond

[‘The sources of Justin on Macedonia to the death of Philip’,

Classical Quarterly 41 (2) 1991 pp.497, 501] argues that Trogus (the only other surviving writer to refer to the incident) ultimately derived his account from Marsyas Macedon and that Marsyas

related “...a piece of Macedonian folklore, on which Herodotus drew also...". The fact that Speusippus emphasised the role of Alexander to the exclusion of Philip's other forebears might suggest that he was aware of a move to rehabilitate Alexander's reputation which coincided with

the rise of Macedonia as a major power under Philip II. Marsyas (a contemporary of Alexander the Great) might, as Hammond suggested, be expected to have reflected this reassessment in his Macedonian History.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

81

sent envoys throughout Greece to request earth and water, agrees with all the surviving evidence, although the only indication of the presence of the envoys at

Aegeae is the Byzantine historian Syncellus.2? It is probable that Xerxes required Alexander to reaffirm his allegiance, but it must be considered unlikely that even the most pro-Macedonian tradition would have portrayed Alexander as slaughtering Persian envoys in the years immediately before Xerxes' invasion, with which, as a loyal supporter of Persia, he was closely involved. The sole other account we possess of the incident is that of Justin which, although it differs in points of detail, confirms Herodotus’ chronology.2 I would conclude, then, that Speusippus (unlike Herodotus) reflected in his interpretation the emphasis of the original Macedonian version of the story which presumably sought to promote the philhellenic credentials of Alexander, but that he did not follow the chronology of the original. Justin and Herodotus agree in placing the incident firmly in the reign of Amyntas and it would be rash to suppose that any version of the story would have located it differently in time. Consequently, we must look for another explanation to account for Speusippus' reference to Xerxes. A careless error on the part of Speusippus in confusing Xerxes with Darius is the most obvious explanation, and this is precisely what Bickermann suggest-

ed.2?5 Such an explanation is most convincing in the case where the error does not advantage the argument. When, however, the supposed 'error' is viewed in the context of the immediate argument within which it occurs, the reference to Xerxes is seen to strengthen Speusippus' argument in a way that a reference to Darius could never do. This is because Speusippus' theme was the services of Alexander to Greece at the time of Xerxes' invasion. The incident involving Alexander and the Persian envoys occurred considerably before 480 and even before Alexander became king. Indeed, the incident took place before the expedition of Datis in 490 and probably even before the Ionian Revolt, which was the prelude to Persian ambitions to conquer Greece. We have left to consider a purely rhetorical explanation. M. Nouhaud has shown that the embassy of Alexander I of Macedon to Athens which Herodotus [8.140-141] described as taking place after Salamis is generally placed before Salamis by the Attic orators. The effect of this transposition is to intensify the heroism of the Athenians and emphasise their dedication to the Greek cause.? A similar explanation may account for the reference to Xerxes in our letter, for in rhetorical terms the transposition of the act of killing 233 Herodotus 7.32; 131-133.1. Cf. Diodorus 11.2.5; Syncellus Chronographia P247a, cf. P262d (Dindorf v.1 pp.469; 500): Μακεδόνων ı' ἐβασίλευσεν ᾿Αλέξανδρος ἔτη μδ΄. ... Kata

τοῦτον ἡ Ξέρξον διάβασις. Οὗτος δέδωκε τοῖς Πέρσαις ὕδωρ xai γῆν. 24 7.3.1- 7.4.1. Justin's version of the incident differs from Herodotus in adding the information that the envoys demanded 25 Bickermann [BS pp.31-32] which Andocides (On the Peace, 3) Miltiades. These errors appear to be

hostages and that Bubares actually fell in love with Gygaea. saw nothing sinister in Speusippus' error, citing the way in and Aeschines (On the Embassy, 172) confused Cimon with the result of carelessness and do not enhance their respecti-

ve arguments. 236 L’utilisation de l'histoire par les orateurs attiques, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982, 190-

193.

82

Introduction

the envoys from its original context to a time some thirty years later after Alexander had become king has the effect of portraying him as forcefully rejecting Persian demands for earth and water (thus obscuring the fact that Macedon was a loyal subject of Persia) and then, soon afterwards and completely in character, presenting him as the saviour of the Greeks at Tempe by his timely warning of Thessalian betrayal. In that it dates the incident involving the envoys to the time of Xerxes, Speusippus’ account is nonsense and we are left to conclude that in all probability he has perpetrated a rhetorical sleight of hand intended to enhance both Alexander’s reputation and the force of his own argument. The true chronology of the story had to be falsified and the time gap between the killing of the envoys and the events at Tempe covered by a simple and indefinite ὕστερον δὲ. Speusippus merely alluded to the third of Alexander’s services as having taken place at Plataea in Mardonius' time. The dramatic visit of Alexander to the Greek lines in the dead of night to which he referred was well known from

Herodotus’ description." But implicit here, as also in his account of Alexander's other services, is an unqualifiedly favourable assessment of the king's motives, which we know to be at variance with Herodotus' assessment and that of the

Athenian popular tradition and the Attic orators.2?? When we examine Herodotus' account of Alexander's motives on the eve of the Battle of Plataea we see that 237 9.44—45. Plutarch's account of the incident in his Life of Aristides [15.2-5] is essentially a paraphrase of Herodotus, whom he cited as his source at 16.1.

238 See especially the well-known visit of Alexander to Athens as Mardonius’ envoy following the Battle of Salamis. On this occasion Alexander attempted by the use of fear tactics (compare his message at Tempe) to persuade the Athenians to save and enrich themselves by abandoning the Greek cause. The Persian power, he declared, was super human and resistance useless (xai yap δύναμις ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ἡ βασιλέος ἐστὶ - 8.140b.2). Dramatically speaking, Herodotus employed the character of Alexander to magnify the achievement of the Athenians in resisting the power of Persia, in the same way as did the Athenian orators later on. See M. Nouhaud L 'utilisation de l'histoire par les orateurs attiques, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982 pp.190193. The very fact that Herodotus opted to use Alexander in this less than dignified role proves that he carried no brief for the king. The view [such as that of Hammond in HM 98-99] that Herodotus presented a favourable picture of Alexander is well countered by R. Scaife 'Alexander I in the Histories of Herodotus’, Hermes 117 (1989), pp.129-137. The prosecution of Cimon in 462 over his failure to invade Macedonia could be justified on the grounds of Alexander's Medism and suggests that in the twenty years following the Persian Wars Alexander was regarded in the popular Athenian mind as a collaborator. See. Plutarch, Cimon 14.2—4. The severity with which the Athenian popular tradition as it survived through to the second century C.E. judged Alexander over his embassy to Athens can be seen from the Panathenaicus of Aelius Aristides [175-176 LCL]. The transmission of the tradition is discussed by J.W. Day, The Glory of Athens, Chicago: Ares, 1980 pp.172-177. Compare Aristodemus F2.2 FGrH 104 and P. Oxy. 2469 11.9-10: [oi δὲ ᾿Αθηναῖοι] ἐξέβαλον (tov dvópa). In describing the embassy of Philip's esteemed ancestor to Athens, Demosthenes [Second Philippic 11] declared slightingly that he came as a 'xrjpuS, (we might almost say as a ‘messenger boy’ of the Great King), and he emphasised the word ᾿κῆρυξ᾽. Compare Aelius Aristides Panathenaicus 175: ExnpvKevev δὲ ᾿Αλέξανδρος βασιλεὺς Μακεδονίας. Similarly, in his speech Against Leocrates [71] from the year 330, Lycurgus referred to Alexander's embassy as the disgraceful attempt by a former friend to induce Athens to submit to Xerxes.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

83

his portrayal of the Macedonian was at best ambivalent. The character of Alexander is in fact presented with considerable subtlety but without any illusion as to his self-interested motivation. Alexander is shown to have acted from a realisation that the Greek position was becoming stronger with the constant arrival of reinforcements while that of the Persians was deteriorating due to shortages of provisions and the reckless determination of Mardonius to engage in battle despite unfavourable sacrifices. Herodotus leads the reader to the realisation that Alexander no longer felt as confident as he had formerly in the success of Persian arms. From his opening words to the Athenian commanders we see that Alexander had come to bargain. His advice was not freely given but a deposit (xapaθήκη) which he expected the Greeks to return by liberating his country should

they be victorious.2?? We are given to understand that Alexander was hedging his bets. Far from being creditable to Alexander Herodotus' account is consistent with his earlier portrayal of the King as opportunistic. There is no way of knowing whether Antipater of Magnesia had access to a version (perhaps from the pen of Damastes or a Macedonian version) of Alexan-

ders' night visit which was more complementary to the Macedonian. We are entitled to conclude only that if Herodotus was his source then Antipater conveniently overlooked that historian's subtext and his overall portrayal of Alexander in the Histories. Had Alexander enjoyed an unqualifiedly favourable reputation among the Greeks who were familiar with the accounts of Herodotus and Damastes, as Speusippus claimed, then Isocrates in his Philip might be expected to have at least introduced him together with Heracles among Philip's ancestors as an example for the king to imitate. That he chose to avoid all mention of Alexander may be attributed to two considerations. Firstly, even assuming that Alexander's benefactions were credible, the figure of Alexander did not lend itself to the argument of the discourse, which sought to impress on Philip his debt to the Greek states for the great friendship and services they extended to his ancestors.?^ Philip, unlike Heracles, has on Isocrates' argument yet to prove himself the benefactor of Greece. Neither Alexander's benefactions nor the labours of Heracles (the greatest of all benefactors) supported Isocrates' argument and for

that reason were omitted.?*! Secondly, and equally significant, the figure of Alexander, the loyal servant of Persia who had accompanied Xerxes in the invasion of Greece, did not sit well with Isocrates' aim of exhorting Philip to lead the Hellenes against the Persian empire. It was Heracles' conquest of Troy and of all the barbarian peoples who lived along the sea coasts of Asia and Europe that

Isocrates held up to Philip to imitate.2*? One suspects also that Isocrates judged 239 Herodotus 9.45.1. See p.69-71 on deposits.

20 Philip 32ff.

74! See Philip 109-110. See also S. Perlman, 'Isocrates' "Philippus" - a reinterpretation’ Historia 6 (1957) pp.314-315. 42 Philip 111—115. Isocrates' curious statement at section 115 that Philip should not undertake expeditions with the barbarians against those upon whom it is unjust to make war, describes precisely what Alexander had done at the time of Xerxes' invasion. P. Treves in his edition of the

84

Introduction

that his Athenian and wider Greek audience were not so naive as to believe unreservedly (as Speusippus implied they did) in Alexander the philhellene. In conclusion, Speusippus’ depiction of Alexander displays some rhetorical ingenuity. In the case of the killing of the Persian envoys a large measure of crude manipulation of the Herodotean account is evident, whereas his use of a nonHerodotean source (probably Damastes) in portraying Alexander as the saviour of the Greeks at Tempe is quite skilful. But whether he used existing traditions or falsified them, it seems likely to me that he interpreted them in a manner different from either Herodotus or Damastes. The extent of his indebtedness to an inde-

pendent Macedonian tradition as against his own rhetorical invention is impossible to determine, but that such a tradition existed and that Philip promoted it cannot seriously be doubted. In all this we need to remind ourselves that the lack of detail present in the description of Alexander’s services reflects the fact that Speusippus did not need to convince Philip of Alexander’s services to Greece, but rather of the value of his own services and those of the Academy, should Philip decide to make use of them.

ii. The Rhetoric of Misrepresentation I turn now to some negative aspects of Speusippus’ rhetoric, the aim of which was to impugn Isocrates’ ability as teacher and writer, and hence his position as a prominent and influential public figure worthy of Philip's patronage. Speusippus did this by criticising Isocrates’ well-known Philippic discourse, which he argued failed to promote the goodwill of the Greeks towards Macedon and equally failed to justify Philip’s conquests. I discuss these two criticisms later on, but to begin with I will examine the specific charges that Isocrates displayed incompetence in the employment of paradigms and that his knowledge of simple historical facts like the foundation of Cyrene was deficient.

a. Isocrates’ Use of Paradigms Writing in the Panathenaicus at approximately the same time as Speusippus was writing his letter, Isocrates complained about the hostility exhibited towards himself and his work by certain unnamed teachers of the superior sort (at least in Philip (Milano: Signorelli, 1933] took this as a reference to the deplorable practice of Greek states in calling on the assistance of Persia against their fellow Greeks. However, the mention of ‘expeditions together with the barbarians' (.. τὰς στρατείας ... μετὰ τῶν βαρβάρων...) fits better with events of 480—479. It is possible (although I think it unlikely) that Isocrates was acknowledging here a rumour that Philip had obtained or was known to have sought some form of agree-

ment with Persia, which in theory could result in another invasion of Greece. See Demosthenes

Philippic I .48 and Arrian Anabasis 2.14.2, which refers to φιλία καὶ ξυμμαχία between Philip and Artaxerxes. The evidence for and against the historicity of such an alliance is discussed in F. Wüst, Philipp II von Makedonien und Griechenland, München: Beck, 1938 pp.89-91 and HM pp.485-486.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus’ Letter

85

their own estimation). These people abused his discourses by ‘reciting them in the worst possible manner beside their own, dividing them up and picking them to

pieces regardless of context, and completely ruining them in every way’.2* The meeting of the Academy described in the first section of the Letter of Speusippus, at which Isocrates' Philip was read and discussed, was an occasion like that alluded to in the Panathenaicus. More striking still is the fact that the criticism of Isocrates' Philip, which comprises the bulk of the letter, confirms the substance of Isocrates' complaint. For not only is the letter replete with personal invective against Isocrates, but in criticising the Philip it misrepresents both the overall argument of that discourse as well as the arguments of its individual parts. Perhaps the most blatant instance of misrepresentation in the letter is the attack in sections 9 and 10 on Isocrates' use of paradeigmata. Speusippus argued that the paradigms of Alcibiades and Dionysius I of Syracuse employed by Isocrates in the Philip were morally unsuitable as examples for King Philip to emulate and badly chosen from a technical rhetorical viewpoint: Philip's father Amyntas would have provided a more appropriate paradigm on both counts. Speusippus hammered the point home, proclaiming that Isocrates had contradicted his own avowed principle: ‘And in his discourses Isocrates says on the one hand that it is fitting to employ distinguished examples from one's own family or country but then, having no regard for his art, he proceeds to make use of the most shameful examples from foreign countries, examples which in fact greatly contradict his argument’ .2 The charge was potentially very damaging to Isocrates because it impugned his credibility as teacher and publicist. Furthermore, Speusippus suggested that Isocrates had actually set out to insult Philip by comparing him to Alcibiades and Dionysius. It will, however, be obvious to anyone familiar with Isocrates" Philip that in making this criticism Speusippus deliberately ignored Isocrates" stated purpose in employing the paradigms. That purpose was to convince Philip that the task of uniting the Greek states was a relatively simple one when compared to the much more difficult achievements of Alcibiades, Conon, Dionysius and Cyrus. Isocrates, in fact, anticipated the sort of criticism we find Speusippus making here and emphasised that the deeds he described in this series of related paradigms (Beispielreihe) at Philip 58—67 were not intended to be judged as finer or more righteous than others (μὴ καλλίοσι μὲν μὴ ὁσιωτέροις), but as greater and more difficult (μείζω δὲ xai δυσκολώτερα). Without acknowledging the rationale underpinning Isocrates' use of the Beispielreihe, Speusippus chose to portray the paradigms of Alcibiades and Dionysius as οἰκεῖα παραδείγματα, which Philip could be expected to imitate, when they were clearly not intended to be such at all. In order to fully understand Speusippus' sleight of hand we must digress briefly and discuss the technical distinction 243 Panathenaicus 17: τοὺς λόγους μου ἐλυμαίνοντο, καραναγιγνώσκοντες ὡς δυνατὸν κάκιστα τοῖς éautóv καὶ διαιροῦντες οὐκ ὀρθῶς καὶ κατακνίζοντες καὶ πάντα τρόπον δια-

φθείροντες. The Panathenaicus was composed between the years 342 and 339.

24 Letter $10. Isocrates’ choice of Alcibiades occasioned some surprise to Schmitz-Kahlmann [p. 28-30], who found it so unexpected that she argued it concealed a secret intention of Isocrates to show Philip how easy it would be to deceive the Greek states.

86

Introduction

between paradeigmata in general and οἰκεία paradeigmata (οἰκεῖα napadeiypata).

In the Rhetoric Aristotle defined the paradeigma as a rhetorical example drawn from history, in which he included the heroic tradition. Together with the enthymeme it is one of the common proofs (κοιναὶ πίστεις) used by the orator to

convince an audience.”> Generally speaking, the paradigm chosen by an orator should be well known to his audience, so that they might easily make the in-

ference from the known to the unknown.?46 The rationale for its use is that the past is generally a good guide to what will happen in the future.?^' In its basic form, then, the paradeigma was simply an example introduced as proof in an argument. It was essentially impersonal, in that there was no expectation that the audience should emulate it, but simply find it convincing. The οἰκεῖον rapaδεῖγμα, in contrast, was an example taken from the family of an individual or, in the case of a state, from the history of the state, and specifically intended to encourage emulation. The principle underlying the oikeion paradeigma was the

perceived duty to prove oneself worthy of one's ancestors." Consequently, Demosthenes alluded by way of example to the days of Athens' fifth century greatness in an attempt to persuade his fellow countrymen that they, like their ancestors, should heed the advice of disinterested politicians such as himself and

vote for the hard decision to undertake military service.?4^? For the same reason it was considered appropriate to employ only oikeia paradeigmata in the funeral orations (epitaphioi) delivered at the public ceremonies held by the Athenians to honour those fallen in war. In the case of an individual or monarch, the orator was expected to provide paradigms from the individual's own family history. Isocrates therefore urged Demonicus to follow his father's example, and in the Evagoras he exhorted Nicocles ‘...not with foreign paradigms but those from your own

family’ .2>° Returning now to Speusippus’ criticism of Isocrates’ Beispielreihe in the Philip, it is clear that Isocrates employed οἰκεῖα and ἀλλότρια παραδείγματα (that is, examples having no direct relation to the audience) tn different contexts. The distinction lay in the way in which the paradeigma was used. When a general conclusion was sought, as at Philip 57-67, where only the ease or difficulty of an enterprise was in question, the orator was free to employ the most convincing

examples from anywhere, but preferably ones with which his audience was ?45 Rhetoric 1393a. 246 Rhetoric 1357b. Where, as in Demosthenes speech Against Timocrates [139-141], the orator chose to cite an unfamiliar example, he was bound to present it in detail.

M7

ὅμοια yap ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ tà μέλλοντα τοῖς γεγονόσιν: Aristotle Rhetoric 1394a.

Compare Isocrates, Demonicus 34. 248 For the injunction to be worthy of one’s father and ancestors, see Isocrates Evagoras 80:

πως ἄξιος ἔσει xai τοῦ κατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων προγόνων. See also Thucydides 2.36.1: Lysias 2.3 (the living learn from the actions of the dead), and Schmitz-Kahlmann p.45. 249 οὐ yap ἀλλοτρίοις ὑμῖν χρωμένοις παραδείγμασιν, ἀλλ᾽ οἰκείοις, ᾧ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, εὐδαίμοσιν ἕξεστι γενέσθαι: Third Olynthiac 23; cf. On the Embassy 269.

250 Demonicus 9. Evagoras 77: οὐκ ἀλλοτρίοις παραδείγμασι χρώμενος ἀλλ᾽ οἰκείοις παρακαλῶ.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

87

familiar. When, however, the orator was exhorting his audience to imitate some particular course of action, it was considered appropriate to use oikeia paradeigmata. This is precisely what Isocrates did at Philip 105-115, where he gave the examples of Philip’s father Amyntas, Perdiccas I and Heracles ‘...that you may see that by my words I am exhorting you to a course of action which, in the light of their deeds, it is manifest that your ancestors chose as the noblest of all'.25! Speusippus chose to overlook this section of the Philip, and, in pursuit of his rhetorical goal, deliberately misrepresented Isocrates' use of paradigms at sections 57-67 by criticising as if they should have been oikeia paradeigmata

paradigms that were clearly not intended as such.2??

b. The Foundation of Cyrene A second negative aspect of Speusippus' rhetoric is his attempt to impugn Isocrates' knowledge of history. The inclusion of historical paradigms or illustrative examples from history was an essential aspect of the orator's art. By ridiculing Isocrates' statement at Philip 5 that Cyrene was a Lacedaemonian colony, Speusippus aimed to discredit him in Philip's eyes. 'Everyone knows', Speusippus declared, ‘that Cyrene is a colony of Thera, everyone, that is, except Isocrates'. While it is true that Cyrene was commonly referred to as a Theraean colony, this was not, as we will see, the full story, for the Spartans also claimed Cyrene as their own foundation. Cyrene was a Dorian colony established from the island of Thera about the year 631. In the sources Cyrene is described as a colony of Thera and an inscription from Cyrene dating from the fourth century BCE purports to quote the original Theraean decree sending out the colonists.2?? Herodotus, however, knew of a Lacedaemonian version of the foundation of Cyrene which differed from that of the Theraeans and Cyrenaeans, but he did not say what it was. This Lacedaemonian version, in part at least, has been preserved by Pausanias, who records that the Spartan Olympic victor Chionis was said by the Spartans of his day (λέγουσιν) to have taken part with Battus in the expedition to Cyrene and to

have founded the colony together with him. It appears, then, that the Spartans interviewed by Pausanias asserted that Cyrene had been a joint foundation by

251 Philip 113 (trans. Norlin). 252 Jost (pp. 121-122] was mistaken in arguing that Speusippus’ criticism of Isocrates’ use of οἰκεῖα παραδείγματα in the Philip was based on a misunderstanding. According to him, Speusippus failed to recognise that Isocrates wrote to Philip from a panhellenic viewpoint, and consequently selected his examples from the entire Greek world. 23 Herodotus 4.151-159; Pindar, Pythian 4, Il. 4-8, 19-20, 257-261; Callimachus Hymn 2.65-68; Strabo 10.5.1; GHI no.5. For the date of its foundation see RE 12.1 col. 159, s.v. Kyrene.

254 Herodotus 4.150.1 cf. 4.154.1. 35 Pausanias 3.14.3: Xioviv Κυρήνην οἰκίσαι σὺν ἐκείνῳ.

δὲ καὶ

τοῦ στόλου

μετασχεῖν

τῷ Onpaio

Βάττῳ

xai

88

Introduction

themselves and the Theraeans and that they based this on the claim that they had supplied one of the oikists or founders. Solinus, whose description of Battus as a

Lacedaemonian has no independent value, may reflect the Spartan tradition.2°® Further evidence for a close Spartan connection with the early Cyrenaean colony comes from the archaeological record. The presence of Spartan products especially pottery and personal items at Cyrene and Tocra dating from the period soon after the foundation has, in the words of R. Osborne, ‘...led archaeologists to speculate that there must have been residents from Sparta or Lakonia from the

beginning.’2>’ It would not, in fact, be surprising to learn that Thera had called on Sparta, her mother city, to provide an oikist for her colony of Cyrene, in the same way as Corcyra called on Corinth to provide an oikist for Epidamnus. When asked to take over Epidamnus in 435, the Corinthians agreed declaring, according to Thucydides 1.25.3, that they considered Epidamnus to be no less their own colony as that of the Corcyraeans. This practice of calling on the mother city to provide an oikist was, Thucydides wrote, the ancient custom (τὸ παλαιὸν νόμον

— 1.24.2). The same practice was adopted in the case of Sicilian Selinus?5 and also of Leucas, if it is valid to deduce this from Plutarch and from what we know to have been the practice in the case of Epidamnus.?? Although we do not hear of a colony and its metropolis both contributing an oikist to the foundation of an early colony, we know on the authority of Thucydides that Rhodes and Crete (both with Dorian populations) each contributed an oikist in founding Gela in

688.2© Where there was a joint foundation, as in the case of Gela, we should not be surprised to find a representative from both the founding colony and its mother city collaborating as joint founders of the new colony. Thucydides only says that it was customary to invite the mother city to appoint an oikist, not that this excluded an oikist also from the new colony's immediate metropolis. Three Spartan oikists led the expedition to found the colony of Heraclea in Trachis in

the year 426.261 We should notice also that Herodotus mentioned that Dorieus was accompanied by four Spartiates (described as ovyxtiotat) in his attempt to colonise Heraclea in western Sicily about the year 511.?9? [t is not clear, however, that the word ovyxtiotat should be interpreted in the more technical sense of οἰκισταί, for at 4.156.2 Herodotus used the verb συγκτίζω in referring to the

Theraeans generally as founding Cyrene with Battus.?° 256 Solinus 140.11. See also I. Malkin, Myth and territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, C.U.P., 1994 pp. 82-83; 110; 143], who seems reluctant to accept the idea of a joint foundation, preferring to see Chionis as a 'senior adviser' and the evidence as underlining 'the colonial chain Sparta-Thera-Cyrene’.

257 Greece in the making, 1200-479. London ἃ N.Y.: Routledge, 1996 p.16. 258 Thucydides 6.4.2, with Gomme's note on 1.24.2; A.J. Graham, Colony and mother city in ancient Greece, 2nd ed., Chicago, Ill.: Ares, 1971, p.27.

259 Plutarch Themistocles 24.1. On Epidamnus see Graham, op. cit. p.31 n.2. 260 Thucydides 6.4.3. See 1. Malkin, Religion and the foundation of Greek colonies, Leiden: Brill, 1987 pp.52-54. 261 Thucydides 3.92.5. 262 Herodotus 5.46.1. 263 The subject of plurality of oikists is discussed by Malkin, op. cit. n.66 above pp.254—

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

89

There is also a religious connection which ties Sparta to Cyrene, namely the cult and festival of Carnean Apollo. In his fifth Pythian Ode Pindar proclaimed *,..the delightful glory that comes from Sparta, whence men born as Aigeidai, my forefathers, came to Thera,....From there we have received the communal banquet with its many sacrifices, and in your feast, Karneian Apollo, we venerate the

nobly built city of Kyrene,....'79* Clearly, Arcesilas of Cyrene, for whom Pindar composed this ode in 462, was proud of the Spartan connection with his native city. Isocrates believed that the connection between Sparta and Cyrene continued to be strong in the fourth century because he had Archidamus include Cyrene amongst those Dorian states which could be expected to receive the parents, wives and children of Spartans, in the event that Sparta were to be evacuated in

the struggle to regain control of Messene.26° In view of the evidence as I have outlined it above, it appears that the claim made by Isocrates at Philip 5 was no careless error but represented what he knew the Spartan position to be. It would probably have seemed quite natural to a Spartan, when the question of Cyrene's origins arose, to say that Cyrene was a Spartan colony, rather than go into a lengthy explanation about its joint foundation; or perhaps Spartans simply gave priority to their own role over that of Thera. In any case, we are clearly dealing with variant traditions. Von Scala's belief that Isocrates merely reflected the claim which the Spartans of his own day made to

having founded Cyrene was therefore correct.2© The charge of historical inaccuracy against Isocrates should be dismissed as an instance of Speusippus' tendency (indeed, the general tendency among the Attic orators) to selectively cite the historical record in support of his rhetoric. Isocrates himself, as I will show, did precisely the same thing in regard to his own argument at Philip 5. If we were to ask why Isocrates chose to refer to Cyrene as a Lacedaemonian rather than a Theraean colony we must, as always, seek the answer within the immediate context of his argument. The argument with which the Philip opens concerns that great bone of contention, Amphipolis. The Athenians, Isocrates asserted, must learn to found their colonies in distant regions inhabited by peoples accustomed to being ruled by others. In order to illustrate this point he chose to compare the disastrous Athenian policy in establishing a colony at Amphipolis with the successful policy which saw the foundation of the prosperous colony of Cyrene in North Africa. Isocrates realised, however, that it would not do to compare the great and glorious Athenian state with the insignificant island state of Thera (even though she was generally acknowledged to be the metropolis of Cyrene), especially as he was attempting to influence an Athenian audience as well as King Philip. Consequently he cited the less common tradition which made Cyrene a Lacedaemonian foundation in order not to offend Athenian sensibilities 260. When it came to the cult of the oikist, however, it would seem that one of the oikists predominated.

264 11.72-82 trans. Race, LCL; cf. Callimachus Hymn 2.71-79.

265 Archidamus 73. For a discussion of the importance of the transfer of the cult of Carnean Apollo from Sparta to other Dorian colonies, see Malkin, op. cit ch. 5.

266 pp.107-108. Cf. Laistner pp. 25, 126-127.

90

Introduction

by an inappropriate comparison.29? The paradeigma (also a form of comparison) was similarly sensitive to considerations of appropriateness or status. In attempting to spur Philip to adopt his program for Greece Isocrates in the Philip compared the magnitude of the task of uniting the Greek cities with the great deeds of others — kings, tyrants and renowned generals. Comparison with lesser persons

would have been both inappropriate and offensive to Philip.268 When in section 11 of the Second Philipic Demosthenes compared Alexander I to a herald he did so knowing it to be an insult to the memory of that king and with the intention to offend Philip. It is difficult to believe that Speusippus who, as we have seen, was adept at selecting the most appropriate tradition with which to support his own case, was unable to appreciate the reason why Isocrates chose to cite the Lacedaemonian tradition in preference to the Theraean. The subtlety of Isocrates' composition may, however, have eluded Philip. At any rate, this seems to have been Speusippus' assessment of his correspondent's level of understanding, for he jumped at the opportunity to score an easy point against his rival.

c. Three Major Criticisms of Isocrates' Philip We have seen how Speusippus deliberately misrepresented the argument of Isocrates' Philip in two specific instances, namely in regard to oikeia paradeigmata and the historical example of Cyrene. When now we come to look at his major criticisms of the Philip we find that they are hardly more reliable. In the years following its publication in 346 Isocrates' Philip appears to have become wellknown and discussed in intellectual circles. Philip himself received the speech favourably and it was no doubt for this reason that Speusippus emphasised at the outset of his letter the overall praiseworthiness of its argument (ὑπόθεσις), namely, Philip's leadership of the Greeks in a war against Persia. As Philip's power increased over the years 346—342, the Persian campaign became increasingly likely, but the possibility of the Greek states uniting willingly behind Philip seemed more remote. It was this factor, as I argued in the previous chapter, that accounts for the timing of Speusippus' letter. Consequently, Speusippus emphasised the obligation of the Greeks towards Philip and his family where Isocrates 267 The size of a state did matter to the Greeks in that it was considered to be an index of worth. A state's potential to achieve distinction (665a) was directly proportional to its size. Consequently, in seeking a subject worthy of comparison with Athens, Isocrates in his Panathenaicus sought a large state accustomed to rule and confer benefit on others [Panathenaicus 40).

See also the sentiments Isocrates gave to the Spartan apologist at Panathenaicus 253 and note also the references to the insignificance of small places at sections 63, 70, 89 of the same discourse and at Antidosis 299 and Panegyricus 93. The reference at Philip 145 to great individuals from small islands and villages who achieved renown illustrates the point, because these individuals succeeded despite the insignificance of their native towns. 268 Philip 57-67. As we saw earlier [pp.85-87], Speusippus accused Isocrates of using inappropriate paradigms on this occasion, but in doing so he deliberately misrepresented their nature to Philip, whom he assumed would be ignorant of the rhetorical conventions involved.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

9]

had argued the reverse. Isocrates had left it to Philip to counter the attacks of his opponents by displaying his good-will, but Speusippus reproduced the arguments of Antipater of Magnesia to justify Macedonian title to the Greek cities captured in war. By this means, Speusippus attempted to depreciate Isocrates' professional ability as a teacher of rhetoric, to undermine the goodwill he enjoyed with Philip and to ingratiate himself and the Academy at the expense of his rival. In what follows I examine the first two of the three major criticisms of the Philip which Speusippus introduced at section 2 of the letter, namely that Isocrates ignored the debt Greece owed to the services of Philip and his ancestors and that he did not refute the slanders Philip was being subjected to as a consequence of his conquests of Greek states. The third of Speusippus' criticisms, which raised the matter of Isocrates" supposed attack against Plato, I will address in the final section. The nature and aim of Speusippus' rhetoric will become clear from the following discussion and, by way of contrast, we will be better able to understand and appreciate the argument of Isocrates' Philip. In regard to the first of his criticisms, Speusippus was correct in that Isocrates did not emphasise the benefactions conferred on Greece by Philip. Isocrates" argument, in fact, is based on the opposite premise, namely that Philip owed a debt of gratitude to the major Greek states, not they to him. Argos, Thebes, Sparta and Athens had all bestowed their friendship and benefactions on Philip's ancestors, and in return Philip was bound to show his gratitude by fostering good relations with these states and by attempting to unite them willingly under his leader-

ship.26 In the terms of Isocrates! argument Philip has yet to become the great benefactor of Greece. Isocrates’ intention was to persuade Philip that only by means of his future benefactions to the Hellenes did he have it in his power to

achieve surpassing fame and a share in immortality.2”° Consequently Isocrates advised Philip: ‘...you ought to consider that those laud you in the noblest terms who judge your nature capable of even greater triumphs, and not those whose discourse has gratified you for the moment only, but those who will cause future generations to admire your achievements beyond the deeds of any man of the generations that are past'2?! The challenge Isocrates set himself was to convince Philip that power is not in itself praiseworthy, but must be judged in terms of the

use to which it is put — a principle fundamental to his philosophy.??? None of this, of course, was acknowledged by Speusippus, who criticised the Philip for not being a partisan defence of the Macedonian king, the very sort of ingratiating work Isocrates warned Philip against. 269 Cf. ἀποδιδόντα yap σε χάριν wv ὥφειλες: 36 and 32 -38. 270 Philip 134. Compare 145 where those who have achieved the greatest power for themselves alone are compared unfavourably with those (such as Philip should aspire to be) who have benefited the Hellenes the greatest. See also S. Perlman ‘Isocrates’ "Philippus" - a reinterpretation’, Historia 6 (1957) p.315.

? Philip 153 (trans. Norlin). 272 The clearest expression of this principle is found at Panathenaicus 223-224 but it recurs throughout Isocrates’ writings. The argument assumes a standard for judging whether a thing is well or badly used, and that standard is justice (δικαιοσύνη), as Isocrates defined it in terms of traditional morality. See, for example, Panathenaicus 187.

92

Introduction

The charge that Isocrates ignored the benefactions of Philip's ancestors rests on a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument in the Philip. Speusippus himself laid great emphasis on the benefactions of King Alexander I (to the exclusion of any other ancestor of Philip) and made much of the fact that

Isocrates failed even to mention him.??? When, however, we turn to the Philip we see that Isocrates did introduce Philip’s ancestors (xpoyóvot), amongst whom he

included Heracles, as role models for Philip to imitate.?’* Rather than emphasise the traditional labours of Heracles, Isocrates mentioned them only in passing at sections 76 and 109. He preferred for the purpose of his argument to concentrate on the hero's spiritual qualities, his devotion to mankind and the good will he

exhibited to-wards the Hellenes, which qualities he urged Philip to imitate.?’° Isocrates likewise referred to Philip's father, Amyntas III, and to Perdiccas I, the founder of the Macedonian kingdom, intending to impress on Philip the friendly

relations which the former cultivated with the Greek states and the decision of the latter to make himself king over Macedonians rather than rule over Greeks.276 The omission of King Alexander I from this list of Philip's ancestors is all too obvious and the reason for it plain to see. In the context of the advice he was pressing upon Philip, Isocrates judged that Alexander, tainted as he was by his support for Persia, was an unsuitable role model for the man he had chosen to lead the crusade against Persia. The second charge Speusippus made against the Philip was that it did not refute the slanders Philip was being subjected to at the time. We know from the speech On Halonnesus in the Demosthenic corpus that Philip sent a letter to the Athenian Assembly in 342, the probable date of our letter, in which he called for action to be taken against Hegesippus and others who were slandering him.2”7 The allegations to which Speusippus referred portrayed Philip as plotting (ἐπιBovAevw) against Athens and the other Greek states. Philip's ‘plotting’ it need hardly be said is a commonplace of anti-Macedonian political rhetoric as we

encounter it in the speeches of Demosthenes.?’® Speusippus, however, had more specific charges in mind, charges which Philip's opponents in Athens would not let him forget and which he clearly felt were damaging to his attempts to win the confidence of the Athenian Democracy on his own terms. Judging from the 273 See 83: νυνὶ δ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀποῤῥήτους συμφορὰς αὐτῶν κατασεσιώπηκε. 274 That is, as part of the οἰκεία paradeigmata discussed earlier. The word πρόγονος includes both human and semi-divine ancestors. Isocrates generally used the word ἀρχηγός in reference to Heracles and at Philip 32 ἀρχηγός is subsumed by the word πρόγονος.

275 See Philip 109-114. 276 Philip 105—108, see also the more general references at 79 and 113. 277 Cf. ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς διαβάλλοντας αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς τιμωρήσηθε — Pseudo-Demosthenes On Halonnesus 34. 278 See, for example, the speech On the Chersonnese [35], also from the year 342. Demosthenes [On the Embassy, 10-12, 302-306) stated that it was Aeschines who claimed to have been the first to expose Philip's 'plotting' against the Greek states, probably in 348 shortly after

the fall of Olynthus, and Aeschines [On the Embassy 79] acknowledged as much. Also part of the invective against Philip was the charge we find in Demosthenes' Second Philippic [7] that his ambition (πλεονεξία) sought universal dominion (τὸ πάνθ ὑφ αὑτῷ ποιήσασθαι).

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus’ Letter

93

importance which Speusippus gave to them, the two things most in need of damage control were Philip’s treatment of Olynthus and his acquisition of the two Phocian votes in the Delphic Amphictyony. The Olynthian War was a turning point in Greek and particularly in Athenian attitudes to Macedon. Following the capture and destruction of the city in 348 a number of Olynthian refugees arrived in Athens. These refugees were an ever present reminder of Philip's ruthless treatment of Greek states, and Speusippus

declared that they were among the most vocal critics of Philip in Athens.?’? Athenian sympathies may be gauged from the fact that they granted the Olynthian refugees then resident in Athens exemption from the metic tax (μετοίκιον).280 The other places Speusippus referred to, namely Amphipolis, Potidaea, and Torone also possessed highly charged connotations for an Athenian audience. The Olynthians, whose city Philip had destroyed, and whom Speusippus was So intent on silencing, were not mentioned directly by Isocrates in the Philip. Rather,

he acknowledged

the ‘slanders’

(cf. ce διαβαλλόμενον:

73) directed

against Philip by certain men whom he characterised as motivated by envy (cf. ὑπὸ τῶν σοὶ μὲν φθονούντων: 73) and the desire to embroil their cities in conflict for their own selfish interests instead of seeking peaceful resolution. The allegations made by these men are the same as the general allegations we have noted in the speeches of Demosthenes, namely that Philip was 'plotting' against the Greek states (cf. πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ἐπιβουλεῦύεις: 73) with the object of subduing Sparta and the Peloponnese and then conquering the rest of Greece (cf. τῶν GAAwv Ελλήνων ῥᾳδίως κρατήσεις: 74). Isocrates dismissed these allegations as nonsense (cf. ταῦτα φλυαροῦντες: 75; 79) and urged Philip to defend himself against the charges of his enemies.?9?! Isocrates made no attempt to refute these general allegations in detail, firstly because he did not see himself as an apologist for Philip (as Antipater of Magnesia undoubtedly was) and secondly because the point of his describing the allegations was to remind Philip in a subtle yet unambiguous manner how discreditable it would be if he, a descendant of Heracles the great

benefactor of Greece, were to plot against fellow Greeks.??? On the thorny question of Amphipolis Isocrates even made a case for why Philip should hand

the city over to Athens. We may assume, therefore, that Isocrates did not approve of Philip's conquests, but to confront Philip directly over these matters could only be counterproductive. He therefore chose a more subtle approach, 29 τὰς διαβολὰς ... tac τὸ κλεῖστον Ux ᾿Ολυνθίων γινομένας: 4. 280 See Tod 166. With tears in his eyes, Aeschines related to the Athenian Assembly the sorrow he felt upon encountering a group of thirty Olynthian women and children whom Philip had presented as a gift to a certain Atrestidas of Mantinea: Demosthenes On the Embassy 305-

306. 281 Philip 78. In his first letter to Philip (14—15], probably to be dated to 342 and therefore around the same time as Speusippus' letter, Isocrates similarly acknowledged in general terms only the attacks being made against Philip in the Athenian assembly.

282 See Philip 76-77. 283 Philip 1-7. On the rhetoric of the opening sections of the Philip see Commentary $14: ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ ᾿Αμφιπόλεώς φησι κωλῦσαι τὴν γενομένην eiprivnv γράψαι λόγον.

94

Introduction

which he judged conducive to his desired outcome. The truth, therefore, in the charge against Isocrates that he did not defend Philip against his detractors is that he was not a blind propagandist for Macedonian foreign policy. When we place the Letter of Speusippus and the Philip side by side, Isocrates emerges by comparison not as a creature of Philip, as some have thought, but rather an independent senior intellectual who sought to influence the course of history through his association with the major power of the era.

iii. Plato Euergetes — the aim of Speusippus' rhetoric Perhaps the most curious aspect of the letter is that the first two criticisms of the Philip discussed in the previous section received extended treatment from Speusippus while the third, namely the attack on Plato, appears to be both unsubstantiated (there being no mention of Plato in Isocrates' Philip) and discussed only briefly at section 12 in relation not to Isocrates but to Theopompus.2% This situation perplexed Schering, who observed that the charge of slandering Plato received no amplification in the letter.285 Bickermann attempted to account for what seemed to be a major deficiency by the argument that Speusippus set aside his stated theme of defending Plato against Isocratic polemic in favour of a bitter personal attack on Isocrates in the third section of the letter. Philosophical discussion, he argued, fell outside the direct frame of the public letter, whose political ends were felt in antiquity to be better served by personal attack on one's political oppo-

nents.28° Bickermann's explanation, however, must be rejected for two reasons. [n the first place, it mistakenly supposes that Speusippus had in mind a defence of Plato's philosophical position. Secondly it does not take into account that the subject of anti-Platonic invective is in fact introduced at section 12 of the letter, precisely where we would expect to find it if, as I believe, Speusippus addressed consecutively the three stated criticisms of the Philip foreshadowed at section 2. The second of these objections also applies to the argument made by Sykutris that Speusippus chose not to pursue the matter of Isocrates' attack on Plato because a quarrel amongst rival schools of philosophy was of no interest to Philip and in any case the charge may have been pure conjecture.28’ How, then, are we to explain the letter's reference to an attack on Plato in the Philip? The clue to answering this question comes from the realisation that 284 [have argued that there can be no doubt that this criticism was intended to apply to the Philip and that $12 of that speech provides the sole possible reference to Plato, albeit indirect. See Commentary $2: οὔτε Πλάτωνος ἐν τοῖς πρὸς σὲ πεμφθεῖσι λόγοις áxéoy nta.

285 Schering pp.63, 71. Boehnecke [p.541], who apparently made no connection between Isocrates’ attack on Plato in §2 and that of Theopompus in §12, felt constrained only to explain why Speusippus attributed the slander of Plato to Theopompus rather than to Philip, who was known to have rebuked Plato. Bertelli [Lettera pp.78-79, 107] also noted the difficulty posed by the unfulfilled promise in section 2 and the tradition that Philip had reproached Plato, but he used it to raise doubt as to the coherence, and hence authenticity, of the letter.

286 BS pp.19—20. 287 BS p.71.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

95

Speusippus gave no detail at all of the aspersions cast by Isocrates (or, for that matter, by Theopompus) on Plato nor did he make any defence of his master from which we might deduce their nature. Far from indicating carelessness or an oversight on his part, I suggest that this was precisely Speusippus’ intention. If we are to acknowledge the intelligence of his rhetoric, we must conclude that the charge itself was everything and that the substance was of no real importance. The charge (albeit brought up in relation to Theopompus rather than Isocrates) was, as we Shall see, the mechanism by which Speusippus raised with Philip the daring proposition that he (Philip) was indebted to Plato, that he in fact owed his very kingdom to Plato; a proposition which, if Philip should find it convincing, would achieve the ultimate aim of Speusippus' rhetoric, namely Macedonian

recognition for the Academy.83 But this bare statement of the function of the attack on Plato must be placed in the wider context of the letter, where it will be seen that Plato's great service to Philip forms part of a larger argument based on service (euergesia).

The two major steps in the argument from euergesia may be summarised as follows: l. The Greek states owe a debt of gratitude to Philip and his ancestors, in particular to Alexander I for his services (εὐεργεσίαι) during the Persian Wars. Philip as the successor of Alexander is entitled to the goodwill (ev-

voia) that should persist as a result of Alexander's services.28? 2.

Philip owes a debt of gratitude to Plato for the great service he performed during the reign of Perdiccas which laid the basis for his future rule. Speusippus as Plato's nephew and successor is entitled to Philip's goodwill, which should persist as a result of Plato's service. These two propositions depend on the premise universally acknowledged by the Greeks that it was right and just to repay with goodwill the receipt of a service. The Greek concept of evvoia or goodwill was far more active than its English counterpart, signifying loyalty, sympathy and a preparedness to assist. It was the response expected of the recipient of a service towards his benefactor or

patron.?” This is essentially the import of the argument from euergesia, but it would have been impossible for Speusippus to address Philip directly in this way

without causing grievous offence.??! Let us turn our attention to the beginning of 288 While it seems to me incontrovertible that Theopompus, together with Isocrates of Apollonia, was introduced by Speusippus as an associate of Isocrates, my argument does not depend on the relationship. It does, however, make the claim that Isocrates attacked Plato in the Philip more intelligible (but still inaccurate) if we are meant to assume that, as close associates,

Theopompus and Isocrates shared similar views in regard to Plato and the Academy. See Introduction pp.55-56 and Commentary §12: Πυνθάνομαι δὲ xai Θεόπομκον ... βλασφημεῖν.

289 Cf. $4: οὕτω yap Gv ὁ περὶ σοῦ γραφεὶς λόγος τῆς rapa τῶν Ἑλλήνων εὐνοίας ἔτυχεν. There is some evidence that Philip presented himself to the Greeks as εὐεργέτης. See Commentary 82: Ἰσοκράτης μὲν yap οὔτε τὰς εἰς τὴν EAAada γενομένας εὐεργεσίας ὑπὸ σοῦ καὶ τῶν σῶν προγόνων δεδήλωκεν.

290 See Commentary $4: τῆς παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εὐνοίας. 291 It was normally considered improper to remind a person of an obligation to return a

96

Introduction

the letter and follow the development of the euergesia theme in detail. The letter opens with Speusippus addressing Philip to request his intervention in an unspecified matter on behalf of Antipater of Magnesia. There is no suggestion that Philip could be expected to view the request favourably because of any friendship between himself and Speusippus. Rather it is the case that Speusippus cited at length evidence of Antipater's goodwill towards the King as the reason why it

would be right for Philip to lend him assistance.??? What Speusippus in fact was saying to Philip was that the historian Antipater had shown sympathy for the Macedonian cause as evidenced by his criticisms of Isocrates' Philip and that he was prepared to assist Philip with his pen to win over Greek public opinion. That is to say, Antipater was acting with goodwill towards Philip as if Philip were already his benefactor and could justly be expected to assist him (cf. δικαίως δ᾽ ἂν avt@ βοηθήσειας: 1). Thus we have a situation where Philip was learning for the first time of Antipater's commitment to him and he himself was being asked to render a service or euergesia to Antipater. By means of this sophisticated rhetorical opening Speusippus introduced the euergesia theme in such a way as to predispose Philip well towards Antipater and, by extension, towards the Academy. There follows in section 2 the outline of Antipater's three major criticisms of the Philip. There is a clear distinction between these three criticisms, which are elaborated in sections 2-8 and 12, and the personal attack against Isocrates that features in sections 9-11 and 13-14. Speusippus located the three criticisms within the frame of a tight syntactical construction which draws them together to form the propositions for the argument from euergesia that reaches its startling

climax at section 12.293 The services of Philip and his ancestors to Greece form the first proposition in the argument from euergesia, so important if Philip was to achieve the goodwill of the Greek states and their acknowledgment of his preeminent position amongst them. The second proposition raised the question of slanderous attacks against Philip himself which, as we have seen, Philip was intent on silencing. The third proposition, namely the attack on Plato's reputation, corresponds in kind to the second proposition, for it was clearly Speusippus’ intention to juxtapose Philip and Plato as the victims of unfair attack.2™ In what favour, for to do so detracted from the kudos involved in the free bestowal of favours and had implications for the honour and position of the person so reminded. To attempt this with someone in Philip's position would have been unthinkable. This accounts for Speusippus' reluctance to put the matter here and at $12 more directly. Demosthenes stated the proprieties of the situation when he wrote in regard to private benefactions: τὸ δὲ tac ἰδίας εὐεργεσίας ὑκομιμνήσκειν xai λέγειν μικροῦ δεῖν ὅμοιόν ἐστιν τῷ ὀνειδίζειν [18.269. See also Thucydides 2.40.4--5].

292 Cf.§1: δικαίως δ᾽ ἂν αὐτῷ βοηθήσειας.... The first nine sections, or more than threefifths of the letter, present the evidence of Antipater’s goodwill.

293 Concerning the syntactical structure of the sentence, see Commentary $2: οὔτε Πλάτωνος EV toig πρὸς σὲ πεμφθεῖσι λόγοις axéoymtat. 294 It also tends to justify the bitter personal attack on Isocrates which follows by the consideration that as Plato's nephew Speusippus was obliged to defend the reputation of his uncle who, having died some six years earlier, was unable to defend himself. Compare BS pp.70-71.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

97

amounts to a quasi-syllogism, Speusippus calculated that it would be difficult for Philip to accept the first two propositions (as he must do) and reject the third out of hand. From the viewpoint of Speusippus' rhetoric, therefore, the important assumption of Philip's goodwill towards Plato is made early in the letter and is inextricably associated both with the question of the benefactions of Philip and his ancestors and with Philip's own reputation. Staying with section 2 a moment longer, we see that it served to introduce the question of Philip's relations with Plato and the Academy in a way which simply

assumed rather than stated Philip's concern for Plato's reputation.2?5 Philip, we may imagine, would have been more than a little bemused by the implication here for, as we saw earlier, he had disdained all relations with Plato and the Academy since the 360's, as a result of Euphraeus' interference in the internal affairs of

Macedon.2? Philip is made to wait until section 12 for an explanation of this enigmatic inference. The theme of euergesia is immediately introduced in relation to Philip's ancestor Heracles, whom Athens benefited at the time he wished to be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. Speusippus was at pains not to offend Philip by directly confronting him with this service to his ancestor and the obligation it implied. This is why he assumed Philip's knowledge in regard to Heracles'

initiation rather than stating it directly.??? Later he will introduce the question of Philip's debt to Plato in a similarly indirect manner. The argument then proceeds in sections 3 and 4 to provide support for the first of the three propositions, that is for the services of Alexander I at the time of the Persian Wars, in return for which Philip could expect the goodwill of the

Greek states.2?® Speusippus went so far as to state that Alexander had been the 'saviour' of the Greek force at Tempe and so had conferred the greatest euergesia of all. Alexander's patriotic deeds are stated without elaboration, as Philip was doubtless familiar with the services of his ancestor. This section is crucial to the argument of the letter because, as we have seen, it provides the example of

The rhetorical force of the alleged slander against the dead Plato should not be underestimated, as we can see from a passage in the Antidosis [101] in which Isocrates charged his accuser with slandering his deceased friend and former pupil Timotheus. Àn attack of this nature, Isocrates asserted, should be considered shameful (cf. ἡσχύνθη) and exceedingly brutal (cf. λίαν ἀσελyeic). [Isocrates also employed the charge of speaking badly of the dead as part of his attack on the detractors of Alcibiades at De Bigis 22. Although the statement of Speusippus' case is less well developed than that of Isocrates, the effect of the arguments was intended to be the same. 295 The rhetorical device of assuming the agreement of the addressee was employed by

Speusippus elsewhere in the letter. See Commentary

$2: ἀλλὰ ποιῆσαι xai toig ἀπὸ σοῦ

γενομένοις $avepáv. See also $11 where Speusippus assumed an unfavourable attitude on Philip's part to sophists in general and in particular to Isocrates of Apollonia.

?96 We recall that it was around the very time the letter was written that Philip finally settled scores with the unfortunate Euphraeus of Oreus. 297 On this indirect rhetorical device see n.295 above. 298 See 84: οὕτω yàp Gv ὁ κερὶ σοῦ γραφεὶς λόγος τῆς xapà τῶν Ἑλλήνων εὐνοίας ἔτυχεν and my earlier discussion of the portrayal of Alexander.

98

Introduction

euergesia in Philip's favour without which he might be less inclined to acknowledge his own obligation to Plato. The euergesia theme continues in section 5 where Speusippus requested the return of a favour (χάρις) which he stated was justly owed him by Philip. He did so not for his own benefit but on behalf of Antipater and he cleverly avoided the possibility of giving offence by couching his request in terms of the bestowal of a

reward for good tidings (εὐαγγέλιον), thereby acknowledging Philip's prerogative to confer favours.?” Sections 5 to 7 of the letter set out in some detail Antipater's justification for Philip's conquests. The function of this section was to provide Philip with the evidence of Antipater's goodwill (the importance of which was noted earlier) and of his ability to develop persuasive arguments in support of Philip's conquests. Heracles, the great euergetes, overcame the evil and lawless powers which oppressed the places that Philip, as a descendant of Heracles, later inherited. Then in section 8 Philip, who is associated in the context of the argument with Heracles, was himself portrayed as euergetes for his role as leader of the expedition to Delphi in 346, which put an end to the sacrilege of the Phocians. As reward or prize for his action Philip received the two Amphictyonic votes forfeited by the Phocians. The climax of the argument from euergesia is reached at section 12 with the attack on Plato foreshadowed earlier at section 2. The reason why Philip should have a concern for Plato's reputation is now revealed in a very subtle manner, indeed, almost incidentally. By means of the same rhetorical ploy he used earlier, Speusippus assumed Philip's displeasure at the attacks of Theopompus against Plato.°° And why should Philip be displeased? Because Plato, it seems, who always felt the highest regard for Philip and his brother Perdiccas, had been instrumental in securing for Philip the kingdom of Macedon. So there we have it: Philip's obligation to Plato (and by extension to his nephew and successor in the Academy) assumed but never actually stated to Philip's face. And what a mighty service Plato had performed, indeed the greatest possible, in securing Philip's kingdom for him. Here, then, we have the culmination of Speusippus' argument from euergesia. The charge that Isocrates had attacked Plato in the Philip was, therefore, a rhetorical device which Speusippus introduced in order to remind Philip in a subtle way of his debt to Plato. The device was a daring one and risky too for, despite its subtlety, Philip might still be offended and the claim of the Academy to Macedonian patronage jeopardised. But then again, what had Speusippus to loose, for, as we have seen, Philip had never looked with favour on Plato

and the Academy.??! The converse of the argument from euergesia is, of course, that [Isocrates had done nothing to merit Philip's patronage. In fact, the discourse which Isocrates 299 Cf. τούτων ἀξιώσειν εὐαγγέλια, δικαίαν χάριν, ᾿Αντιπάτρῳ παρὰ σοῦ δοθῆναι. 9*9 Cf. τραχύς ὦν, together with the Commentary. 39! Sonnabend [p.93] also sees the reference to Theopompus as a device to introduce Plato's

name into the argument, with the objective of influencing Philip to accept the professional competence of the Academy over that of his rival Isocrates.

5. The Rhetoric of Speusippus' Letter

99

addressed to Philip displayed only contempt for the Macedonian king. According to Speusippus, Isocrates had deliberately overlooked the friendly relationship that existed between Athens and Macedon dating from the days of Heracles. He had likewise ignored the services to Greece of Alexander I and Philip’s other forebears as though they were unmentionable misfortunes (ὥσπερ ἀποῤῥήτους συμφορὰς: 3), thereby missing the opportunity to call upon the goodwill of the

Greeks.9?? Rather, it was the case that Isocrates had exhibited his ill-will by declining to defend Philip against the accusations of the Olynthians and others and by making no attempt to justify Philip's conquests. He not only insulted Philip by comparing him with Alcibiades and the tyrant Dionysius but also chose to address him with a hackneyed piece of work that had already been rejected by a number of other prominent leaders and which itself displayed serious deficiencies. And the ill-will that Isocrates displayed towards Philip was completely in character, for earlier in his career had he not publicly supported Timotheus in denouncing Macedonian policies? Isocrates was evidently motivated by hate or envy, whereas Plato had always acted with goodwill towards Philip and his family. It remains to consider the crucial role played by Antipater and his history of Greece within the argument of the letter. Speusippus made it plain from the outset that it was from his position as an historian that Antipater criticised Isocrates' Philip. Speusippus then stated his intention to repeat some of Antipater's criticisms (πειράσομαι δ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν ὀλίγας), and he summarised the three major areas he intended to discuss, namely the services of Philip and his ancestors to Greece and the slanders being perpetrated against Philip himself and those against Plato. These three subjects, as we have seen, comprise the major steps in the argument from euergesia. Although he is not cited directly as an authority in sections 2-4, we are meant to understand that Antipater’s history was Speusippus’ immediate source for Alexander I's services at the time of the Persian Wars. Antipater's contribution here was not unique, for Herodotus and Damastes had previously recorded the history of the period. It was in his use of historical traditions to validate Philip's conquests of Greek states that Antipater's skill as an historian came to the fore. Antipater, Speusippus boasted, was the 'first and only' person to have employed such arguments (ὁ φέρων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν μόνος Kai πρῶτος ἀξιοπίστους μύθους εἴρηκε). There follows in section 8 the justification for Philip's assumption of the place of Phocis in the Delphic Amphictyony, which is directly attributed to the work of Antipater. The thread of Antipater's history then stretches to section 12 where it provides the support for Speusippus' climactic statement that Plato had assisted Philip to attain the Macedonian throne. For, in order to silence Theopompus' disgraceful aspersions against Plato, Antipater was expected to read from his history, and in so doing also to substantiate Philip's obligation to Plato’s nephew and successor. 3? Cf 84: οὕτω yap ἂν ὁ περὶ σοῦ γραφεὶς λόγος τῆς παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εὐνοίας ἔτυχεν μᾶλλον fj μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν περὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας βασιλείας εἰπόντος.

39 See 81 γράφει δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνησι πάλαι τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις, with Commentary.

100

Introduction

We may in conclusion reflect on what it was that Speusippus hoped would result from his letter to Philip? Did he want Philip to acknowledge directly a debt to Plato and reopen communication with the Academy? While this would have been the perfect outcome, Speusippus can hardly have expected it. The most he could reasonably have hoped for was that Philip would assist Antipater and send him back to Athens, as he requested repeatedly at sections 1 and 5 and in his

concluding words. To do so would have been a small matter for Philip (who controlled affairs in Magnesia), but for Speusippus and the Academy, as a sign that Philip was prepared to bury the hatchet and resume contact with Plato’s

school, it would represent a significant achievement. The letter of Speusippus was in a sense a Trojan horse sent to breach the portal of Philip’s hostility to Plato and his consequent disregard of the Speusippean Academy in its quest for patronage. But Philip, it seems, was not to be won over so easily, for there is no

convincing evidence that meaningful contact was resumed between the Macedonian court and the Academy during the remainder of Philip’s reign.

TEXT AND TRANSLATION A NOTE ON THE TEXT The manuscript tradition of the Socratic Letters was established by J.Sykutris [Uberlieferung] and is unambiguous: all existing manuscripts deriving from Cod. Vatic. gr.64 of the year 1269/1270. The editio princeps was published by L. Allazzis in 1637. The first section of my bibliography provides details of this and subsequent editions. The editorial history of the corpus was discussed briefly by Sykutris in the introduction to his study of the Socratic Letters [Briefe pp.7—12]. The text and apparatus criticus of the Letter of Speusippus printed here is that of Sykutris [BS] except for some few changes, the justification for which is given in

the Commentary.*™ I have adopted the section numbering of Sykutris’ translation, which agrees with Kóhler's edition, as there is some confusion in the numbering of the Greek text as printed in BS for sections 9 and 10. The variation in the numbering of the Socratic Letters is due to the inclusion by Orelli of two letters (numbers twenty-five and twenty-six), which were not part of Allazzis' edition. See Orelli p.249. Kóhler omitted these two letters and so returned to the numbering of Allazzis, according to which our letter is number twenty-eight, and not number thirty as it is referred to in BS. The manuscripts referred to in the apparatus criticus are as follows :

V = Codex Vaticanus Graecus 64

(13% century)

B = Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1461 P = Codex Parisinus Graecus 3054

(15% century) (169! century)

3% BS. pp.7-12. In $3 I have preferred πλησιαζόντων in place of στρατευσάντων; in $5 I write γινομένας and γινομένης for γιγνομένας and γενομένης and in $12 γίνοιτο for γίγνοιτο; and in $13 the imperfect ἐμνήστενεν for ἐμνήστευσεν.

102

Text and Translation

THE LETTER OF SPEUSIPPUS TO KING PHILIP

«Σπεύσιππος Φιλίππῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ εὖ πράττειν»

᾿Αντίπατρος ὁ φέρων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὸ μὲν γένος ἐστὶ Μάγνης, γράφει δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνησι πάλαι τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις, ἀδικεῖσθαι δέ φησιν ὑπό τινος ἐν Μαγνησίᾳ. διάκουσον οὖν αὐτοῦ τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ βοήθησον ὡς ἄν δύνῃ προθυμότατα. δικαίως δ᾽ ἂν αὐτῷ βοηθήσειας διὰ πολλὰ καὶ διότι, παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναγνωσθέντος ἐν διατριβῇ τοῦ σοὶ πεμφθέντος ὑπ᾽ Ἰσοκράτους λόγου, τὴν μὲν ὑπόθεσιν ἐπήνεσε, τὸ δὲ παραλιπεῖν τὰς εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γενομένας εὐεργεσίας ὑμῶν éveka-

λεσε.

πειράσομαι δ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν ὀλίγας. | Ἰσοκράτης μὲν γὰρ οὔτε

τὰς εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα

γενομένας εὐεργεσίας ὑπὸ σοῦ καὶ τῶν σῶν

προγόνων δεδήλωκεν οὔτε τὰς ὑπό τινων κατὰ σοῦ γεγενημένας διαβολὰς λέλυκεν

οὔτε

Πλάτωνος

ἐν τοῖς πρὸς σὲ πεμφθεῖσι

10

λόγοις

ἀπέσχῃηται. Καίτοι χρῆν πρῶτον μὲν τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν οἰκειότητα πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν πόλιν αὐτὸν μὴ λαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ ποιῆσαι καὶ toig ἀπὸ σοῦ γενομένοις φανεράν: Ἡρακλῆς γὰρ, ὄντος νόμου τὸ παλαιὸν ἡμῖν μηδένα ξένον μνεῖσθαι, βουληθεὶς μνεῖσθαι, γίνεται Πυλίου θετὸς

15

υἱός] τούτου δ᾽ ὄντος τοιούτου, τοὺς λόγους ἐξῆν Ἰσοκράτει λέγειν ὡς πρὸς πολίτην, ἐπειδὴ τὸ γένος ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἀφ Ἡρακλέους᾽ μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὰς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ σοῦ προγόνου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τὰς εἰς τὴν ᾿Ελλάδα γενομένας εὐεργεσίας ἐξαγγέλειν. νυνὶ δ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀποῤῥήτους συμφορὰς αὐτῶν κατασεσιώπηκε. Ξέρξου γὰρ πρέσβεις ἐπὶ τὴν

20

Ἑλλάδα πέμψαντος γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ αἰτήσοντας, ᾿Αλέξανδρος τοὺς μὲν πρέσβεις ἀπέκτεινεν, ὕστερον δὲ πλησιαζόντων τῶν βαρβάρων οἱ Ἕλληνες ἐπὶ τὸ ὑμέτερον Ἡράκλειον ἀπήντησαν, ᾿Αλεξάνδρου δὲ τὴν

᾿Αλεύου καὶ Θετταλῶν προδοσίαν τοῖς Ἕλλησι μηνύσαντος ἀναζεύξαντες οἱ Ἕλληνες δι᾽ ᾿Αλέξανδρον ἐσώθησαν. | καίτοι τούτων χρῆν μὴ μόνον Ἡρόδοτον καὶ Δαμάστην μεμνῆσθαι τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἐν ταῖς τέχναις ἀποφαινόμενον t ἐκ τῆς do πρόγονον ἡ τοὺς εὔνους δεῖν πρός «σ᾽» εἶναι τοὺς ἀκροατάς. προσῆκεν δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐν Πλαταιαῖς ἐπὶ Μαρδονίου γενομένην δηλῶσαι καὶ τὰς ἑξῆς το-

1 φέρων :cor.B 2δὲν ὁ ὑκὸν AdyouV: τότε B 7 verba ὑμῶν ἐνεκάλεσε usque εὐεργεσίας in V repetita delevit B praeter ὑμῶν, quod omisit Allatius 12 ἀπέχηται V: corr. B. 13xpr V: corr. Β 14 opétepav V : corr. Allatius. 15 φανερὰ V:corr.B 16 ξένον ποιεῖσθαι V: cor. Β 176€ V 23 πλησιαζόντων Morel : στρατευσάντων Sykutris : στασιαζόντων V 24 ἡμέτερον V : corr. Schering 25 ἁλέου V corr. Hercher 27 χρὴν : corr. Sykutris 28 τῶν V:corr. Β ἐκ tob εἰς τὸν GOV πρόγονον (Herculem dicit) ἤθους Sykutris 29 προσεῖναι V : corr. Sykutris προσήκειν : προσῆκε Westermann 30 tocavtag Bremi: toutov τὰς V

25

30

Text and Translation

103

«Speusippus to King Philip greetings»

l

Antipater, the bearer of this letter, although a Magnesian by birth, has for a considerable time been writing a history of Greece in Athens. He asserts that he is being wronged by a certain person in Magnesia. Hear, therefore, his complaint and assist him as vigorously as you can. In lending him assistance you would be acting justly for many reasons and in particular because at a meeting which took place in our school at which the speech Isocrates sent you was read out he, while praising the overall argument, criticised it for omitting your family's services to Greece. I will endeavour now to repeat some of these criticisms. | For Isocrates has neither stated clearly the services rendered to Greece by yourself and your forebears, nor has he refuted the allegations made by certain people against you nor desisted from attacking Plato in the speech he sent you. Firstly, then, the friendly relations that exist with our city should not have escaped his notice but he should have impressed them on your descendants also. For when he wished to be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries Heracles became the adoptive son of Pyleus, as there was an ancient law amongst us prohibiting the initiation of non-Athenians. | This being the case, Isocrates could have addressed you as a fellow citizen, since your family descends from Heracles. Next he should have proclaimed the services rendered to Greece by your ancestor Alexander and the others. As it is, he has passed them over in complete silence as if they were disasters that must not be mentioned. For when Xerxes sent ambassadors into Greece demanding earth and water Alexander killed the ambassadors. Later on, when the Barbarians were approaching, the Greeks went to meet them at your precinct of Heracles. However, after Alexander informed the Greeks of the treachery of Aleuas and the Thessalians, the Greek forces pulled out and were saved as a result of Alexander’s intervention. | And yet not only is it right and proper for Herodotus and Damastes to have mentioned these services but he also who shows in his speeches ...(gap)... those hearing must be well disposed towards you. He should also have set out clearly what took place at Plataea in Mardonius’ time and the many great services rendered subsequently by your

104

Text and Translation

cavtag τῶν σῶν προγόνων εὐεργεσίας. οὕτω yàp Gv ὁ περὶ σοῦ ypaφεὶς λόγος τῆς παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εὐνοίας ἔτυχεν μᾶλλον ἢ μηδὲν

ἀγαθὸν περὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας βασιλείας εἰπόντος.

ἦν δὲ καὶ «τὸ» τὰ

παλαιὰ διαλεχθῆναι τῆς Ἰσοκράτους ἡλικίας, τὸ δ᾽ εὐρύθμως, ὥς φησιν αὐτός, ἀνθούσης τῆς διανοίας. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰς διαβολὰς ἐνῆν λῦσαι τὰς τὸ πλεῖστον ὑπ᾽ Ὁλυν-

θίων γινομένας. | τίς γὰρ ἂν οὕτως εὐήθη σε νομίσειεν, ὥστε σοι πολεμούντων Ἰλλυριῶν καὶ Θρακῶν, ἔτι δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων πόλεμον πρὸς Ὀλυνθίους ἐξενεγκεῖν; ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων οὐκ ἐν ἐπιστολῇ πρὸς σὲ μηκυντέον, ἃ δ᾽ ἐστιν οὐκ ἐμποδὼν τοῖς τυχοῦσιν εἰπεῖν, ἐκ πολλοῦ τε χρόνου τοῖς πᾶσι κατασεσιώκηκαι, συμφέρει δέ σοι πυθέσθαι, ταῦτά μοι δοκῶ φράσειν καὶ τούτων ἀξιώσειν εὐαγγέλια, δικαίαν χάριν, ᾿Αντιπάτρῳ παρὰ σοῦ δοθῆναι. περὶ γὰρ τῆς γινομένης Ὀλυνθίοις χώρας, ὥς ἐστι τὸ παλαιὸν Ἡρακλειδῶν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Χαλκιδέων, ὁ φέρων

10

15

τὴν ἐπιστολὴν μόνος καὶ πρῶτος ἀξιοπίστους μύθους εἴρηκε. | τὸν αὑτὸν γάρ φησι τρόπον Νηλέα μὲν ἐν Μεσσήνῃ, Συλέα δὲ περὶ τὸν ᾿Αμφιπολιτικὸν τόπον ὑφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους ὑβριστὰς ὄντας ἀπολέσθαι, Kal δοθῆναι παρακαταθήκην φυλάττειν Νέστορι μὲν τῷ Νηλέως Μεσσήνnv, Δικαίῷ δὲ τῷ Συλέως ἀδελφῷ τὴν Φυλλίδα χώραν, καὶ Μεσσήνην 20 μὲν ὕστερον πολλαῖς γενεαῖς Κρεσφόντην κομίσασθαι, τὴν δ᾽

᾿Αμφιπολῖτιν, Ἡρακλειδῶν οὖσαν, ᾿Αθηναίους καὶ Χαλκιδέας λαβεῖν. ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως ὑφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους ἀναιρεθῆναι κακούργους καὶ παρανόμους Ἱπποκόωντα μὲν ἐν Σπάρτῃ τύραννον, ᾿Αλκυονέα δ᾽ ἐν Παλλήνῃ, καὶ Σπάρτην μὲν Τυνδάρεῳ, Ποτείδαιαν δὲ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην Παλλήνην Σιθῶνι τῷ Ποσειδῶνος παρακαταθέσθαι, καὶ τὴν μὲν Λακωνικὴν τοὺς ᾿Αριστοδήμου παῖδας ἐν ταῖς Ἡρακλειδῶν καθόδοις ἀπολαβεῖν, Παλλήνην δ᾽ Ἐρετριᾶς καὶ Κορινθίους καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Τροίας ᾿Αχαιούς,

25

Ἡρακλειδῶν οὖσαν, κατασχεῖν. | τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἐξαγγέλλει περὶ τὴν Τορωναίαν τοὺς Πρωτίδας τυράννους Τμῶλον καὶ Τηλέγονον ὡς Ἡρακλῆς ἀνέλοι καὶ περὶ ᾿Αμβρακίαν Κλείδην καὶ τοὺς Κλείδου παῖδας ἀποκτείνας, ᾿Αριστομάχῳ μὲν τῷ Σιθῶνος τὴν Τορωναίαν τηρεῖν

30

προστάξειεν, ἣν Χαλκιδεῖς ὑμετέραν οὖσαν κατῴκισαν, Λαδίκῃ «δὲ» καὶ Χαράττῃ «τὴν» ᾿Αμβρακικὴν χώραν ἐγχειρίσειεν, ἀξιῶν ἀποδοῦναι τὰς παρακαταθήκας τοῖς ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ γινομένοις. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰς

Ι περὶ Bedd.

B: xapa V 310 add. Sykutris 4 εὐρύθμως Dobree : εὐρυθαλῶς V, εὐθαλῶς 5 ἀνθοὺς V:corr.B 6 ὑπὸ λυνθίων᾽ corr. B 7 γινομένας V : γιγνομένας

Sykutris εὐήθη σε Schaefer: εὐήθης V 8 δὲ Hercher: τὲ V. 12 συμφέρειν : corr. B δὲ Β: τὸ V [4 y.vopévns V : γενομένης Sykutris 15 xaxióéov V : corr. Allatius 20 Συλέως Mullach : Νηλέως V Φυλίδα Ρ 2] δὲ V 22 ἀμφιπολίτην VP : corr. Schaefer Χαλκιδεῖς V 24858 V 25 Ποτίδαιανν 2866 V Ἐρετριεῖς ν 29 ἐξαγγέλλεινν : corr. Bremi 32 Σίθονος V : corr. B. Topovaiav P 33 δὲ add. B. 34 τὴν add. B ἐγχειρήσειενν : corr. Β 35 ἀπ᾿ Bremi: ux V. γινομένους V: γιγνομένοις Sykutris

35

Text and Translation

105

forbears; for had he done this the speech he wrote about you, rather than having nothing favourable to say of your kingdom, would have achieved the goodwill of the Greeks. Moreover, considering how old Isocrates is, the discussion of ancient history would have been appropriate; the composition of a finely crafted speech, on the other hand, (as he himself says) calls for a

youthful and vigorous mind. Furthermore, it was in his power to refute the accusations being made for the most part by the Olynthians. For who would consider you so simpleminded as to begin a war against the Olynthians at a time when the Illyrians and Thracians were at war with you, and the Athenians and Lacedaemonians and other Greeks and barbarians besides? But it is inappropriate to go on at length with such arguments as these in a letter to you. Those arguments, however, which are not apparent to ordinary speakers and which for a long time have been overlooked by everyone, but which it is advantageous for you to hear, I am resolved to speak of; and in return for this I claim a reward for good tidings, a favour well deserved, to be given by you to Antipater. For in the matter of the present Olynthian territory, how it belonged from ancient times to the Heraclids, and not to the Chalcidians, the bearer of this letter is the first and only person who has provided reliable accounts. | For in precisely the same way, he argues, Neleus in Messene and Syleus in the region of Amphipolis, both evil-doers, were slain by Heracles. Subsequently, Messene was entrusted to the protection of Nestor, the son of Neleus, and the Phyllisian territory to Dicaeus, the brother of Syleus. Later, after the passing of many generations, Cresphontes recovered Messene, but Amphipolis, even though it belonged to the Heraclids, was appropriated by the Athenians and Chalcidians. Likewise the tyrant Hippocoón in Sparta and Alcyoneus in Pallene, both of them violent and lawless men, were killed by Heracles, who entrusted Sparta to Tyndareus and Potidaea and the rest of Pallene to Sithon, the son of Poseidon. The sons of Aristodemus reclaimed the land of Laconia at the time of the Heraclids' return, but the Eretrians, Corinthians and Achaeans who were returning from Troy seized and occupied Pallene even though it belonged to the Heraclids. | In the same way, Antipater declares, Heracles slew the tyrants Tmolus and Telegonus, the sons of Proteus, in the vicinity of Torone, and in the region of Ambracia killed Cleides and his sons. To Aristomachus, Sithon's son, he assigned the guardianship of the territory of Torone, which, even though it was yours, the Chalcidians colonized, and he entrusted the Ambracian territory to Ladices and Charattes stipulating that the deposit be

106

Text and Translation

ὑπογυίους ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τῆς Ἠδωνῶν χώρας κτήσεις Μακεδόνες πάν-

τες ἴσασι. | Καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστιν οὐ προφάσεις Ἰσοκράτους οὐδ᾽ ὀνομάτων ψόφος, ἀλλὰ λόγοι δυνάμενοι τὴν σὴν ἀρχὴν ὠφελεῖν.

Ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυονικῶν πραγμάτων δῆλος El σπουδάζων, ἐβουλήθην σοι φράσαι μῦθον παρ᾽ ᾿Αντιπάτρου, τίνα τρόπον πρῶτον οἱ ᾿Αμφικτύονες συνέστησαν, καὶ πῶς, ὄντες ᾿Αμφικτύονες, Φλεγύαι μὲν ὑπ᾽ ᾿Απόλλωνος, Δρύοπες δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους, Κρισαῖοι 6

ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων ἀνῃρέθησαν. οὗτοι γὰρ πάντες ᾿Αμφικτύονες γενόμενοι

τῶν ψήφων

ἀφῃρέθησαν,

ἕτεροι

δὲ τὰς τούτων

ψήφους

λαβόντες τῆς τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων συντελείας μετέσχον. ὧν ἐνίους σέ 10 φησι μεμιμῆσθαι καὶ λαβεῖν d0Xov Πυθίοις τῆς εἰς Δελφοὺς στρα-

τείας παρὰ τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων τὰς δύο Φωκέων ψήφους. | ὧν ὁ τὰ

10

παλαιὰ καινῶς καὶ τὰ καινὰ παλαιῶς ἐπαγγελλόμενος διδάσκειν λέγειν νῦν οὔτε τὰς ἀρχαίας πράξεις οὔτε τὰς ὑπὸ σοῦ νεωστὶ διαγωνισθείσας οὔτε τὰς τοῖς χρόνοις μεταξὺ γενομένας μεμύθευκε. καὶ 15 τοι δοκεῖ τὰς μὲν οὐκ ἀκηκοέναι, τὰς δ᾽ οὐκ εἰδέναι, τῶν δ᾽ ἐπιλελῆσθαι. Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐπὶ πράξεις σε δικαίας παρακαλῶν ὁ σοφιστής, τὴν μὲν ᾿Αλκιβιάδου φυγὴν καὶ κάθοδον ἐπαινῶν ἐν παραδείγματι δεδήλωκε, τὰ δὲ μείζω καὶ καλλίω πράγματα τῷ πατρί σου πραχθέντα 20 παρέλιπεν. | ᾿Αλκιβιάδης μὲν γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀσεβείᾳ φυγὼν καὶ πλεῖστα τὴν πατρίδα τὴν αὑτοῦ κακῶς ποιήσας εἰς αὑτὴν κατῆλθεν, ᾿Αμύντας δ᾽ ὑπὲρ βασιλείας στάσει νικηθεὶς βραχὺν χρόνον ὑποχωρήσας μετὰ

ταῦτα πάλιν Μακεδονίας ἦρξεν᾽ εἶθ᾽ ὁ μὲν κάλιν φυγὼν αἰσχρῶς τὸν

11

βίον ἐτελεύτησεν, ὁ δὲ σὸς κατὴρ βασιλεύων κατεγήρασε. παρή- 25 νεγκε δέ σοι καὶ τὴν Διονυσίου μοναρχίαν ὥσπερ προσῆκόν σοι τοὺς ἀσεβεστάτους ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοὺς σπουδαιοτάτους μιμήσασθαι καὶ ζηλωτὴν τῶν κακίστων ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῶν δικαιοτάτων γενέσθαι. καὶ φησὶ μὲν ἐν ταῖς τέχναις προσήκειν οἰκεῖα καὶ γνώριμα τὰ παραδείγματα φέρειν, ὀλιγωρήσας δὲ τῆς τέχνης ἀλλοτρίοις καὶ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις καὶ τοῖς 30 πρὸς τὸν λόγον ὡς ἐναντιωτάτοις παραδείγμασι χρῆται. | καίτοι πάντων καταγελαστότατα τοιαῦτα γράφων χαριέντως ἀμύνασθαὶϊ φησι τῶν μαθητῶν τοὺς ἐπιτιμῶντας᾽ οἱ δὲ χειρωθέντες τῶν αὐτῷ πλησιαζόντων, ἀκμάζοντες τῆς ῥητορικῆς τῇ δυνάμει καὶ παρὰ ταῦτ᾽ οὐδὲν ἔχοντες εἰπεῖν, οὕτως ἐπήνεσαν τὸν λόγον, ὥστε τὸ πρωτεῖον τῶν 35

| ὑπογνίους correxit ex ὑπογείους eadem manus

3 ψόφος Valckenaer: ψόγος

V

5x000v V:cor.

V

2 ταῦτα V

B παρὰν

οὐδ᾽ Β:

TünobisV

οὐδὲ V

δὲν

δὲ

Vil pepipetoBat V 12 δύο Orelli: δὲ V 14 λέγειν Sykutris: λέγει V 16 τῶν δὲν 18 δικαίας Allatius: δικαίως. V 22 δὲν 23 στάσιν εἰκῆ θεὶς V : corr. B 25 βασιλέων V : corr. B. 30 ἀλλοτρίως V : corr.B 31 τῶν λόγων V : corr. B 32 γράφων : corr. Β 33 τῶν αὐτῶν ὦ puncto notatis V: corr. B. 34 ταῦτα V

Text and Translation

10

11

107

returned to his descendants. Moreover, all Macedonians know of the recent acquisitions of Alexander in the territory of the Edones. | And these proofs are not the excuses of Isocrates nor mere empty sounding words but strong arguments in support of your rule. But since you clearly have a keen interest in Amphictyonic affairs also, I would like to relate to you Antipaters' account of the way in which the Amphictyons first came into existence and how, even though they were Amphictyons, the Phlegyae were destroyed by Apollo, the Dryopes by Heracles, and the Crisaeans by the Amphictyons themselves. For all these were deprived of their votes, even though they were Amphictyons, and others received their votes and so became members of the Amphictyony. Antipater says that you have imitated some of the latter and received from the Amphictyons a prize at the Pythian Games, the two Phocian votes, on account of your Delphic expedition. | In relation to these matters, he who professes to teach others how to present events of the distant past in new ways and recent events in an old fashion, now recounts neither ancient deeds nor your victories of more recent date nor events which took place in the intervening period. Indeed, some things he appears not to have heard of, others not to know of, and the rest to have forgotten! Moreover, the Sophist in exhorting you to the performance of just actions adduced the exile and return of Alcibiades as a praiseworthy example, while he overlooked the greater and more noble actions of your father. | For Alcibiades, went into exile charged with impiety and then returned after inflicting the greatest possible injuries on his own country. Amyntas, on the other hand, withdrew for a short time after he was defeated in a civil war for control of the kingdom but later came to rule again in Macedonia. Subsequently, Alcibiades again went into exile and died a shameful death, whereas your father ruled to a ripe old age. Isocrates also held out to you the monarchy of Dionysius as if it were fitting that you imitate the most impious and not the most excellent examples, to be an emulator of the worst and not the most righteous of men. And in his speeches he says on the one hand that it is fitting to employ distinguished examples from one's own family or country but then, having no regard for his art, he proceeds to make use of the most shameful examples from foreign countries, examples which in fact greatly contradict his argument. | And yet, the most ridiculous of all the things he writes is his assertion that he cleverly defended himself against those of his students who had criticised the work. And these defeated students, (who despite being at the height of their rhetorical powers had nothing to say against his censure) praised the speech to such an extent that they have

108

Text and Translation

λόγων

τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ δεδώκασι.

καταμάθοις δ᾽ dv Ev βραχεῖ

τὴν

Ἰσοκράτους ἱστορίαν καὶ τὴν παιδείαν ἐξ ὧν Κυρηναίους μὲν ποιεῖ, τοὺς «ὑπὸ πάντων Onpaiove

ἀκούοντας, ἀποίκους Λακεδαιμονίων,

τὸν δὲ Ποντικὸν μαθητὴν ἀπέδειξε τῆς αὑτοῦ σοφίας διάδοχον, οὗ σύ, 12

πολλοὺς τεθεαμένος σοφιστάς, βδελυρώτερον οὐχ ἑόρακας. | Πυνθάνομαι δὲ καὶ Θεόπομπον παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μὲν εἶναι κάνυ ψυχρόν περὶ δὲ Πλάτωνος βλασφημεῖν, καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ὥσπερ ov Πλάτωνος τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς

ἀρχῆς ἐπὶ Περδίκκου κατασκευάσαντος καὶ διὰ τέλους χαλεπῶς φέροντος, εἶ τι γίνοιτο παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀνήμερον ἢ μὴ φιλάδελφον. iv’ οὖν Θεόπομπος παύσηται τραχὺς ὦν, κέλευσον ᾿Αντίπατρον παραναγνῶναι τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν πράξεων αὐτῷ καὶ γνώσεται Θεόπομπος δικαίως μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων ἐξαλειφόμενος, ἀδίκως δὲ τῆς παρὰ σοῦ χορηγίας τυγχά-

10

νων. 13

Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ἰσοκράτης, ἐπειδὴ νέος μὲν ὧν εἰς τὸν δῆμον μετὰ Τιμοθέου καθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐπιστολὰς αἰσχρὰς ἔγραφε, νυνὶ δὲ πρεσβύτης ὦν, ὥσπερ μισῶν fj φθονῶν τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ὑμῖν ὑπαρχόντων ἀγαθῶν παραλέλοιπεν, ἀπέσταλκε δέ σοι λόγον, ὅν τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἔγραφεν ᾿Ηγησιλάῳ, μικρὰ «δὲ» διασκευάσας ὕστερον ἐπώλει τῷ Σικελίας

15

τυράννῳ Διονυσίῳ, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὰ μὲν ἀφελὼν tà δὲ προσθεὶς ἐμνήotevev ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ τῷ Θετταλῷ, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον νῦν πρὸς σὲ γλίσ-

20

χρως αὐτὸν ἀπηκόντισεν. βουλοίμην δ᾽ ἄν χωρῆσαι τὸ βιβλίον ἀναμνῆσαι τὰς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ πρὸς σὲ πεμφθείσας ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ προφάσεις 14

ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ ᾿Αμφιπόλεώς φησι κωλῦσαι τὴν γενομένην εἰρήνην γρα"war λόγον, ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἡρακλέους «δ᾽» ἀθανασίας ὕστερον αὐτῷ σοι

φράσειν, ὑπὲρ ἐνίων δὲ διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν ὁμολογῶν μαλακώτερον

25

γράφειν συγγνώμης ἀξιοῖ τυχεῖν, μὴ θαυμάζειν δ᾽ εἰ καί πως ἀνα-

γνοὺς ὁ Ποντικὸς μωλύτερον, [καὶ] φαυλότερον ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὸν λόγον, τὸν Πέρσην δ᾽ ὡς καταστρατηγήσεις αὐτὸν εἰδέναι σέ φησιν.

᾿Αλλὰ γὰρ τὰς λοιπὰς σκήψεις γράφειν ἐπιλείπει μοι τὸ βιβλίον" τοσαύτην ἡμῖν σπάνιν βιβλίων βασιλεὺς Αἴγυπτον λαβὼν πεποίηκεν.

"Eppwoo καὶ ᾿Αντιπάτρου διὰ ταχέων ἐπιμεληθεὶς πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν ἀπόστειλον.

1 τῷ λόγῳ tov λόγων V : recte colloc. B 3 supplevit dubitanter P. Mass: conieceram pro axovovtas,: Onpaious ὄντας ἀποικίλους V corr. B. 5 ἑώρακας V 7 tatta V 8 Tlepdixov V 9 φέροντος e φέροντες correxit eadem manus V yivorto V : γίγνοιτο Sykutris iva V 10 xapavayàvai V : corr. Β 16 μισῶν Sykutris : ἑκών V : ὡς

παριδών Wilamowitz add.B

18 ἡγισιλάου V : corr.

B. δὲ add. Westermann : post ὕστερον

19 euvnotevev Blass : ἐμνήστευσεν VP

21 ἐπηκόντισεν V : corr. Hercher

23 ἀμφιπόλεμον V : corr. B 24 δ᾽ ante ἀθανασίας inseruit Sykutris : ante αὐτῷ BP 25 ὁμολογεῖ καλακώτερον V: corr. B 26 δὲ V xai πῶς V : κακῶς Cobet servato xai ante φαυλ. 26 ἀναγνοὺς Ruhnken : avayvw 28 δὲ V 29 γράφοντα ἐπιλείπει pe B edd.

V

27 xai seclusit Sykytris

30

Text and Translation

12

13

14

109

accorded to this speech the first place amongst speeches! You would quickly learn the extent of Isocrates’ historical knowledge and what his educational system amounts to on the one hand from his making the Cyrenaeans colonists of the Lacedaemonians, whereas everyone knows that they are Theraeans, and on the other from the fact that he proclaimed his Pontic student as heir to his wisdom — a more loathsome fellow you, who have encountered many sophists, have never seen. | I hear that Theopompos also is acting in an altogether reprehensible manner at court and that he 1s slandering Plato; and this as if Plato had not laid the basis for your rule during the reign of Perdiccas, and had not always been most concerned should anything uncivilised or unbrotherly occur at court. Therefore, so that Theopompus will stop being truculent, call upon Antipater to read aloud to him from his history of Greece and Theopompus will know why not only his work is rightly being erased by everyone but also that he is unjustly in receipt of your patronage. In the same way, when he was young Isocrates also used to write, in association with Timotheus, disgraceful letters critical of your family to the demos. Now that he is an old man, however, as if from hate or envy he has passed over most of the good qualities which your family has displayed and despatched to you a speech which he first wrote for Agesilaus and, having dressed it up a little, later tried to sell to the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius. On a third occasion, after he had made some cosmetic changes, he attempted to marry it off to Alexander of Thessaly, and now finally he has in niggardly fashion shot it off to you. I would like, if this scroll had sufficient space, to bring to your attention the excuses he made in the speech he sent to you. | He claimed, to begin with, that he was prevented from writing a speech on the subject of Amphipolis due to the conclusion of peace, then, concerning the immortality of Heracles he will address you at a later time, and in some matters he concedes that, due to his old age, his writing is inferior and asks your forgiveness. And also don't be surprised, he says, if the Pontic fellow by declaiming in a feeble manner makes the speech appear less effective than it should be; and as to how the Persian is to be out-generalled, he says you yourself know best. But really my scroll has insufficient space to record the remaining excuses, so great is the scarcity of papyrus rolls the Great King has caused us by his conquest of Egypt. Farewell, and after you have assisted him send Antipater back to us with all speed.

COMMENTARY Σπεύσιππος Φιλίππῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ εὖ πράττειν: these words are not present in the manuscripts. The more common form of address appears to have been χαίρειν, as used by Isocrates in his letter to Dionysius I of Syracuse and generally by Demosthenes in the letters attributed to him (with the exception of

the fifth, which may be spurious, and which uses εὖ πράττειν). For philosophical reasons Plato preferred to use εὖ πράττειν in letters to his friends, as he explained in his Third Letter [315 b—c], and it would seem appropriate for Speusippus to follow the same convention. A letter of introduction from Egypt of the year 255 BCE may be compared for the opening epistolary form: Πλάτων Ζήνωίνι xailpeıv. Δημητρίου tod ἀποδιδόντος σοι τὴν ἐπιστολήν... [P. Cairo Zen. 59192 = No. 92 in Select Papyri v.1: Non-literary papyri (LCL). Cf. No.106 of the year 25 CE from the same collection]. Notice that the bearer of the letter is identified in the opening sentence, as in Speusippus' letter: ‘Avtinatpos ὁ φέρων τὴν ExtotoAnv. See C. Keyes, "The Greek letter of introduction’, American Journal of Philology 56(1935) pp. 28—44 for a discussion of the introductory formulae from papyri and literary epistles. 1. ‘Avtinatpos: the present Letter is the only source of information on the historian Antipater of Magnesia in Thessaly and on his historical work. The testimonia and fragments are collected as FGrH 69. From his statement that Antipater participated in a discussion of Isocrates' Philip, Speusippus implied that he was part of the Academic circle in Athens. Markle [p.94)] has suggested that Antipater was a pupil of Speusippus. The Suda entry under ‘Avtinxatpoc Ἰολάου [Adler 2703], the general of Philip and Alexander, records that Antipater wrote a history of the Illyrian war of Perdiccas III. Given that our Antipater is described as an historian, Blass [p.68 n.3; cf Kóhler, p.116] asked whether there could be a connection. It seems unlikely, however, that the Suda has confused the two men and that Antipater of Magnesia wrote the history attributed to Antipater the Macedonian.

γράφει δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνησι πάλαι τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις: it is important for Speusippus' subsequent argument that he should introduce Antipater as a serious historian of Greek affairs, for only thus can the reader of the letter feel confidence in the ensuing criticisms of Isocrates" Philip, based as they are in part on Antipater's research. In establishing the historian's credentials, therefore, Speusippus emphasized that, although a native of unpretentious Magnesia, Antipater had lived in Athens for a considerable time in pursuit of his research. Apart from the indication contained in the present tense γράφει δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνησι that Antipater's work was still in progress, little is known of its scope or content. That Antipater's history was an extensive work would seem to be implied from

Commentary

111

the length of time (cf. πάλαι) he had been occupied with it. Schering [p.72] and Jacoby [FGrH IIA No.69, p.36] give the title EAAnvixat Πράξεις ἴο the work, as suggested by $1 and $12. Sykutris [p.49 n.6], on the other hand, argued that the expression γράφειν πράξεις is purely descriptive, connoting in fourth century writers such as Isocrates and Aeschines the act of writing history. Consequently he preferred the title Ἑλληνικά as used for major works of Xenophon and Theopompos amongst others. In regard to content, we know for certain only that Antipater's history dealt with Macedonian affairs at least from the reign of Perdiccas III. The evidence for this appears in $12 where Speusippus suggests to Philip that he call upon Antipater to recite from his history the section dealing with Plato's good services during the reign of Perdiccas III, as testimony to the crucial role of Plato in Philip's rise to power. It is clear that Antipater adopted a pro-Macedonian position when it came to justifying the conquests and claims of Philip. His argument in $$5-7, based on legal precedent from heroic times, was at the time,

according to Speusippus, unique (cf. $5 μόνος xai πρῶτος ἀξιοπίστους μύθους eipnxe). We know from $8 that Antipater's history also supported Philip's claim

to membership of the Delphic Amphictyony, once again on the basis of heroic and historic precedent. This section, therefore, must have been written after 346, in which year Philip acquired voting rights in the Amphictyony. From the reference in $7 to Ambracia, we may conclude that Antipater wrote his justification of Philip's claim to this state around the time of the Macedonian campaign in Epirus in 343/2, which was perceived in Athens as a threat to Ambracia and Acarnania. As to sources, perhaps Antipater's detailed knowledge of the deeds of Heracles owed something to the fifth century epic poet Panyassis of Halicarnassus, who wrote an Heraclid in fourteen books. Antipater's history was presumably never published because it did not win Philip's support for the Academy, and this explains why it is that our letter provides the only surviving reference to it. Jacoby's unflattering judgment on Antipater's ability as writer and historian (FGrH 69 Commentary p.21) is too harsh. I have attempted a more balanced view in my introductory discussion on the rhetoric of Speusippus' letter. ἀδικεῖσθαι δέ φησιν ὑπό τινος £v Μαγνησίᾳ: since his capture of Pherae and Pagassae in 352 Philip had effective control over Magnesia. See Griffith, HM p.287. Demosthenes in the First Olynthiac (22; cf. Second Olynthiac 11], written in 349, mentioned Philip's intention to build forts in Magnesia, and in the Philip [2] of 346 Isocrates referred to the Magnesians as subjects of

Philip. Consequently, Philip was in a position to support Antipater in his quarrel with an unnamed Magnesian adversary in 342, the probable date of our letter. διάκουσον : ‘hear out’, as in a court of law. Philip was, of course, judge and jury due to his control in Magnesia (see previous note). We would not expect to learn the nature of Antipater' s complaint or even the name of his adversary from the letter. Parties in a legal process normally represented themselves, as Antipater would be expected to do before Philip. παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναγνωθέντος £v διατριβῇ τοῦ σοὶ πεμφθέντος ὑπ᾽ Ic0κράτους λόγου: "at a discussion meeting (ἐν διατριβῇ) in our school (παρ᾽ ἡμῖν)". The phrase Ev διατριβῇ refers to the manner in which the group in

112

Commentary

question spent its time in the Academy, that is, in serious discussion. See the comments of Burnet on Plato, Apology 33e and J.Gluker, Antiochus and the Late Academy, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978 (Hypomnemata 56) pp. 162-166. Köhler translates “bei uns bei einem Zusammensein”. Note the indirect manner in which the Academy is introduced at the outset. The discourse referred to is the Philip, published in 346. Given that Isocrates’ discourses were written for publication, we should not be surprised that the Philip was read and discussed in the Academy. We know from §10 that Speusippus was also familiar with the Demonicus and Evagoras, as these discourses are to be

inferred under ἐν ταῖς τέχναις. See Commentary $10: ἐν ταῖς τέχναις. In the Panathenaicus [17] Isocrates deplored the unauthorized use of his works by other teachers of rhetoric, and one of his former students in this same discourse (251;

cf. Antidosis 87) declared that his writings were known and discussed in Sparta. Clearly the majority of Isocrates' works, in particular the major epideictic and symbouleutic works, were widely known both in Athens and elsewhere. See Usener pp.38-39. But compare Sykutris (BS p.70 n.1], who believed the claim here to be improbable and introduced purely for its literary effect.

τὴν μὲν ὑπόθεσιν ExyvEcE: it is significant that Speusippus felt constrained to acknowledge the merit of Isocrates' overall theme (ὑπόθεσις) in the

Philip. The implication must be that Philip approved of the discourse and that in 346 his plans were in general agreement with Isocrates' exhortation to unite the Greek states under his leadership and lead them against the Persian empire.

τὰς εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γενομένας εὐεργεσίας ὑμῶν: when used of Philip the personal pronouns ὑμῶν and ὑμῖν refer to Philip and his royal forbears as a group. In reference to Philip alone the singular form is always used. Cf. Flower, p.20 n.31. The services or benefactions (εὐεργεσίαι) referred to here are those of

Philip and his ancestors, as the context ὑπαρχόντων ἀγαθῶν at $13. See also τὸ The exception is the expression παρ᾽ translated ‘at court’. αὐτῶν: s.c. τῶν παραλειπομένων. noted by Antipater in Isocrates’ Philip.

makes clear. Cf. xà πλεῖστα τῶν ὑμῖν γένος ὑμῶν at $3 and καθ᾽ ὑμῶν at $13. ὑμῖν used twice at $12, which is best That is, the deficiencies or omissions

ὀλίγας: note the emphatic position of ὀλίγας. By means of this simple rhetorico-syntactical device Speusippus implied that Antipater had made many more criticisms of Isocrates' discourse than those enumerated in the letter. 2. Ἰσοκράτης μὲν yap οὔτε τὰς εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γενομένας εὐεργεσίας

ὑπὸ σοῦ καὶ τῶν σῶν προγόνων

δεδήλωκεν:

the reference to Philip’s

services to Greece is curious for, unless we understand his championship οἵ Delphi in the Third Sacred War, no service is mentioned in the letter. The most likely explanation for this is that the expression ‘you and your forbears’ was meant to emphasize that Philip as the most recent generation of the kings of Macedon had inherited the good will (eunoia) of the Greeks resulting from the services of his ancestors, especially Alexander I. There is, however, evidence that Philip set out to portray himself as a benefactor of Athens. We know from the

Commentary

113

speech of Hegesippus on Halonnesus that Philip in his letter and Python in his address to the ecclesia in 342 had referred to his offer to return Halonnesus as a

favour (ἐνεργέτημα) and that Philip had expressed his desire to be a benefactor to Athens. In the same speech we learn that Philip had continually promised to confer great benefits on Athens, even though he denied having made any specific promise. He does, however, appear to have alluded in his letter to the freeing of Athenians taken prisoner during the war; in itself no small benefaction. See Pseudo-Demosthenes On Halonnesus 6, 21, 33—35, 38, 44. Cf. Pseudo-Demosthenes Reply to Philip's Letter 3; On the Embassy 187, 330; On the Crown 43]. If Pearson and Stephens (following Blass and Crönert) are right in restoring

evepyetjoavta at Didymus 10.29 and if Didymus’ quotation from Philip's letter is authentic or even reflects accurately the content of the original letter, then we have here further evidence that Philip publicly referred to himself as benefactor of Athens.

οὔτε τὰς ὑπό τινων κατὰ GOD γεγενημένας διαβολὰς λέλυκεν: the reference here is to the general charge made by the opponents of Macedon that Philip was plotting against the Greek states in order to subvert their independence. We see from his argument in the following sections that Speusippus also had particular criticisms in mind, namely the accusations of the Olynthian refugees, Philip’s treatment of the Phocians and his conquests or attempted conquests of Amphipolis, Potidaea, Torone and Ambracia. These charges against Philip are

discussed in greater detail on pp.92-94. Note the perfect γεγενημένας which suggests that the aspersions against Philip were continuing at the time of writing.

οὔτε Πλάτωνος Ev toic πρὸς σὲ πεμφθεῖσι λόγοις ἀκέσχηται: the meaning of ἐν τοῖς πρὸς σὲ πεμφθεῖσι λόγοις is not immediately clear. Does it apply only to the slander of Plato or encompass all three criticisms. Is the plural λόγοις to be taken as referring to the Philip alone, where there is no direct reference to Plato, or to other ‘writings’ (perhaps letters that have not survived) which Isocrates sent to Philip? Those who have translated ἐν τοῖς λόγοις in the plural sense include Mullach

(in scriptis ad te missis), Sykutris (noch in den

Schriften, die er Dir sandte) and Shrimpton [p.200] (in his letters already sent to you). Sykutris [BS p.71) explained his translation by arguing that the phrase was intentionally obscure and suggested a certain guardedness on the part of Speusippus, who knew that the charge against Isocrates was pure conjecture. Alternatively, and more convincing to my mind, ἐν toig λόγοις may be translated ‘in the words’ rather than ‘in the writings' and so would be a synecdochic expression for the Philip. Compare τοὺς λόγους ... λέγειν at $3, which clearly refers to the Philip and which Kóhler has rendered into German by 'seine Worte richten’. Compare also the expression Ev τοῖς πρόσθεν λόγοις used by Plato at Laws 705b. The translations of Hercher (in scriptione ad te data), Kóhler (in der an Dich geschickten Rede), and Isnardi Parente (nella lettera inviata a te)

seem to reflect this view. The advantage of the latter interpretation is that there is no need to postulate the existence of works other than the Philip, the critique of which is the stated theme of the letter. In addition, the fact that the Philip was referred to in similar words in the previous section of the letter (cf. tov cot

114

Commentary

πεμφθέντος ὑπ᾽ Ἰσοκράτους λόγου) supports this interpretation. If we ask why Speusippus chose to use what appears to be a misleading expression, then the answer is to be found in the structure of the sentence in which the expression occurs. Speusippus’ primary consideration in laying out the three charges against

Isocrates was for the rhythm and balance of the sentence: οὔτε ... δεδήλωκεν ... οὔτε ... AEAUKEV ... οὔτε ... ἀπέσχηται. The emphatic position of the verb, together with the weight of the repetition is extremely effective. Given Speusippus’ careful attention to the avoidance of hiatus [see BS pp.66—69] and in view of the necessity to retain the powerful syntactical structure of the sentence, it was necessary to write λόγοις and not λόγῳ, which would have resulted in an

unpleasant hiatus with ἀπέσχηται. If we are to look in the Philip for the attack on Plato, as Speusippus' words clearly imply, then Philip 12, where Isocrates spoke disparagingly of sophists who wrote theoretical treatises on laws and constitutions (cf. τοῖς νόμοις Kai ταῖς πολιτείαις ταῖς τῶν σοφιστῶν γεγραμμέναις), contains the only possible reference. This appears to be an allusion to Plato's Republic and Laws, as Blass pointed out [pp.40-41, Cf. Mathieu, p.179]. H. Gomperz [‘Isokrates und die Sokratik' II, Wiener Studien 28 (1906) p.16] argued that while the reference was certainly to Plato there was no hostility involved on Isocrates' part. When interpreted in its immediate context, Gomperz argued, Isocrates" remark was intended to distinguish between speeches addressed to an individual who had the power to influence affairs and theoretical treatises which were utopian in nature. Meyer [col.1201] accepted that there was an attack on Plato in the Philip but that it was so veiled that only a contemporary could perceive it. Norlin, however, in his note on Philip 12, felt that Isocrates probably referred to Antisthenes, who is known to have written a work entitled Περὶ νόμου ἢ περὶ πολιτείας [Diogenes Laertius vi.16], implying that he had a keen interest in constitutional formulation along the lines of Plato's work. It seems to me that Isocrates may well have included here both Plato and Antisthenes, in what was undoubtedly a very general comment relating to unspecified sophists. The more extended criticism in the Antidosis [79-83] of those who formulate laws and write them down (cf. τῶν τοὺς νόμους τιθέντων καὶ γραφόντων) was similarly non-specific but undoubtedly encompassed Plato and his followers. If the reference in our letter is in fact to Philip 12, and this must remain conjectural, then I would argue that Speusippus, for his own rhetorical purposes, deliberately chose to portray the criticism as an affront to Plato alone. Probably it was because of his reluctance to acknowledge rivals that Isocrates never referred to Plato and rarely to any contemporary sophist or philosopher by name. The exception is the mention of the sophist Polycrates at Busiris 1. Gorgias of Leontini is mentioned at Antidosis 155—156,

268, and Helen 3, but he could not be described as a rival of Isocrates. In the case of Aristotle, who is known to have been both a rival and vociferous critic of Isocrates, the master left his defence to his student Cephisodorus of Athens, thereby distancing himself from an undignified quarrel (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, /socrates18]. See also Too, pp.159-160.

Commentary

115

It has been thought that the charge of slandering Plato may derive from Isocrates’ attack on the Academy as reflected in sections 26—28 of the Panathenaicus, where the instruction provided by the Academy is characterized as suitable only for youths. Isocrates went on to assert that some of Plato’s former students, who were then practicing teachers, displayed less practical wisdom (cf. ἀφρονεστέρους ὄντας) than the students they taught or, indeed, than their own household slaves. Bergk [p.39] argued that Speusippus and Xenocrates were the focus of Isocrates' criticism here, and Bickermann [BS p.38] later extended this observation by suggesting that the passage may have been a reply to Speusippus' letter. Whether or not there is an element of truth in these suggestions, we may be sure that it was not Speusippus' primary reason for raising the matter. There was more to be gained from a rhetorical viewpoint by representing Isocrates as having attacked Plato himself rather than his successors in the Academy. See pp.94—98 where the rhetorical significance of the attack on Plato is discussed.

Τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν οἰκειότητα: ‘the friendship that exists’. It is informative to compare the ways in which Speusippus and Isocrates use the word οἰκειότης in regard to the relationship between Athens and Macedon. When Isocrates uses the word, in contrast to Speusippus, it is never of an existing friendship but refers to something that Philip must work to achieve. See Letter 11.14, 21 and compare Philip 80 (οἰκείως ἔχων), 106 (οἰκείως εἶχεν) and 5 (φιλίαν), 17 (φιλικῶς ἔχειν). S. Hornblower (A commentary on Thucydides v.2, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, p.67] in comparing the use of the word οἰκεῖος at Thucydides iv.19 with the present passage observed that ‘...like Speusippos, they (i.e. the Spartans) would like to be able to say ξυγγένεια but cannot because no actual blood-relationship exists’. Athenians at the time Speusippus wrote appear to have accepted the notion of an hereditary friendship between themselves and Macedon, as references in both Demosthenes [Against Aristocrates 111] and Aeschines [On the Embassy 26) testify. Philip himself seems to have used the term ‘hereditary friendship’ (ratpıκὴἣν φιλίαν) in a letter he sent to the Athenian assembly in 359, soon after his

accession. See Demosthenes, Against Aristocrates 121. Also in the speech Against Aristocrates [200] Demosthenes stated that Perdiccas II (possibly a mistake for Alexander I) had been granted honorary Athenian citizenship. If true, the decree of citizenship seems not to have been extended to his descendants (as it was in the cases of Dionysius I of Syracuse — GHI 133 11.30-32; cf. Pseudo-Demosthenes Philip's Letter 10, and Arybbas of Molossia - GHI 173 11 3-7), or else we might reasonably expect to have found it mentioned by Speusippus or somewhere else in the ancient record. The author of the pseudo-Demosthenic speech On Organization [24] for his own purposes contradicts the grant of citizenship to Perdiccas II in favour of one of ateleia, which makes no sense. The earliest reference we

possess to friendly relations between Athens and Macedon dates from the year 510 when, according to Herodotus [5.94.1], Amyntas I offered Hippias the region of Anthemus after his expulsion from Athens in that year. Amyntas' son and successor Alexander I is described as πρόξεινός te καὶ εὐεργέτης and also as φίλος of Athens by Herodotus [8.136.1; 143.3]. A. Gerolymatis ‘The proxenia of

116

Commentary

Alexandros I of Macedonia’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 11.5 (May1986) pp.75— 76 argues that in the period between the two Persian wars Athens granted to Alexander the title of proxenos and then at some time after 479 conferred on him Athenian citizenship. thy ἡμετέραν πόλεν: Athens. This shows that the writer was an Athenian, which is only implied in the opening sentence. Add to this the fact that he has a particular interest in Plato, as references in sections 2 and 12 testify, and we have the presumption that the writer of the letter, as the ancient tradition believed, was Speusippus of Athens, although his name nowhere appears in the manuscripts. ἀλλὰ ποιῆσαι Kai τοῖς ἀπὸ σοῦ γενομένοις ¢avepav: the assumption here is that Philip is already aware of the close relationship between Athens and Macedon and that it only remained for Isocrates to reinforce this fact for the edification of Philip’s descendants. That is the force of the xai. Sykutris (BS p.74 n.4] described this indirect rhetorical ploy which assumes knowledge on the part of the addressee as 'der echt attische Takt des Verfassers'. He compared the present instance with that at $12 where Philip is assumed to recognize the ψυχρότης of Theopompus. Ἡρακλῆς γὰρ..ουἱός: to prepare himself for the twelfth and most difficult of his labours, the journey to Hades to fetch Cerberus, Heracles requested initiation into the Mysteries of Demeter and Core at Eleusis [Diodorus 4.25.1; Plutarch Theseus 30.5]. The earliest mention of Heracles’ adoption by Pylius occurs in our letter. The story was probably known to Euripides, who has Heracles refer to his own initiation [Heracles 613; cf. Apollodorus 2.5.12; Plutarch Theseus, 33]. Xenophon [Hellenica 6.3.6] adds the information that at the initiation of Heracles the hierophant was Triptolemus. A poem thought to be by Pindar and known only from papyrus fragments may have contained an account of Heracles initiation, see H. Lloyd-Jones, ‘Heracles at Eleusis': P.Oxy. 2522 and P.S.I. 1391, Maia 19 (1967) 206-229. A Scholiast on Aristophanes Plutus 84 (cf. Diodorus 4.14.3), who reflects a rival tradition that Heracles was initiated into the

Lesser Mysteries at Agrae, explained that the Athenians chose the expedient of adoption because they wished to continue the custom of debarring foreigners from initiation while at the same time not wanting to offend Heracles, who had been a benefactor to them. It has been suggested that the Athenian tyrant Peisistratus, who traced his ancestry to the Neleids of Pylus, was responsible for assigning to his legendary kinsman Pylius the adoption of Heracles. See J. Boardman, 'Herakles, Peisistratos and Eleusis', Journal of Hellenic Studies 95 (1975) 6. The lexical correspondence between our letter and the account of Apollodor-

us 2.5.12 (ἦλθε πρὸς Εὔμολπον εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα βουλόμενος μνηθῆναι, ἦν δὲ οὐκ ἐξὸν ξένοις τότε μυεῖσθαι, ἐπειδήπερ θετὸς Πυλίου παῖς γενόμενος ἐμνυεῖτο) led Obens (p.32, followed by Kóhler p.117] to suspect that the author of our letter copied the passage from either Apollodorus or his source. While it must be acknowledged that the structure of the two passages is similar, both containing a parenthetical statement to explain why Heracles needed to be adopted by an Athenian and, in addition, the phrase θετὸς ITvAiov, this is not in itself sufficient

Commentary

117

to establish a direct relationship. The explanatory statement was necessary because initiation into the Mysteries had become non-exclusive by classical times

(see the following note ) and the phrase Πυλίου θετός used with the verb yiyvopiat is unexceptional, being the obvious construction. Compare the scholia on Homer /liad 8.368, which repeats verbatim the first part of Apollodorus as far as the word μυεῖσθαι, and then continues γίνεται Πυλίου θετὸς υἱός as in our letter. tO παλαιὸν: ‘in ancient times’. From Herodotus [8.65.4] we know that in the fifth century foreigners were no longer excluded from the Mysteries, which were open to all Greeks. According to Xenophon [Hellenica 6.3.6), Heracles and

the Dioscuri were the first foreigners to be initiated. See also R. Parker, Athenian religion: a history, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp. 97-100. 3. τοὺς λόγους...λέγειν: ‘to address his words to you’. See Commentary 82: οὔτε Πλάτωνος Ev toic πρὸς σὲ πεμφθεῖσι λόγοις ἀπέσχηται.

ἐπειδὴ τὸ γένος ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἀφ Ἡρακλέους: the family of Philip and his ancestors, hence the plural ὑμῶν. The dynasty which ruled over the Macedonian people claimed descent from the Heraclid kings of Peloponnesian Argos. At the time when the Heraclids returned to the Peloponnese it was Temenus, a direct descendant of Heracles, who received Argos as his portion of the conquered territory. Herodotus [8.137-139; 5.22) related the story of how Perdiccas, a descendant of this Temenus, was forced to flee Argos with his two brothers and became the founder of the Macedonian dynasty to which Philip belonged. Thucydides (2.99.3; 5.80.2) and Isocrates [Philip 32; 105] appear to accept the claim. See HM pp.3-14 on the Temenid royal house and its claim to Heraclid descent. Philip's familial relationship to Heracles establishes his credentials as a Greek and introduces the theme which is to become so important for Antipater's proofs of Philip's territorial claims. peta δὲ ταῦτα: ‘next’ or ‘secondly’, following on from πρῶτον μὲν. ὥσπερ ἀποῤῥήτους συμφορὰς αὐτῶν κατασεσιώπηκε: ‘he has remained completely silent about them as if they were disasters that must not be mentioned’. Presumably because people preferred to suppress the memory of defeats that brought shame and dishonour. The force of Speusippus’ rhetoric here is achieved by the contrast between the presumed glorious deeds of Philip and his ancestors and Isocrates’ total silence in regard to them.

᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ σοῦ προγόνου: ...Alexander I, son of Amyntas I, ruled Macedon from c.495 to c.452. For his dates see Hammond, HM pp.103-104. καὶ τῶν ἄλλων: other members of Philip's family who came after Alexander I and who performed great services on behalf of Hellas. Apart from Heracles and Alexander I, Amyntas III ts the only relative of Philip referred to by Speusippus in the letter, and we find him introduced at §10 in a quite different context. The reference to ‘others’ is best explained as an attempt by Speusippus to intensify Isocrates’ omission and therefore his culpability. ἐξαγγέλειν - κατασεσιώπηκε: note the force of the intensified verbs and the way they are balanced and contrasted within the sentence structure.

118

Commentary

Ξέρξου yap ... ἀπέκτεινεν: while it is true that Xerxes sent envoys throughout Greece to request earth and water, the tokens of submission, it was not these envoys that Alexander killed. Speusippus has confused Xerxes with Darius. See p.80-82 where the implication of this confusion for the assessment of Speusippus' rhetoric is discussed. The story of how Alexander, outraged at the indignities offered to Macedonian women of the royal family by the seven Persian envoys sent to receive his father's submission, had the envoys killed by youths disguised as women is told by Herodotus [5.17-21] and Justin [7.3]. However, the story presented by Herodotus and Justin is not the transparent example of Alexander's patriotism that Speusippus would have his reader believe it was. Herodotus' decision to include the incident was motivated in large part by his interest in differing ethnic customs and their bloody and dramatic consequences. See R. Scaife, ‘Alexander I in the histories of Herodotus’, Hermes v.117 1989, pp.132-3. The story (generally regarded as fictitious) may derive from a Macedonian source, perhaps even Alexander himself, who sought to enhance his status in Greek eyes after the defeat of Xerxes invasion, with which he, as a Persian subject, had fully cooperated. See, for example, Badian, p.34. It may well have been Alexander himself after he had become king and not his father who made his country's submission to Persia, sealing the relationship by the marriage of his sister Gygaea to the Persian nobleman Bubares. See M.R. Errington 'Alexander the Philhellene and Persia', in Ancient Macedonian studies in honor of Charles F. Edson, Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1981, pp.139-143. For a different view, compare E. Badian, ‘Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon: a study in some subtle silences’, in Greek Historiography, edited by S. Hornblower, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, pp.107-130, who argues that it was Amyntas I who approached Persia in about the year 511, offering the submission of his country in return for recognition as a native satrap. In Badian's view, the story was intended to conceal Amyntas' initiative in seeking to align himself with Persia. The fictitious Persian envoys had to be invented in order that the tokens of submission could be demanded, rather than offered willingly. The well-known marriage of Gygaea and Bubares was portrayed as an act necessitated by Alexander's impetuosity in slaughtering the envoys and not the pragmatic political alliance it really was. In order to maintain his thesis, Badian [pp.113, 119] must ignore the testimony of Herodotus 5.21, according to which the killing of the envoys, their total disappearance and the bribing of Bubares meant that Macedonian submission, although promised, was not made at that time. According to Herodotus 6.44.1 Macedonia became subject to Persia only in 492, that is during the reign of Alexander. ὕστερον δὲ πλησιαζόντων τῶν βαρβάρων: in the year 480, at the time of Xerxes’ invasion. Morel replaced the nonsensical στασιαζόντων of the manuscripts with πλησιαζόντων. In his edition, Sykutris wrote στρατευσάντων but later, according to Morel [pp.91—92], privately stated his agreement with πλησιαζόντων.

Commentary

119

ot Ἕλληνες ἐπὶ τὸ ὑμέτερον Ἡράκλειον ἀπήντησαν: It was at Tempe in 480 that the Greek forces initially took up positions with a view to retaining the support of the Thessalians and in order to forestall the southward march of Xerxes. Herodotus does not mention a temple of Heracles in the vicinity of Tempe. Schering [p.75] correctly locates the temple at Heracleum/Heracleia Platamona (the modern Pandeleimon) which, in the words of Stuart Rossiter in

the Blue Guide, ‘guards the narrows between Kato Olympos and the sea’. According to Ps. Scylax [Periplus 66], a contemporary of Speusippus, Heracleum was the first city in Macedonia north of the Peneus River. The evidence for the identification of Heracleum is summarised by Hammond, HM v.1, pp.135, 137. The manuscript reading ἡμέτερον was corrected to ὑμέτερον by Schering and accepted by Sykutris. ᾿Αλεξάνδρου δὲ τὴν ᾿Αλεύον καὶ Θετταλῶν προδοσίαν τοῖς Ἕλλησι μηνύσαντος ἀναζεύξαντες οἱ Ἕλληνες δι᾽ ᾿Αλέξανδρον ἐσώθησαν.: the Aleuadae were the leading family οὗ Thessalian Larissa. Like the Macedonian royal family, they claimed descent from Heracles. The ancestor of the family, Aleuas the Red, is a twilight figure, similar to the Spartan legislator Lycurgus. On the assumption that he was a real person, it has been conventional to date him to the seventh or early sixth century. The Aleuadae were well-known for their support of Persian intervention in Greece. See Herodotus 7.6.2; 7.172.1. The rhetorical significance of the reference here to the betrayal of Aleuas and the Thessalians is discussed on pp.78-79. Speusippus' words suggest that the leader of the family in 480 was a certain Aleuas, but this conflicts with the account of Herodotus, who named the brothers Thorax, Eurypylus and Thrasydaeus as the commanders of the Thessalian contingent in Xerxes' army. At 9.1.1 he numbered Thorax among the leaders of Thes-

saly (cf. τοῖσι δὲ Θεσσαλίης ἡγεομένοισι), and we know from the final epode of Pindar's tenth Pythian ode that the brothers were responsible for governing their city. The date of this ode is crucial for establishing when Thorax and his brothers ruled Larissa. As it happens, the year 498 is recorded by a scholiast, a date that probably derives from the List of Pythian Victors drawn up by Callisthenes of Olynthus and Aristotle and so must be considered a good source. In 498 Pindar would have been about twenty years of age, too young in the opinion of some commentators to have written such a mature work; but it seems to me we have little option other than to accept the scholion in this case. It is probably safe, then, to adopt the conventional view that the three brothers had ruled Larissa since about the year 500. See Bernert, “Thorax 5’ in RE Bd.6A.1, col. 337. Where, then, does Speusippus get the name Aleuas from, for it cannot refer to the founder of the family? It appears that the father of Thorax and his brothers bore the name Aleuas, for Herodotus (9.58.1; 7.130.3] calls the brothers παῖδες ᾿Αλεύεω, as does Pindar also [Pythian 10.5]. The expression παῖδες ᾿Αλεύεω might simply mean ‘descendants of Aleuas the Red’, that is, ᾿Αλευάδαι, were it not for a reference in line 34 of the sixteenth idyll of Theocritus, where an Aleuas is named among the Thessalian patrons of Simonides. A scholiast [16.34/35a Wendel] provides the additional information that this man was Aleuas son of Simus. It is

120

Commentary

likely that this Aleuas was the father of Thorax comment of A.S.F. Gow on 16.34—39 in his edition v.2 p.312] and J. Molyneux, Simonides. Wauconda, 1992, p.119. Speusippus either followed his source

and his brothers. See the of Theocritus (C.U.P. 1952, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci, (which I argue on p.79 was

Damastes) and this source recorded a tradition different to that in Herodotus, or

else his memory let him down and he confused the sons of Aleuas, the patron of Simonides, with Aleuas himself.

4. Ἡρόδοτον xai Δαμάστην: Speusippus' point was that there was no excuse for Isocrates not to have known of Alexander's benefactions because they had been popularized by Herodotus and Damastes. Herodotus' portrayal of Alexander is fairly subtle, the reader being left to draw the obvious conclusions from his actions, which, on my reading, suggest that he acted consistently in an opportunistic manner. The usual reason given for Herodotus' subtle almost ambiguous approach to Alexander is that the king and his successor Perdiccas II had been of use to Athens due to their control of ships' timber and supplies of pitch. There is evidence from the Histories that Herodotus was familiar with northern Greece. See for example 5.17.2 and the statement in the Suda s.v. Ἑλλάνικος (Adler epsilon 239) that he and Hellanicus visited the Macedonian court. Consequently Herodotus may have known Alexander personally and have felt disinclined for whatever reason to condemn his actions. Regarding Herodotus' subtle portrayal of Alexander and his general reluctance to give offence to the powerful see Badian, ‘Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon’ pp. 117ff. (cited above $3: Ξέρξου yap ... ἀπέκτεινεν). For honours conferred on Alexander by the Athenians, see Commentary $2: τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν οἰκειότητα. Only a few fragments survive from the works of Damastes of Sigeum [FGrH 5]. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus [Thucydides 5] he was born a little before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War and so wrote somewhat later than Herodotus, with whose great work he would have been familiar. He was said to have been a pupil of Hellanicus of Lesbos. Like Herodotus, he was interested in ethnography and in particular ethnographical geography. Dionysius of Halicarnassus distinguished writers (among whom he included Damastes), who wrote exclusively on Greek or barbarian history and who concentrated on a single people (ἔθνος) or state, from Herodotus, the scope of whose work comprised both Greek and barbarian history. The work referred to by Speusippus may be the Περὶ τῶν ev Ἑλλάδι γενομένων ascribed to Damastes in the Suda [s.v. Δαμάστης (Adler delta 41). See Schwartz in RE 4.2 col.2051 s.v. Damastes]. The title of the work was presumably taken from the proem and suggests that it was an Hellenica. See R.L. Fowler 'Herodotos and his contemporaries', Journal of Hellenic Studies 116 (1996) p.68 n.59. The mention of Heracleum and perhaps also the reference to Aleuas

(rather than to the sons of Aleuas) in $3 (with comment

above) may derive from this work. Bickermann [BS p.31] argued convincingly that Damastes was Speusippus' source for attributing the withdrawal of the Greeks from Tempe to the betrayal of the Thessalians. He reasoned that because this motive was not given by Herodotus but is present in Diodorus [11.2.6],

Commentary

121

whose account in Book 11 is generally agreed to derive from Ephorus, that Ephorus must have used Damastes. Without offering any counter argument, Jacoby expressed his disagreement with Bickermann's view. See FGrH Erster Teil Neudruck A, Nachtráge zum Kommentar p.542. τὸν £v ταῖς τέχναις ἀποφαινόμενον t £x τῆς Gov πρόγονον f) τοὺς εὔνους δεῖν πρός «σ᾽» εἶναι τοὺς ἀκροατάς: the mention of Heracles in 882--3 and the use of the word evvouc in the present passage led Sykutris in his apparatus (followed by Radermacher p.156) to postulate that Speusippus was

referring to Philip 77, where the word evvotav is used to refer to the legacy of Hellenic goodwill which Heracles left to his Heraclid descendants. The word εὔνοια is again used in a similar context at Philip 114. In view of this, Sykutris

suggested the following restoration for this corrupt passage: ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸν σὸν πρόγονον (Herculem dicit) ἤθους. If we were to accept Sykutris' suggestion the passage would read as follows: 'And yet it is right and proper that not only Herodotus and Damastes recall these services, but he also who by revealing the character of your ancestor (Heracles) in his speeches ensured that his audience would be well disposed towards you’. Allazzis wrote Ex τῆς τῶν προγόνων εὐεργεσίας εὔνους δεῖν ποιῆσαι τοὺς axpoatac. Radermacher (p.156) suggested ἐκ τῆς εὐλογίας τῶν προγόνων εὕνους δεῖν ποιεῖν τοὺς ἀκροατάς. The restorations of Hercher [p. LXXI) who, adopting the suggestion of J.H. Bremi, printed £x τοῦ τῶν προγόνων ἐπαίνου εὔνους δεῖν ποιῆσαι τοὺς ἀκροατάς and Mullach (p.83] who concurred with little variation ἐκ τοῦ τῶν προγόνων ἐγκωμίου εὔνους δεῖν ποιῆσαι τοὺς axpoatac should be ruled out because they introduce hiatus into the text. The phrase ἐν ταὶς τέχναις refers to Isocrates’ works in general, as it does at $10, and not exclusively to the Philip. See Commentary $10: ev ταῖς τέχναις. Sykutris’ adoption of the singular πρόγονον referring to Heracles in preference to the plural προγόνων in the other emendations quoted above, makes far more sense when ἐν ταῖς τέχναις is translated as I have suggested, because there are many references to Heracles in the writings of Isocrates and few references to Philip's other ancestors outside the Philip. thy £v Πλαταιαῖς ἐπὶ Μαρδονίου γενομένην: the incident referred to here is the secret midnight visit of Alexander I of Macedon to the Athenian lines on the eve of the Battle of Plataea. According to Herodotus [9.44—45; cf. Plutarch Aristides

15.2-5]

Alexander

informed

the Greeks

of Mardonius'

intention to

attack at dawn the following day and advised them that, in the event the attack did not eventuate, they should remain in position, as the food supplies of the Persians would run out after a few days. In return for the risk he had taken in warning them, Alexander called on the Greeks to liberate his country, in the event that they should be victorious. Far from being entirely creditable to Alexander, as Speusippus implied, Herodotus' account is consistent with his earlier portrayal of Alexander as opportunistic. The interpretation of the incident in the letter and in the Attic orators is discussed on pp.82-83.

τὰς ἑξῆς τοσαύτας τῶν σῶν προγόνων EvEepyeoias: the services performed by the successors of Alexander I down to the time of Philip II. See above 83: xai τῶν ἄλλων.

122

Commentary

περὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας βασιλείας: ‘of your kingdom’, meaning the Macedonian monarchy from its beginnings to the time of Philip. τῆς παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εὐνοίας: The meaning of evvoia, to quote J. de Romilly ['Eunoia in Isocrates or the political importance of creating good will’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 78 1968, p.92] ‘1s something more than good will: it means approval, sympathy and readiness to help’. Eunoia is incompatible with fear and signifies the willingness of the Greek states to follow the Macedonian lead.

ἦν δὲ καὶ «τὸ» τὰ παλαιὰ διαλεχθῆναι τῆς Ἰσοκράτους ἡλικίας, τὸ δ᾽ εὐρύθμως, ec φησιν αὐτός, ἀνθούσης τῆς διανοίας.: the reference is to Isocrates’ assertion that the effort required to compose a discourse on the impor-

tant subject of uniting Greece against the barbarians required ἀνδρὸς ἀνθοῦσαν τὴν ἀκμὴν ἔχοντος [Philip 10]. Isocrates’ intention was to magnify in the minds of his audience the difficulty of the task he had set himself and then to declare that, despite his advanced years, he would not be deterred from addressing Philip with a discourse that would attempt to equal or surpass his great Panegyricus. Speusippus ignored the obviously rhetorical nature of Isocrates' assertion and attempted to turn the orator's own words against him, in order to imply that the Philip was an inferior work. In what is the first instance of the ridicule that is a feature of the letter, Speusippus scoffed at his rival who, being ancient himself, should at the very least have cited the obvious historical examples from the ancient traditions. The more difficult task of producing a polished discourse, he asserted, was, as Isocrates himself acknowledged, quite beyond his declining abilities. Sykutris adopted Dobree’s emendment of εὐρύθμως in place of the unattested εὐρυθαλῶς present in Cod. Vatic. gr. 64. All other editors print εὐθαλῶς from the later Cod. Vatic. gr. 1461, which was presumably thought to go better with ἀνθούσης. In either case the meaning must be ‘a consummate work of art’. In Isocratean terms, the phrase τὸ δ᾽ εὐρύθμως (sc. διαλεχθῆναι) refers to the artistic elements which distinguish a work of art from something more prosaic. In the Evagoras [10] Isocrates used this word to describe the rhythm of poetry in contrast to oratory but in Against the Sophists [16—17] he declared that it was also the aim of the consummate orator. The composition of the finest rhetorical writing required that argument be presented by means of a brilliant style which employed poetical techniques and compelled the audience to applaud [see Panathenaicus 2]. The claim in the Philip [27] and in the Panathenaicus [3] that he

had given up these poetico-rhetorical devices is itself a rhetorical device to concentrate the reader's attention on the argument of the discourse. It also serves to emphasise Isocrates' age, which enables him to speak plainly with the wisdom of his years. τὰς διαβολὰς... τὰς τὸ πλεῖστον ὑπ᾽ Ὀλυνθίων γινομένας: Speusippus now moves on to the next stage of his argument, that 1s to the slanderous accusations against Philip mentioned earlier in §2. I see no compelling reason for accepting Sykutris' emendation γιγνομένας for γινομένας either here or at $5 $7 and $12. The simplified form γίνομαι was becoming more frequent in Attic

Commentary

123

Greek by Aristotle's time and we have no way of knowing whether the yıv- form found in the Vatican manuscript was the original spelling or whether it represents a correction to bring it into line with later usage. Bickermann [BS p. 29] inadvertently retained the simplified spelling when quoting $7, and Sykutris left γίνεται unchanged at $2. See also Commentary $5: περὶ yàp τῆς γινομένης Ὀλυνθίοις χώρας....

5. tig γὰρ ἂν οὕτως εὐήθη.. ἐξενεγκεῖν:

the statement that Philip was

waging war concurrently in Illyria and Thrace as well as against the Athenians and Lacedaemonians and other unspecified Greeks and barbarians is an obvious exaggeration introduced to sustain the argument from probability (see below) and makes no claim to historical accuracy. Having said this, it must be acknowledged that although Philip was not engaged in war against all these states at exactly the same time they could truthfully be said to be at war with him or to have actively opposed him between 352 and 348, the year in which he captured Olynthus. We know from Demosthenes [First Philippic 48; First Olynthiac 13; Third Olynthiac 4] that immediately prior to his first invasion of Chalcidice in 351 Philip had been campaigning in Thrace, where he laid siege to the fortress of Heraeum. A campaign in Illyria around this time is also possible, but apart from its general mention by Speusippus and Demosthenes, who also referred to campaigns in Paeonia and Epirus, nothing definite is known. See First Olynthiac 13 and the discussion of Griffith, HM pp.304—308. Speusippus was technically correct in regard to the Athenians, who had been at war with Philip over Amphipolis since 357. The curious reference to war between Philip and the Lacedaemonians may refer to the fact that the Spartans were allies of Phocis in the Third Sacred War. In 352 troops from Sparta, Athens and Achaea had reinforced their Phocian allies at Thermopylae and successfully opposed Philip's entry into Boeotia [Diodorus 16.37.3; 38.2]. To see as Kóhler [p.118] does in this very general statement, so obviously made with rhetorical and not exact historical considerations in mind, a chronological blunder similar to those found in other Socratic Letters and on this basis to call in question the authenticity of the letter is clearly unjustified. See BS p.25; Bertelli, Epistola p.291 n.53. Note the argument from probability (ex τοῦ εἰκότος), which takes the form of a rhetorical question and which was introduced in order to avoid closer examination by implying that Philip unwillingly went to war against Olynthus. We may compare Demosthenes use of the argument from εὐήθεια in Olynthiac | of 349 [15 - tig οὕτως εὐήθης &otiv...] and in his speech On the Chersonese of 341 [44 - ov yàp οὕτω γ᾽ εὐήθης ἐστὶν ovdeic...; also Philippic IV.15]. Speusippus attacked Isocrates for his failure to make use of the argument from probability, obvious though it was, to refute the charges of the Olynthian refugees. He then proceeded to compare this conventional defence with the novel defence based on historical traditions devised by Antipater of Magnesia. Antipater's clever defence of Philip's position was the result of unique research (cf.§5 μόνος καὶ πρῶτος ... εἴρηκε) which, in contrast to the excuses (προφάσεις) and empty sounding words (ὀνομάτων ψόφος) of Isocrates, provided effective arguments in support of

124

Commentary

Philip's rule. See Commentary $8: λόγοι δυνάμενοι τὴν σὴν ἀρχὴν ὠφελεῖν. Antipater’s approach served to sidestep the emotionally charged issue of war guilt for the destruction of Olynthus and Philip’s acquisition of other places by introducing the prior argument of legal title based on ancient traditions.

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων: τούτων refers to arguments such as the one just adduced, which were part of the stock in trade of orators. These kinds of argument are contrasted with those (ἃ δ᾽ ἐστιν...) of the historian Antipater of Magnesia which follow.

οὐκ £v ἐπιστολῆ πρὸς σὲ μηκυντέον: the reason why Speusippus stated that it was inappropriate to employ such arguments as these at length in a personal letter has been convincingly explained by Harder [pp.252-253]. According to Harder, propagandistic invective and arguments such as that from probability (the common property of every mediocre orator ) might be used to some effect in a public document, but their presence would have been totally out of place in a private letter (which he argued Speusippus' letter was) and indeed an insult to Philip. Note also that the statement of inappropriateness is a conventional rhetorical device facilitating a transition from one subject to another, in this case emphasizing the transition from the ordinary sort of arguments that could be expected to justify Philip's conquests to the brilliant and novel arguments developed by Antipater of Magnesia. For the convention see Isocrates Panathenaicus 33; Letter 11 13. à δ᾽ ἐστιν οὐκ ἐμποδὼν τοῖς τυχοῦσιν εἰπεῖν: ‘but those arguments (in your defence) which are not apparent (ἐμποδών) to the general run of men (τοῖς τυχοῦσιν, cf. Isocrates Letter 11.15) to speak’. The men in question are professional writers and speakers, and εἰπεῖν has something of the more technical sense applying to a rhetor or politician who aims to persuade an assembly by argument.

The word ἐμποδών is used in the sense of πρὸ ποδῶν or πρόχειρον, as Harder, correctly in my opinion, argued [p.251 following Boehnecke p.468 n.4; cf. LSJ s.v. ἐμποδών 3) against the translation of Sykutris (“Was aber Jedermann mitgeteilt werden darf’). The distinction made in the passage is between the sort of argument that is and is not obvious (ἐμποδών), and the calibre of the man who

employs conventional arguments and the man who employs skilful, unconventional arguments. The mythico-historical arguments which Antipater of Magnesia discovered through his research set him apart from 'the general run of men' who 'speak', amongst whom Speusippus primarily intended Isocrates. See Introduction p.20-22 where the significance of this passage to the question of whether the letter was intended to be a public or private document is discussed. συμφέρει δέ cov πυθέσθαι, ταῦτά μοι δοκῶ φράσειν: there appears to be a conscious reference here to Isocrates’ Philip 72: ὃν ἤδη μοι SoKac δη-

λώσειν᾽ οἶμαι γὰρ σοί te συμφέρειν ἀκοῦσαι περὶ αὐτῶν. Both passages deal with charges being made by Philip’s detractors (cf. σε διαβαλλόμενον -- 73). If there was a deliberate intention to refer to the Philip, we have here an instance of Speusippus using Isocrates’ own words against him. See also $11 (χαριέντω" ἀμύνασθαι) which quotes Philip 22; $4 (ἀνθούσης τῆς διανοίας in reference to Philip 10); and $14 (μαλακώτερον in reference to Philip 149). By means of this

Commentary

125

verbatim reference Speusippus appears to be drawing attention to the difference between his approach and that of Isocrates towards the criticisms being made by Philip’s enemies.

εὐαγγέλια: a reward for good tidings. The word is always written in the plural in Attic. It was customary to reward the bearer of good tidings. Diodorus [15.74.1] records that Dionysius I of Syracuse richly rewarded a man who hastened to tell him of the victory of his play at the Athenian Lenaea. It was important to be first with the good news. Speusippus claimed that he was the first to bring to Philip's attention the advantageous results (cf. συμφέρει δέ coi πυθέσθαι) of Antipater's research.

περὶ yàp τῆς γινομένης

Ὀλυνθίοις

χώρας, d; ἐστι τὸ παλαιὸν

Ἡρακλειδῶν: ‘the present Olynthian territory’. Sykutris’ emendation of yevop-

évnc in place of the manuscript reading γινομένης, which all previous editors retain, should be rejected. Sykutris gave no reason for his emendation; but we may suppose that he felt the aorist participle better expressed the historical reality at the time the letter was written (winter 343/2), Philip having totally destroyed the Olynthian state in 348. Consequently it was logical for him to assume that the original text must have referred to the ‘former’ Olynthian territory. There are many careless errors in Cod. Vatic. gr. 64 (as the apparatus criticus illustrates) and a mistake in copying a single letter would not be surprising; although it must be said that ‘t’ and ‘e’ would not easily be confused visually by a scribe nor is it likely that such an error could have resulted from a confusion of sounds, as the two words are phonetically so distinct. There is, therefore, truth in Bertelli's sharp criticism of Bickermann and Sykutris, who appear to have altered the received text in line with their interpretation of the letter. [See Bertelli, Epistola p.293]. On closer examination, however, it appears that there was no need to alter the present to the aorist participle. Speusippus was simply making a loose distinction between the ‘present’ Olynthian territory (περὶ yap τῆς γινομένης Ὀλυνθίοις χώρας), that is to say, the territory the Olynthians clearly occupied in recent times and to which as exiles they continued to lay claim (cf. $4: tac διαβολὰς... τὰς τὸ πλεῖστον ὑπ᾽ Ὀλυνθίων γινομένας), and the situation as it existed from ancient times (τὸ παλαιόν), when the land belonged to the Heraclids, who never relin-

quished their title to it.

ὁ φέρων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν μόνος καὶ πρῶτος ἀξιοπίστους μύθους εἴρηκε: the word μῦθος [5, 8] as used by Speusippus means ‘account’ or ‘narrative’, there being no intention to distinguish myth from history. For this reason Antipater's accounts are described as ‘reliable’ ( ἀξιοπίστους μύθους) and the First Sacred War (considered to be an historical event) is called a μῦθος at

$8. The phrase ai ‘EAAnvixai πράξεις [1, 12] encompasses tà παλαιά (4, 9; cf 2, 5 τὸ παλαιόν, referring to the time of Heracles], for Speusippus viewed events from heroic times up until his own day as a continuum, as he made clear at $9:

οὔτε τὰς ἀρχαίας πράξεις οὔτε τὰς ὑπὸ σοῦ νεωστὶ διαγωνισθείσας οὔτε τὰς τοῖς χρόνοις μεταξὺ γενομένας μεμύθευκε. The acquisitions of Alexander I in the territory of the Edones were therefore described in §7 as ‘recent’ (cf. tac

126

Commentary

ὑπογυίους ... κτήσεις) in order to distinguish them from the acquisitions of

Heracles. At $11 the word ἱστορία means the extent of Isocrates’ ‘knowledge’ of the full continuum of history from the heroic period onwards.

6. τὸν αὐτὸν γάρ enor τρόπον: this form of words, repeated at the beginning of §7, is used to emphasize that Antipater’s argument is based on precedent. Compare also σέ φησι μεμιμῆσθαι at 88. Νηλέα μὲν ἐν Μεσσήνῃ: Neleus the son of Poseidon and Tyro, was the founder of Messenian Pylus. According to Isocrates' version of the story in the Archidamus

[19; cf. Pausanias 2.18.7; /G14.1293.54-56], Neleus and his sons,

except for Nestor who was the youngest of the twelve sons, stole from Heracles the cattle of Geryon. In reprisal Heracles slew the malefactors in battle thus winning the country by the spear. Messene he entrusted to the safekeeping of Nestor, who had no part in his brothers' crime. The story forms part of a body of Dorian/Spartan tradition intended to support by quasi-legal argument their claims to the colonization of the Peloponnese and other places during the Archaic period. The rhetorical construction of this section is discussed on pp.69-73. An earlier version of the myth given by Homer [/liad 11.670—705; cf. Pausanias 2.2.2], in which Neleus survived the slaughter of Heracles, does not mention Heracles entrusting Pylos to his descendants. It is interesting to observe that there is an underlying paradox in Antipater's argument, which has not to my knowledge been noted previously. At the very time when Antipater was basing Philip's claims to territory on the precedent of the Heraclid title to Messenia, Philip himself was supporting with troops and money the very Messenians who were opposing Spartan attempts to reclaim their Heraclid inheritance. The case for Philips' actual intervention in the Peloponnese from at least 344 is argued by Griffith HM pp.474—484, but we know from Isocrates Philip 74 that it had been rumoured earlier.

Συλέα δὲ περὶ τὸν ᾿Αμφιπολιτικὸν τόπον: there were at least two major variations of the myth of Heracles and Syleus. According to one version, represented by Apollodorus [2.6.2—3] and Diodorus (4.31.4—7; cf. Tzetzes Chiliades 2.429—435], Heracles, during the time when he worked as a slave of the Lydian Queen Omphale in order to expiate the murder of Iphitus, slew Syleus, who used to seize passing strangers and compel them to work in his vineyard. This version of the myth omits Dicaeus, the brother of Syleus, and places events either in Lydia (Diodorus) or in Aulis (Apollodorus). A version of the myth more consonant with that we find in our letter is given by Conon Mythographus [FGrH 26 F1.17], a Greek writer from the time of Augustus who drew on Hellenistic sources. After he had killed Syleus, Heracles was taken in by Dicaeus and married Syleus' daughter Xenodice, who had been raised by her uncle. When later Heracles left to continue his adventures Xenodice pined away and died. The marriage may be significant, for it would establish Heracles’ right to the territory formerly belonging to Syleus. Furthermore, upon his departure it would be logical for Heracles to entrust the country to Dicaeus, as indeed we find in Speusippus' brief account. From his description of the brothers as sons of Poseidon

Commentary

127

living in the region of Pelion in Thessaly we may conclude that Conon located the story in northern Greece. Euripides wrote a satyr play called Syleus in which Hermes auctioned Heracles off to Syleus [see A. Nauck (B.Snell) Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964 FF 687—695; N. Pechstein Euripides Satyrographos: ein Kommentar zu den Euripideischen Satyrspielfragmenten, Stuttgart; Leipzig: Teubner, 1998 FF 686+1-695]. The play seems also to have included Syleus' daughter Xenodice, if, as seems likely, the words of Heracles in F 694 are addressed to her. See Kuhnert in W.H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und rómischen Mythologie v.4 col.1619. Xenodice's presence has also been restored in P.Oxy. 2455 fr. 8,103-107. See Pechstein op. cit. pp. 246-247. The comic details are not important for our purpose, but it is significant that Euripides made Heracles the slave of Syleus and not Omphale, for this sets the location of the myth in Greece and further ties it in with the story as given by Conon, who also set the myth in Greece and who likewise included the character of Xenodice. Confirmation of Speusippus' location of the myth in the general region of Amphipolis (Phyllis) comes from Herodotus 7.115.2, where the Συλέος πεδίον is situated between the towns of Argilus and Stagirus. Kuhnert [op. cit. v.4 col.1620] it should also be noted cited with approval the suggestion (first made by Boehnecke p.469 n.2) that Αὐλίδι in Apollodorus may be a mistake for Φυλλίδι. Heine's conjecture of Αὐλῶνι is also possible because, as we learn from Thucydides [4.101.1], the Aulon, a ravine near Bromiscus through which

Lake Bolbe drains to the sea (known today as the Stena Rendinas), was a night's march from Amphipolis. See Hammond HM v.1, pp.186, 196; RE 2,2 col. 2414 s.v. Aulon 8 and also Frazer's discussion in his edition of Apollodorus v.1 p.242 n.1, (LCL). It would seem, therefore, that the Syleus myth employed by Antipater of Magnesia to justify the Macedonian claim to Amphipolis was based on a version of the myth current in Athens in the fifth century and which we are able to reconstruct to some extent from the fragments of Euripides' Syleus (our earliest

literary source) and from Conon Mythographus. The Syleus myth is depicted on pottery dating from the end of the sixth century and appears to have been a popular theme during the fifth century. The figure of Xenodice is depicted on Attic vases which predate the Euripidean play. A catalogue of vases and illustrations depicting Syleus is provided by J. Oakley, 'Syleus' in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) v. 7-1, pp. 825-827; 7-2 p.581. See also Kuhnert op. cit. cols. 1621-1623 and Pechstein op. cit. pp.272-274. The Athenians also traced their legal title to the region of Amphipolis back to early times. Aeschines (On the Embassy 31] described how at Pella in 346 he had

defended Athens' claim by citing the story that Acamas, a son of Theseus, had received the district of Amphipolis as the dowry of his wife, the Thracian princess Phyllis. By predating the Macedonian claim to the district to the time of Heracles, the historian Antipater of Magnesia had indeed performed a valuable service for Philip. ὑβριστὰς ὄντας: Heracles was the great civilizer of the Greek world, a destroyer of evil rulers and other malefactors. Pindar (F 169a Race, LCL]

de-

128

Commentary

scribed Heracles’ deeds in driving the cattle of Geryon and taming the man-eating horses of Diomedes as examples of the triumph of justice over violence in the world. Heracles is depicted by Pindar as an instrument of Nomos, that is of “universal ‘order’ or ‘law’, which has become the generally accepted norm or way of life for both men and gods." [G.K. Galinsky, The Herakles theme, Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972 p.35]. Speusippus’ vocabulary was largely conventional, as the following references illustrate. Lysias began his Olympic Oration [1-2] with praise of Heracles who, after he had suppressed tyrants and violent and lawless men (cf. τυράννους ἔπαυσε Kai τοὺς ὑβρίζοντας ἐκώλυσεν), instituted the Olympic games out of his affection for Greece and a desire to bring Greeks together in friendship. It was because of his hatred of wickedness (μισοπόνηρος ὦν) that Heracles, in the words of Conon Mythographus [FGrH 26 F1.32.3] destroyed the savage and lawless (cf. ὠμοὺς xai rapανόμους) sons of Proteus, whom Speusippus described as τυράννους at $7 of the letter. In summarizing Heracles’ mission in the world, Pausanias [9.27.7] wrote

that he punished violent men and especially those impious towards the gods (cf. τιμωρούμενός τε ἄλλους ὑβρίζοντας καὶ μάλιστα ὅσοι θεῶν ἀσεβεῖς. δοθῆναι παρακαταθήκην φυλάττειν: ‘was given as a deposit to safeguard’. This longwinded expression emphasizes that Nestor was merely the custodian of Messene, which he held in trust for the descendants of Heracles. The notion of legal deposit (παρακαταθήκη) is discussed on pp.69-71. Sykutris [BS p.58] drew attention to the skilful variety of expression employed by our author in this section of the letter to convey the notion of ‘holding in trust’: rapκαταθέσθαι — τηρεῖν προστάξειεν — ἐγχειρίσειεν.

Δικαίῷ δὲ τῷ Συλέος ἀδελφῷ: the Dicaeus mentioned here as the brother of Syleus (they were both sons of Poseidon) may also be the eponym of the

Thracian town Dicaea, on whose coinage an archaic head of Heracles appears. See Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Δίκαια and commentary $6: Συλέα δὲ περὶ τὸν ᾿Αμφιπολιτικὸν τόπον. The earliest reference we possess to Dicaeus occurs in the letter of Speusippus.

mv Φυλλίδα χώραν: Phyllis, possibly named from the daughter of the Thracian king Sithon, is the region of Mt. Pangaeum south-east of the river Angites where the city of Amphipolis is situated (Herodotus 7.113.2 ; Hammond, HM

pp. 72-73).

Μεσσήνην μὲν ὕστερον κολλαῖς γενεαῖς Κρεσφόντην κομίσασθαι: after the Heraclids had reconquered the Peloponnese they divided the territory by drawing lots. Messene fell to Cresphontes, son of Aristomachus. See Isocrates Archidamus 20-22; Apollodorus 2.8.4; Polyaenus 1.6; Pausanias 2.18.7; 4.3.3—5.

Cresphontes was familiar to Athenian audiences from the play of that name by Euripides. The orator Aeschines may have acted in a revival of the play, if this is not to read too much into Demosthenes' remark in his speech On the Crown, 180. See also A. Harder, Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos, Leiden: Brill, 1985 p.47.

τὴν δ᾽ ᾿Αμφιπολῖτιν, Ἡρακλειδῶν οὖσαν, ᾿Αθηναίους καὶ Χαλκιδέας λαβεῖν.: in the year 437 the Athenians and their allies led by Hagnon, son

Commentary

129

of Nicias, as οἰκιστής drove out the Edonians (more correctly Hedonians) and established a colony on the Strymon River at Ennea Hodoi, which they renamed Amphipolis. See Thucydides 4.102.3. For the spelling Hedonians see D.M.Lewis, Towards an historian's text of Thucydides, Princeton dissertation, 1952 p.43, cited by S. Hornblower, A commentary on Thucydides v.1 Oxford: O.U.P., 1991 (1997) p.156. There were few Athenians among the settlers, the great majority coming from various cities in the region. Thucydides [4.106.1] says only that the non-Athenians came from a variety of places (τὸ δὲ πλέον ξύμμεικτον). Diodorus [12.32.3] is more precise in his statement that the non-Athenians came Ex τῶν

σύνεγγυς φρουρίων. The evidence of the present passage that Amphipolis was settled by Chalcidians and Athenians has generally been overlooked, and yet had we not had the specific testimony of Speusippus that Chalcidians comprised the bulk of the non-Athenian colonists in Amphipolis we should probably have arrived independently at the same conclusion. Certainly it is the case that Athens had far fewer tributary allies east of the Strymon than she did to the west in Chaicidice. R. Meiggs [The Athenian Empire, O.U.P., 1972 p.196] for example, concluded that "the great majority of the settlers were drawn from the allies and mainly, it seems, from the local allies of Chalcidice and Thrace". Meiggs refers to ‘a strong Argilian element’, but the key passage in Thucydides [4.103.3—4] does not state that the colonists from Argilus were more numerous than other elements, only that they were more disaffected. What Thucydides does say is that the disaffected colonists within Amphipolis, from Argilus or elsewhere, were persuaded either by Perdiccas or by the Chalcidians to support Brasidas; which itself confirms that a large segment of the original colonists in addition to those from Argilus came from the area west of the Strymon, that is from Chalcidice, and so were sympathetic to Perdiccas’ arguments and those of their contacts within the cities of Chalcidice (ἦσαν yàp ᾿Αργιλίων te Ev αὐτη οἰ κήτορες...καὶ GAAo1 oi ξυνέπρασσον ταῦτα, oi μὲν Περδίκκᾳ πειθόμενοι, ot δὲ XaAxiδεῦσιν). Further evidence that the Chalcidians predominated in Amphipolis comes from the use there of the Euboean Ionic dialect characteristic of the Euboean (particularly Chalcidian) colonies that dotted the Chalcidice. See GHI 150

and Tod's note on p. 150. Bickermann [BS p.14 n.2] misinterpreted the reference to the Chalcidians, believing that it referred to the period between 363 and 357 when, although nominally independent, Amphipolis was under Olynthian (i.e. Chalcidian) control.

Ἱπποκόωντα μὲν £v Σπάρτῃ τύραννον: Hippocoon expelled his brother Tyndareus, the legitimate king of Sparta. With the assistance of Cepheus of Tegea, Heracles defeated and killed Hippocoón together with his twelve sons and restored Tyndareus to the throne of Sparta. Among the crimes of Hippocoon and his sons were their unjust support for Neleus in his war with Heracles over Pylus and their arrogant slaying of Oeonus, son of Licymnius. See Isocrates Archidamus 18; Sosibius F13, FGrH 595; Apollodorus 2.7.3, 3.10.5; Diodorus 4.33.5; Pausanias 2.18.7, 3.1.4, 3.15.3—6; Strabo 10.2.24 = 461c; /G14.1293.58. The use of the word τύραννος is clearly pejorative, emphasizing that Hippocoon was

κακοῦργος and; παράνομος. See also Commentary $6: ὑβριστὰς ὄντας.

130

Commentary

AXkvovéa δ᾽ £v Παλλήνῃ: one of the giants, a ‘cowherd as big as a mountain’ [Pindar /sthmian 6.32) who fought against the Olympian gods in the gigantomachy. According to Apollodorus [1.6.1; cf. Diodorus 4.15.1, 5.71.4; Pausanias 8.29.1] some writers held that the giants were born at Phlegrae and others at Pallene. Apollodorus himself accepted the latter location for he had Heracles drag the wounded Alcyoneus ἔξω τῆς Παλλήνης in order to dispatch him, as the giant could not be killed on his native soil. Pindar [/sthmian 6.32—34; Nemean 1.67, cf. 4.27-30] placed these events at Phlegrae or on the plain of Phlegra, which Herodotus believed was the old name for Pallene [7.123.1; cf. the fourth century local historian Hegesippus of Mecyberna, FGrH 391 F1; Strabo 7.FF25, 27 Jones, LCL; Scholia Lycophron 115]. Other accounts placed the gigantomachy in Italy (see Diodorus 5.71.4; Strabo 5.4.4, 5.4.6, and in general Wasser in RE Suppl. 3 s.v. Giganten IV. Lokalisierung, cols. 661—666]. Theagenes, a writer whom Hammond

[HM 31-33] dates to the second century BCE,

described how Heracles, presumably on his return journey after capturing Troy [see Strabo 7.F25], had been horrified by the wanton violence and misanthropy of the Giants (cf. Ἡρακλέα ..tüv te ὕβριν αὐτῶν xai τὴν μισανθρωπίαν ἐκπλαγῆναι) and destroyed them in a great battle involving thunderbolts and hurricanes [FGrH 774 F11 = Stephanus Byzantinus s.v. Παλλήνη]. Alcyoneus was also associated with Corinth from where, according to the scholiast on Pindar Isthmian 6.47, he stole Helius’ sacred cattle. It has been suggested by Gruppe [cols. 921—922; 955] that the Alcyoneus legend may have been transplanted to Pallene by Corinthian colonists in Potidaea. Heracles was a popular subject on the comic stage and the Sicilian playwright Epicharmus, who was writing his comedies or farces around the turn of the sixth century, is known to have written an Alcyoneus. See G. Kaibel (ed.), Comicorum Graecorum

Fragmenta (Berlin:

Weidmann, 1958), v.1 p. 91. Σπάρτην μὲν Τυνδάρεω: After killing Hippocoön and his sons, Heracles handed over the kingdom of Sparta to Tyndareus to hold in trust (παρακαταθέσθαι)

for his descendants. The situation parallels exactly that of Messene in Speusippus' account. In both instances Heracles won a country by the spear in a just cause and so had the right to dispose of it. Although this scenario is well attested in the case of Messene, Speusippus is the earliest writer we know to have given this version of the myth in the case of Sparta. Later on it was related in greater detail by Diodorus (4.33.5; cf. Pausianias 2.18.7]. The earliest version of the myth to have survived is that of Isocrates in the Archidamus [18] according to which Lacedaemon belonged to the Heraclids by testamentary right (κατὰ δόσιν). In this version of the myth Tyndareus, not having an heir to succeed him, bequeathed his kingdom to Heracles. The Hellenistic writer Apollodorus (second century BCE) apparently knew nothing of the scenarios we find in Isocrates and in Speusippus/Diodorus. Finding himself without an heir after the Dioscuri had become gods, Tyndareus turned to his son-in-law Menelaus and gave the kingdom over to him (cf. tovto mv βασιλείαν παρέδωκεν, Apollodorus 3.11.2). See the Introduction pp.71-72 for a discussion of the rhetoric in this section of the letter.

Commentary

131

Ποτείδαιαν δὲ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην Παλλήνην Σιθῶνι τῷ Ποσειδῶνος παρακαταθέσθαι: We have Speusippus to thank for this piece of information which is not attested elsewhere. Sithon was a son of Poseidon and the nymph Ossa. Hegesippus of Mecyberna in Chalcidice [FGrH 391 F2.1], writing in the late fourth century BCE described him as tov Ὀδομάντων βασιλέα. See Hammond, HM p.31. According to Conon Mythographus (FGrH 26 F1.10] he was ὁ

τῆς Θραικίας χερρονήσου βασιλεύς, by which the Chalcidic peninsula is meant. From Conon we learn that he had by the nymph Mende a daughter named Pallene, for whom the peninsula of Pallene was named. Sithon himself was the eponym of Sithonia, the central peninsula of the Chalcidice. Potidaea had originally been a Corinthian colony founded about the year 600. Timotheus took the city for Athens in 364 or 363 and Athenian cleruchs were sent out in 361 [Diodorus 15.81.6; Isocrates Antidosis 108; Dinarchus Against Demosthenes 14; Tod 146]. In 356 the city surrendered to Philip after a siege and he presented it to the Olynthians in accordance with the terms of his treaty with them [Diodorus 16.8.5: Ποτίδαιαν ἐκπολιορκήσας: Demosthenes First Philippic 35; First Olynthiac 9; Second Olynthiac 7]. The Athenian cleruchs were well-treated by Philip and repatriated [Demosthenes Second Philippic 20 and Scholia; Diodorus 16.8.5]. Potidaea together with the rest of Pallene including Mende, Scione and Aphytis probably went over to Philip in 349 at the time of his campaign against Olynthus. The evidence for this is Philochorus F50 [FGrH 328] from which we learn that the Athenian general Charidemus accompanied by the Olynthians campaigned in Pallene and Bottiaea and laid waste the country. The implication must be that the cities on Pallene had already joined Philip. For the date of Charidemus' campaign see G.L. Cawkwell, ‘The defence of Olynthus' Classical Quarterly 12 (1962) pp.130-132. Hegesippus [On Halonnesus 28] bracketed Pallene together with Olynthus and Apollonia as places which Philip, having captured, regarded as his own property. In 343 Hegesippus [On Halonnesus 10] claimed that Philip had deprived the Athenian cleruchs at Potidaea of their possessions (tà κτήματα) contrary to pledges he had given, presumably prior to the final surrender of the city. It may be that Philip gave the Athenian settlers assurances that they could leave with their moveable property in return for their agreement to surrender the city. We recall that the citizens of Methone were permitted to depart with a single item of clothing after they surrendered their city [Diodorus 16.34.5). As with the Olynthian refugees later on, it is likely that the repatriated settlers from Potidaea formed a nucleus of resentment back in Athens which Philip's opponents there exploited. This would account for why Speusippus specifically targeted Potidaea together with Olynthus and Amphipolis. τοὺς ᾿Αριστοδήμου xaidas: the twin sons of Aristodemus, Eurysthenes and Procles. See Pausanias 3.1.5-6; Apollodorus 2.8.3. According to Herodotus [6.52.1-2] the Spartans of his day rejected the general poetic tradition reflected

by Speusippus and claimed that Aristodemus himself led the Dorian invasion together with his brothers Temenus and Cresphontes.

132

Commentary

£v ταῖς Ἡρακλειδῶν καθόδοις: the first use of the word κάθοδος in the context of the return of the Heraclids to the Peloponnese occurs in Herodotus [9.26.4] but the phrase ἣ Ἡρακλειδῶν κάθοδος, which was to become common in later writers such as Pausanias, Strabo and Apollodorus, occurs for the first time in our letter and is not attested again for another two hundred years [see Polybius 2.41.4). Virtually every instance of κάθοδος found in writers of the classical period occurs in the context of the return of political exiles (Peisistratus and Alcibiades are two examples) and consequently the word strongly connoted a legitimate association with the place to which the exile was returning. The children of Heracles were exiles in that they were expelled from the Peloponnese by Eurystheus after the death of their father. The idea of a right of return applied only to the descendants of Heracles (such as Philip of Macedon claimed to be) and not to the Dorians themselves, who possessed no independent claim. The Dorians, in fact, were held to be colonists in the Peloponnese, their mother city being Doris in central Greece. See Pindar /sthmian 7.12-15; Thucydides 3.92.3; Isocrates Archidamus 22 where Cresphontes is described as οἰκιστής of Messene; Plato Laws 736c and in general I. Malkin, Myrh and territory in the Spartan Mediterranean, Cambridge: C.U.P., 1994 pp. 15-45. Probably Speusippus' choice of the phrase was not original but simply echoed Spartan propaganda intended to legitimize their conquest of the Peloponnese. On those occasions when Isocrates referred to the Dorian invasion, he might choose to reflect the Spartan position, as at Panegyricus 61 where he employed the word κατέρχομαι, or simply use the idea of ‘settlement’ (xato.xiCw) by which he meant colonisation [Archidamus

16; cf Plato Laws 683d], or else depict a brutal expropriation of territory, as in the Panathenaicus [70, 177, 253-254]. In terms of his rhetorical purpose in this section of the letter, the phrase n Ἡρακλειδῶν κάθοδος (as also the word àxoλαβεῖν in the same sentence) was introduced to support the parallel Speusippus was drawing between the well accepted claims of the Heraclid/Spartans (that is, the legal precedent) and the more contentious claims being made by Philip. Sykutris [BS p.68] remarked that the plural καθόδοις sounded more solemn and poetic. However it is best explained by the requirement to avoid hiatus with

ἀπολαβεῖν. The plural form could be justified on the basis of the tripartite division of the Dorian conquerors, who claimed separate title to Sparta, Argos and Messene (see Isocrates Archidamus 17-19).

Παλλήνην

δ᾽ Ἐρετριᾶς

καὶ

Κορινθίους

καὶ

τοὺς

ἀκὸ

Τροίας

᾿Αχαιούς, Ἡρακλειδῶν οὖσαν, κατασχεῖν.: of the cities on Pallene, Mende was colonised from Eretria in Euboea probably in the eighth century [Thucydides 4.123.1; cf. Strabo 10.1.8; Harpocration s.v. Mévón]. Potidaea, as noted above,

was a Corinthian colony. According to Thucydides [4.120.1] the people of Scione claimed to be the descendants of Achaeans from Pellene in the Peloponnese who were driven ashore by a storm on their way back from Troy. Another version is given by Apollodorus (Epitome 6.15b Frazer; cf. Conon Mythographus FGrH 26 F1.13; Strabo 7, F25 Jones, LCL; Stephanus Byzantinus s.v. Σκιώνη] in which the people of Protesilaus (oi τοῦ Πρωτεσιλάου) were forced ashore at Pallene on their journey home to Achaea Pthiotis, the south-eastern part of Thessaly. This

Commentary

133

Protesilaus may have taken part in the earlier expedition led by Heracles against Troy, as the Homeric Protesilaus was the first of the Greeks to fall in the Trojan War. See S. Hornblower, A commentary on Thucydides v.2, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp.77, 377-378. Nothing is known concerning the origins of Aphytis, the only other city of any size on Pallene. Herodotus [7.123.1] appears to have confused the Sane in Pallene with the Sane in Acte. See Gomme's comment on Thucydides 4.109.3.

7. περὶ τὴν Topavaiav

τοὺς Πρωτίδας

τυράννους

Τμῶλον

καὶ Tn-

λέγονον: the city of Torone took its name from Torone the daughter of Proteus, or perhaps of Poseidon [see Stephanus Byzantinus s.v. Topóvn; cf. Lycophron 115-116; Nonnus Dionysiaca 21.287]. Two sons of Proteus, variously named Tmolus and Telegonus [Scholia Lycophron 115-124; Tzetzes Chiliades 2.320— 321] or Polygonus and Telegonus [Apollodorus 2.5.9], lived near Torone and used to accost strangers and challenge them to wrestle. Lycophron refers to the 'stranger-slaying wrestling’ of Proteus’ sons [cf. τέκνων ... Sevoxtóvoug πάλας: 124]. Many strangers were killed and presumably robbed in this way before Heracles, on his journey back to Mycenae with the belt of Hippolyte, fought and killed them both. Compare Conon Mythographus [FGrH 26 F1.32.3] who, although he did not name these sons of Proteus, described them as savage and lawless and for this reason killed by Heracles. According to Cosmas Hierosolymitanus commenting on a work of Gregory of Nazianzus [Migne PG 38 p.451], Heracles slew Proteus' sons because they attempted to steal from him the cattle of Geryon: Πρωτεὺς ...£ixe δὲ υἱοὺς M@Aov xai TnAéyovov. Τούτους λῃστὰς ὄντας ὁ Ἡρακλῆς ἐλθὼν ἀπέκτεινεν, ἀπεχθόμενος διὰ τοὺς l'npóvov βοῦς. It is interesting to find Tzetzes [Theogony 93] including Tmolus (or Molus, an ob-

vious corruption which appears also in the quotation from Cosmas) in his list of giants. The name itself suggests a Lydian association as Tmolus with his wife Omphale ruled over the kingdom of Lydia. The legend may reflect the displacement of a Lydian settlement at Torone. See Gruppe, col. 955, and on Tmolus see M. Mayer, Die Giganten und Titanen in der antiken Sage und Kunst, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1887 pp.248, 259-260. An inscription from the Villa Albani in Rome records that Heracles became master of Torone by killing

the sons of Proteus: Topóvav te εἷλε, Moavyovov xai Τηλέγονον ἀπέκτεινε [1G14.1293.85]. We may compare the case of Eryx, who was also slain by Heracles in a wrestling match and forfeited his kingdom [Diodorus 4.23.2-3; Herodotus 5.43].

Torone with its excellent harbour was the most important city on the peninsula of Sithone. For this reason and because of its proximity to Amphipolis it had been a prime object of Athenian interest for more than a century. In 364 or 363 the city was captured for Athens by Timotheus. We do not hear of Athenian cleruchs being posted to Torone at this time but there is likely to have been an Athenian garrison. Diodorus [16.53.2] recorded that prior to the siege of Olyn-

thus in 348 Torone went over to Philip χωρὶς κινδύνων διὰ προδοσίας. The specific mention of the city by Speusippus and his attempt to justify Philip's

134

Commentary

claim to it suggests that it formed part of the charges (διαβολαί) being made by Athenians against Philip at the time, although Demosthenes and Aeschines do not refer to it. The reason for the silence of the orators is not far to see. The mere mention of Torone which, as we have noted, went over to Philip without a fight, would only remind Athenians of their brutal treatment of that city (also Melos and Scione) during the Peloponnesian War. See Isocrates Panathenaicus 63—64; Panegyricus 100.

περὶ Außpaxiav Kieiönv καὶ τοὺς Κλείδου παῖδας: nothing certain is known of Heracles’ adventures in Ambracia and his slaying of Cleides and his sons. Citing as his sources Athanadas, the author of an Ambracian History, and Nicander of Colophon (Hellenistic writers probably of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE respectively), Antoninus Liberalis [4.6 Papathomopoulos = FGrH 303 F1.6] records the story of the judgment of Cragaleus in favour of Heracles' claim to be the tutelary deity of the Ambracian state over the claims of Apollo and Artemis. In support of his claim Heracles cites his victories in war over the powers of the region at the time he was driving the cattle of Geryon: Ὁ δὲ Ἡρακλῆς

ἀπεδείκνυεν ᾿Αμβρακίαν te καὶ τὴν σύμπασαν Ἥκειρον οὖσαν ἑαυτοῦ" πολεμἤσαντας γὰρ αὐτῷ Κελτοὺς καὶ Χάονας καὶ Θεσπρώτους, καὶ σύμπαντας Ἠπειρώτας ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κρατηθῆναι, ὅτε τὰς Γηρυόνου βοῦς συνελθόντες «ἐ-

BovAevov> ἀφελέσθαι. Gruppe [col. 951] may be right in inferring that Cleides was the ruler of Ambracia who, together with his sons, was killed by Heracles at this time. The Ambracian state being his by nght of conquest, Heracles (and Speusippus is once again our only source for this) placed it in trust for his descendants in the care of the otherwise unknown Ladices and Charates. The inclusion of Ambracia among the places justly claimed by Philip is of particular interest. Unlike Olynthus, Amphipolis, Potidaea and the cities of Pallene and Torone which were already in Macedonian hands when Speusippus wrote, Ambracia remained autonomous until after the Battle of Chaeronea when it received a Macedonian garrison [Diodorus 17.3.3]. In the year 343/2, however, there was a clear perception that its independent existence was under threat as a result of Philip's campaign in Epirus to settle affairs there in preparation for a lengthy Thracian campaign which, as it turned out, was to last almost three years.

Hegesippus wrote at this time of Philip marching against Ambracia [ἐπὶ δ᾽ ᾿Αμβρακίαν στρατεύεται: On Halonnesus, 32) and in the following year Demosthenes [Third Philippic 27, 34, 72] lauded his own role in deterring Philip from attacking Ambracia. Athens was sufficiently alarmed to send an expedition to Acarnania [see Pseudo-Demosthenes, Against Olympiodorus 24], but the fact of the matter is that no sure evidence exists that Philip ever engaged the forces of Ambracia or invested the city or even that he had ever intended to do so. That is not to say that he would not have made the attempt had he found sufficient support from dissident elements within the city. But this does not appear to have been the case. Unlike the small unfortified Greek cities of Cassopia which Philip captured at this time, Ambracia commanded a strong position in a loop of the Arachthus River, which secured its communications with the Ambracian Gulf. With the support of Corinth and other Corinthian colonies in the region, Ambra-

Commentary

135

cia was no ‘push over’ for Philip. There was, however, a clear perception that Philip coveted Ambracia and that was all the motivation Speusippus required to include in his letter Philip’s mythico-historical claim to the city. Bickermann, who believed that the letter of Speusippus was a political tract written to influence public opinion, argued that the reference to Ambracia provided evidence for dating the letter to winter 343/2, when Philip was still operating in Epirus. According to Bickermann [BS pp.29-30, 45], Speusippus was in fact attempting to justify in advance the impending annexation of Ambracia but “*..the attempt of the descendant to reclaim the entrusted inheritance foundered on the diplomatic and military intervention of Athens”. In an attempt to undermine Bickermann’s chronology, Bertelli (Epistola pp.281-284] criticised the logic of his argument by showing that the mention of Ambracia was still relevant to the debate in Athens more than a year later, as references in the Third and Fourth Philippics of Demosthenes testify. See Introduction p.28. ᾿Αριστομάχῳ μὲν τῷ Σιθῶνος τὴν Topovaíav τηρεῖν προστάξειεν,

ἣν Χαλκιδεῖς ὑμετέραν οὖσαν κατῴκισαν: Aristomachus son of Sithon is known only from Speusippus’ letter. The name Aristomachus is, however, found in connection with Heracles and Macedon, for Theopompus [F.393 FGrH115] mentioned Aristomachus son of Temenos, who was the great grandson of Heracles and an ancestor of Caranus, the founder of the Macedonian royal house. The significance, if any, of this coincidence of names is doubtful. Λαδίκῃ «δὲ» καὶ Χαράττῃ «τὴν» ᾿Αμβρακικὴν χώραν ἐγχειρίσειεν: See above 87: περὶ ᾿Αμβρακίαν Κλείδην καὶ τοὺς Κλείδου παῖδας. τὰς ὑπογνίους ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τῆς Ἡδωνῶν χώρας κτήσεις: Alexander's conquest was ‘recent’ in the sense that it did not take place in Heracles’ time. Confirmation of the claim here comes from Thucydides 2.99.4, where it is recorded that the Edonians were expelled by Alexander. The reference at Herodotus 9.89.4 to Thracian attacks against the retreating Persian army may also encompass Macedonian operations. The conquests of Alexander I in the western Strymon basin took place after the Persian retreat in 479. Hammond [HM p.102] dates the capture of Ennea Hodoi (later settled by the Athenians under the name Amphipolis) between 478 and the Attic year 476/5, when Eion fell to Cimon. In his letter to the Athenians of the year 340 Philip argued the justice of his claim to Amphipolis on the grounds that his ancestor Alexander had captured the place from the Persians: ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ προγόνου πρώτου κατασχόντος TOV τόπον,

ὅθεν καὶ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων Μήδων ἀπαρχὴν ἀνδριάντα χρουσοῦν ἀνέστησεν εἰς Δελφούς [Pseudo Demosthenes 12.21; cf. Demosthenes 200, where Perdiccas is confused with Alexander). Philip's den statue dedicated by Alexander at Delphi is confirmed by who also stated that Alexander controlled mines near Lake duced a talent of silver daily (5.17.2].

Against Aristocrates reference to the golHerodotus [8.121.2], Prasias, which pro-

8. προφάσεις Ἰσοκράτους: these ‘excuses’ are enumerated at $14.

λόγοι δυνάμενοι τὴν σὴν ἀρχὴν ὠφελεῖν: "strong arguments in support of your rule (sc. over the states you have acquired by conquest)”. This refers to

136

Commentary

Philip's claim to legitimate rule over the places in northern Greece and Epirus for which Antipater provided justification in $8 5-7 of the letter. At $12 ἀρχή refers to Philip's sovereignty over Macedonia.

περὶ τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυονικῶν πραγμάτων δῆλος εἶ σκουδάζων: Philip's interest in the affairs of the Delphic Amphictyony date from the year 352, when his forces opposed those of the Phocian Onomarchus on the Crocus Plain in Thessaly. On that occasion Philip ordered his soldiers to wear crowns of laurel leaves, to signify that they were the army of Apollo there to avenge the god on the sacrilegious Phocians for their desecration of his shrine at Delphi (Justin 8.2.3]. After his victory Philip meted out divine justice to the six thousand fallen on the Phocian side by casting their polluted bodies into the sea, thereby denying them burial rites [Diodorus 16.35.6]. I strongly disagree with the view that interprets this somewhat ambiguous passage in Diodorus to mean that Philip drowned the three-thousand prisoners he had captured. What the Greek text of Diodorus intended, in my opinion, is that the dead body of Onomarchus was crucified and the bodies of the other dead (τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους) were thrown into the sea. Later, as part of his settlement of the Third Sacred War, Philip was content to come to terms with the Phocian leaders and their mercenaries. Only the arms of these men were symbolically hurled from the cliffs above Delphi - Diodorus 16.60.3; cf. Aeschines, On the embassy 142-143. See Griffith HM pp.276-277 and for the opposing view see J. Buckler, Philip II and the sacred war, Leiden: Brill, 1989 pp. 76-77; ‘Philip II's designs on Greece’, in Transitions to empire, (eds.R. Wallace and E. Harris), Norman & London: U.Oklahoma Press,1996 pp. 81—82. Philip's promotion of himself as the champion of Apollo and the Delphic Amphictyony reached its zenith in 346 when his direct intervention in the Third Sacred War forced the capitulation of Phocis. In the words of Diodorus, Philip gained a ‘reputation for piety’ (cf. δόξαν εὐσεβείας — 16.60.4, 64.3) among the Greeks and was rewarded by a decree of the Amphictyonic Council admitting him and his descendants to the Amphictyony and conferring on them the two votes forfeited by the Phocians. Some have thought that Philip's keen interest in Amphictyonic matters, to which Speusippus alludes here, stemmed not solely from pragmatic considerations but from a particular reverence for the cult of Apollo. See, for example, Buckler, op. cit. 1989 p.5 and Hammond, Philip p.95. The evidence for this, however, is weak. The proponents of this position adduce two inscriptions in support of their case. The first is a decree of the Amphipolitan democracy dating from 357, just after Philip's capture of the city, in which a tithe of confiscated property is dedicated to Apollo and Strymon [Tod 150, 1.15]. The suggestion that Philip must have influenced the dedication to Apollo completely ignores the fact that Apollo was one of the tutelary deities of Amphipolis, whose image is found on the obverse of a magnificent series of coins produced by the city after 424, at which time it gained its independence from Athens. See C. Seltman, Greek Coins 2nd ed, London: Methuen, 1955, p.115-116. The second is an inscription [Tod 158] of the year 356 that records an alliance between Philip and the Chalcidians, for which the sanction of Delphic Apollo was obtained. The assumption generally

Commentary

137

made that the oracle of Apollo was consulted at Philip’s instigation has been convincingly refuted by Griffith [HM, pp.244—246], who argues that it was a delaying tactic on the part of the Olynthians at a time when Philip was being pressed hard by his enemies and so was unlikely to protract negotiations. In all probability the truth of the matter will never be known. We can say, however, that both parties to the alliance were content to have Delphic Apollo as guarantor — Philip because it neutralized the Chalcidian Confederacy at a time of crisis in Macedonian affairs, and the Chalcidians because it promised to strengthen their position through the acquisition of the territory of Anthemus (and Potidaea also if they should detach it from Athens). Demosthenes’ suspicions after the settlement of 346 that the Delphian priestess favoured Philip [see Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon 130; Plutarch, Demosthenes 20.1] were no doubt justified, for Delphi had always been subject to political influence, but this is no evidence for any special reverence Philip may have had towards Apollo of Delphi. tiva tpónzov πρῶτον oi ᾿Αμφικτύονες συνέστησαν: the Delphic Amphictyony or, more precisely, the Pylaean-Delphic Amphictyony was an organization of Greek states which cooperated to administer the temples of Demeter at Anthela near Thermopylae and of Apollo at Delphi. The traditions concerning the foundation of the Amphictyony are confused. According to one tradition, the eponymous hero Amphictyon, son of Deucalion, and king in Thermopylae was responsible for the first Amphictyonic union. The third century BCE author of the Parian Marble (whose source Jacoby believed was Ephorus) dated this event to

1258 years before his time. See the Parian Marble ep.5; F. Jacoby, Das Marmor Parium, Berlin, 1904, reprint. Chicago: Ares, 1980 pp.xiv-xvi. Cf. Theopompus F63 FGrH 115; Pausanias 10.8.1. A second tradition attributed the establishment of the Amphictyony to Acrisius, son of Abas, King of Argos and grandfather of Perseus [Schol. Euripides Orestes, 1094; Strabo 9.3.7). Androtion [F58 FGrH 324] and Anaximenes of Lampsacus [F2 FGrH 72) derived the name not from King Amphictyon but from a word meaning 'neighbouring peoples' who lived around the sanctuary, but we do not know to whom these authors assigned the foundation of the Amphictyony. Modern theories view the Pylaean Amphictyony centred on Anthela as the earliest union, which later came to include Delphi. Most ancient writers, however, do not record this supposed earlier development and place the first meeting of the Amphictyony at Delphi: thus Aeschines [On the Embassy 114—5], Androtion, Anaximenes, and Speusippus in our letter. Theopompus' position is unclear, for Harpocration, who is the source for F63, merely cited the Chian writer as evidence for the derivation of the word “᾿Αμφικτύονες᾽, without stating where Amphictyon gathered the ethne together. Any attempt to date the foundation of the Amphictyony must remain doubtful. All that can be said is that the foundation took place at some time prior to the First Sacred War, which is generally placed around the beginning of the sixth century. See G. Forrest “The First Sacred War’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 80 (1956), 33-53. H.W.Parke and D.E.W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, Oxford: Blackwell, 1956, v.I p.101—103, make a case for a date in the middle of the seventh century. À useful discussion of the sources relating to the

138

Commentary

Pylaean-Delphic Amphictyony is that of Cauer, 'Amphiktyonia' in RE 1,2 cols. 1927-1935. Φλεγύαι μὲν vx ᾿Απόλλωνος: there were various traditions relating to the Phlegyae, some placing them in Thessaly or at Gyrton in Magnesia [Strabo 9.5.21] (the country of our historian Antipater) and others in Boeotia, perhaps at Orchomenus or at Panopeus in Phocis [Pausanias 9.36.2-3; 10.4.1; 10.7.1]. See

in general S. Eitrem 'Phlegyas' in RE 20,1 cols. 266-269 and the comment of R. Janko on /liad 13.301—3 in The Iliad:

a commentary (ed. Kirk), C.U.P., 1992. In

the Homeric Hymn to Apollo [278—279] we read that Apollo travelled ἐς Φλεγύων ἀνδρῶν πόλιν ὑβριστάων, oí Διὸς οὐκ ἀλέγοντες. Pausanias [2.26.3] described them as πολεμικώτατος τῶν τότε and the tradition is consistent in portraying them as a belligerent and godless race whose name was synonymous with violence. In Phocis the word φλεγυᾶν signified ὑβρίζειν [Schol. /liad 13.302, cf. Hesychius who glosses φλεγυρά as ὑβριστική]. The most notorious of their exploits was the sacking of Apollo’s temple at Delphi, in retaliation for which the god completely destroyed the Phlegyan race with thunderbolts, earthquakes and disease [Ephorus F93 FGrH 70; Pausanias 9.36.2-3]. The justice meted out to the Phlegyae undoubtedly provided a precedent for those who advocated the destruction of Phocis in 346. Speusippus is the only source for the information that the Phlegyae had once been Amphictyons, but see Introduction pp.73-77.

Δρύοπες δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους: like the Phlegyae, the Dryopes possessed a reputation for lawlessness. See Pherecydes F19 FGrH 3. According to Herodotus [8.43] the Dryopes were living in the region of Doris at the time when they were driven out by Heracles and the Malians. The nature of their crime is unclear, but from Diodorus 4.37.1 it appears that they had committed some outrage against

the temple at Delphi (cf. εἰς τὸ Ev Δελφοῖς ἱερὸν rapavevounke£vaı). Apollodorus [2.7.7] makes the curious statement that Heracles slew the Dryopian king Laogoras together with his children as he was banqueting in the sacred temple precinct of Apollo (cf. ἐν ᾿Απόλλωνος τεμένει Saivopevov). We may deduce from this that Laogoras had invaded the temple precinct and was caught feasting there by Heracles; a gross defilement of the sacred temenos. Compare also Heracles' slaying of Cycnus, whom the hero found together with his father Ares in the temenos of Apollo. Hesiod, Shield of Heracles, 58-59. Pausanias [4.34.9— 11] placed the Dryopian defeat in the reign of Phylas, three generations after Dryops. Heracles presented the defeated Dryopes to Apollo at Delphi, who instructed the hero to transfer them to Asine in the Peloponnese. Speusippus' claim that the Dryopes had been Amphictyons is not otherwise confirmed, but see Introduction pp.73-77. In general see J. Miller 'Dryopes' in RE 5,2 cols. 17471749. Fuscagni [p.80] misunderstands Antipater's argument when she states that Speusippus intended here to justify Philip's assumption of the Phocian votes based on an inheritance from Heracles following his defeat of the Dryopes.

Κρισαῖοι δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων ἀνῃρέθησαν.: Crisa was a Phocian city situated on the coast of the Corinthian Gulf at the head of the fertile plain that stretches to below the site of Delphi. Aeschines reference to the Cirrhaeans rather than the Crisaeans has resulted in an amount of confusion. Whether Crisa was the

Commentary

139

ancient name of the city before its destruction in 591 as Pausanias [10.37.5] suggested or whether they were different cities (Cirrha being destroyed by Crisa) as Strabo stated [9.3.4] is unclear. See Pieske ‘Krisa und Kirrha’ in RE 11,2 cols 1887-1889 for a discussion of various theories. Aeschines, the main source for the First Sacred War, described the Cirrhaeans and the Cragalidae (a neighbouring tribe in Phocis), as the most lawless tribes (cf. γένη παρανομώτατα) who repeatedly pillaged the Delphic shrine and committed offences against the Amphictyons. See Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon 107-112; Harpocration s.v. Κραγαλλίδαι, citing Didymus and Xenagoras. In accordance with an oracle of Apollo, the Amphictyons enslaved the god's enemies after destroying their cities and dedicated the Crisaean Plain to Apollo, Artemis, Leto and Athena Pronaea with the stipulation that it never be cultivated. The First Sacred War, which Aeschines dated to Solon's time, is generally accepted as an historical event, despite Demosthenes’ attempt in his speech On the Crown [149] to depreciate its historical status. See also the accounts of Strabo [9.3.4] and Pausanias

[10.3.5-8]. The theory of

Robertson

[see bibliography]

that the war was a fourth-century invention, the creation of Antipater of Magnesia and Callisthenes of Olynthus to suit the political ends of Philip, has not found acceptance and for good reason. A reference by Isocrates in the year 371 [Plataicus 31] to the return of the Crisaean Plain to pasturage proves that the tradition of the First Sacred War was current well before the 340's. In a recent analysis of the tradition J. Davies concludes that 'the idea of a Sacred War in the early sixth century remains little more than a plausible hypothesis’ {“The tradition about the First Sacred War', in Greek Historiography, ed. S. Hornblower, Oxford: O.U.P., 1994 pp.193-212]. οὗτοι γὰρ πάντες ᾿Αμφικτύονες γενόμενοι τῶν ψήφων ἀφῃρέθησαν,

ἕτεροι δὲ τὰς τούτων ψήφους λαβόντες τῆς τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων συντελείας μετέσχον.: the claim that the Phlegyae, Dryopes and Crisaeans voted in the Amphictyony in their own right and that their votes were transferred to others after their expulsion is not supported by any evidence that we can point to today. Certainly Speusippus made no attempt to name any state which took over a vote forfeited by another. Had he known of one, we may assume that he would have provided it. However, see my argument on pp.74—76, where I discuss the evidence that these tribes were members of the Amphictyony with voting rights. ὧν ἐνίους: referring to ἕτεροι δὲ. The expression is intentionally vague. σέ φησι μεμιμῆσθαι: note the language of legal precedent, by which Philip

is shown to have followed earlier established practice. See commentary $6: τὸν αὐτὸν γάρ φησι τρόπον.

λαβεῖν ἀθλον Πυθίοις τῆς εἰς Δελφοὺς στρατείας παρὰ τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων τὰς δύο Φωκέων ψήφους.: following the capitulation of Phocis in 346 a meeting of the Amphictyonic Council was held at which the two seats of the hieromnemones, which had up to that time belonged to the Phocian people, were transferred to Philip and his descendants, as Speusippus’ language (cf. o€...AaBetv) accurately implies, (cf. Diodorus 16.60.1; Tod 172 11.23-24, 45—46, 67-68] and not, as Demosthenes [On the Embassy 327; cf. Pausanias, 10.3.3;10.8.2] stated,

140

Commentary

to the barbarian Macedones. But see also Hammond [Philip pp. 94, 206 n.12] who makes, it seems to me, an awkward distinction between Macedonian membership of the Amphictyony and the appointment of the hieromnemones by Philip as religious head of the Macedonian state. Ellis (Philip p.121] argues that Philip had a claim to the Phocian votes '...since technically Phokis was his by surrender, and he now will have officially handed it over to the Amphiktyons.' It is noteworthy, however, that not even Speusippus, who in §§5-7 of the letter supported Heracles' righteous acquisition of territory by conquest, thought to employ the same argument in regard to Phocis. It may be that Philip's admission to the Amphictyony was celebrated publicly in autumn 346 at the Pythian Games, over which he received the honour of presiding, but that the two Phocian votes should be represented as the victor's prize at those Games is pure blandishment on the part of Speusippus. Philip would have been delighted by the allusion to himself as a Pythian victor to judge by the prominence on his coinage of sporting feats such as the victory of his racehorse at Olympia in 356 or the depiction on his famous Philippeioi of a two-horse racing-chariot. Antipater and Speusippus knew their man, as did Demosthenes when he wrote that what Philip desired most was the glory (δόξα) of settling the Sacred War by himself and presiding at the Pythian Games by himself [On the Peace 22].

9. ὧν ὁ tà παλαιὰ καινῶς καὶ cà καινὰ πκαλαιῶς ἐπαγγελλόμενος διδάσκειν: the quotation is from Panegyricus 8: τά τε παλαιὰ καινῶς διελθεῖν καὶ περὶ τῶν νεωστὶ γεγενημένων ἀρχαίως εἰπεῖν. Isocrates was referring to the ability of the consummate rhetor to present his subject matter in novel and interesting ways. The great deeds of the past were so well known that it was a challenge to the rhetor’s skill to make them interesting and relevant to the present, while in regard to recent events the challenge was to impart to them the dignity attaching to the illustrious deeds of former times. Plato [Phaedrus 267AB] attributed the original claim to the sophists Tisias and Gorgias. The point of Speusippus' ridicule is that Isocrates could not even produce examples from history on which to apply the skill he professed to be able to teach others.

τὰς ὑπὸ σοῦ νεωστὶ διαγωνισθείσας: the reference here is to Philip's recent settlement of the Sacred War, which Speusippus has just compared to a victory at the Pythian Games, for which the prize was the two Phocian votes. As Philip had not intervened in the Sacred War when Isocrates published the Philip (see $850 and 74 of that speech) it is not surprising that Isocrates knew nothing of

these events. καί tot δοκεῖ tac μὲν οὐκ ἀκηκοέναι, τὰς δ᾽ οὐκ εἰδέναι, τῶν δ᾽ ἐπιλελῆσθαι: Sykutris [BS p.73 n.1] compared the expression here with Philip 42: εἰ μήτ᾽ αὐτοὶ τυγχάνουσιν εἰδότες μήτ᾽ ἑτέρων ἀκηκόασιν. ὁ σοφιστής: the word is used pejoratively both here and at §11, where the implication is that all sophists are detestable (βδελυρός). Speusippus' intention was to exploit both the popular and the Platonic prejudice against the sophists. Isocrates anticipated this form of attack, for he drew Philip's attention to it at $29

Commentary

141

of the Philip, where he spoke of tac μὲν δυσχερείας τὰς περὶ τοὺς σοφιστὰς. The reason for the popular hostility towards the sophists is clearly expressed by the speaker in Demosthenes’ speech against Lacritus, a former pupil of Isocrates. Lakritus is described as δεινός or ‘clever’, in the bad sense of that word, because his rhetorical training has enabled him to make use of tricks (σοφίσματα, 2; 22) to defraud the plaintiffs of their money. He displays a supercilious attitude (cf.

ἀνθρώπους καταφρονοῦντας, 40) and an amoral disposition to achieve his unjust ends through his command of language (cf. τῷ λόγῳ πιστεύοντας, 40). In Platonic terms such sophistry was an abuse of argument, which should ideally serve not to make the weaker case appear the stronger but to illuminate the truth in any situation. This accounts in part for why Speusippus called Isocrates 'the sophist', for he implied by it that only through the use of perverse sophistic logic or trickery could Alcibiades and Dionysius I of Syracuse (the most impious and wicked of men - cf. τοὺς ἀσεβεστάτους avd τῶν κακίστων, 10) be held up as examples worthy of imitation. Plato also sought to demean the sophists by portraying them as merchants or shopkeepers who offered for sale the goods that nourish the soul. See Protagoras 313c and the barrage of derisory neologisms such as ψυχεμπορική, μαθηματοκωλικός and ἀρετῆς πωλητικός employed in the Sophist 224a—e. We see this aspect of Platonic invective against the sophists later at $13, where Isocrates is said to have attempted to sell (ἐπώλει) his Philip

to the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius. See also the comment on $11: oi δὲ χειρωθέντες TOV αὐτῷ πλησιαζόντων, where the conventional attack against sophists as predators of wealthy young men is subtly evoked. Sykutris [BS p.61 n.3] noted the use of the word σοφία at $11, which he felt reflected Plato’s ironic use of the

word in attacking sophists. The word σοφιστής could also be a term of political invective, as we see from Demosthenes 19.246, 250; 18.276. By way of contrast, Isocrates was proud to call himself a sophist. Like Protagoras of Abdera before him, he placed himself in the tradition of the great teachers of the Hellenic tradition such as Solon and Homer (Antidosis 235, 313; Plato Protagoras 316d-317b]. Not all sophists were alike, of course, and at Panathenaicus 18 we find Isocrates referring disparagingly to some of his rival teachers as ἀγελαῖοι σοφισταί, by which he implied that they did not stand out from the common herd of teachers and had nothing original to contribute. τὴν μὲν ᾿Αλκιβιάδου φυγὴν καὶ κάθοδον: ...Shortly before the departure of the Athenian fleet for Sicily in 415, Alcibiades and others were accused in the Assembly of participating in mock performances of the mysteries of Demeter and Kore in private houses. When he was recalled from Sicily to stand trial for this act of impiety Alcibiades fled to Sparta and in his absence was condemned to death. His advice to the Spartans at this time, especially in regard to the sending of Gylippus to Sicily and the fortification of Decelea, did much to injure Athens and contributed to her final defeat in the Peloponnesian War. He engineered his return to Athens in 407, but in the following year departed voluntarily to live in the Thracian Chersonese, where in 404 he was killed by Pharnabazus at the instigation of the Thirty Tyrants and Lysander.

142

Commentary

£v παραδείγματι δεδήλωκε: The παράδειγμα was defined by Aristotle in the Rhetoric as a rhetorical example drawn from history, in which he included the heroic tradition. Together with the enthymeme, it is one of the proofs (πίστεις) used in oratory. The orator was expected to illustrate his argument and so convince his audience through the selection of appropriate examples. By using the technical term παράδειγμα, Speusippus was here signalling his attack on Isocrates’ skill as a writer of speeches. Speusippus' criticism of Isocrates' use of paradigms is discussed on pp.84—87. 10.

᾿Αλκιβιάδης μὲν yàp ἐπ᾽ ἀσεβείᾳ φυγὼν καὶ πλεῖστα τὴν πατρίδα

τὴν αὑτοῦ κακῶς ποιήσας εἰς αὐτὴν κατῆλθεν: Speusippus emphasized that Alcibiades had gone into exile from Athens under a charge of impiety (ἐπ᾿ ἀσεβείᾳ), a point omitted by Isocrates in his frank appraisal of Alcibiades’ actions at Philip 58-61, and had then inflicted the greatest injuries on his own country. Note the grammatically emphatic position of πλεῖστα in the sentence

and the force of εἰς ἀυτὴν κατῆλθεν, which expresses the writer's outrage that the perpetrator of crimes against religion and country should actually return to the fatherland he had so badly injured and the gods he had affronted. Finally, alleged Speusippus, Alcibiades ended his life shamefully (αἰσχρῶς) as a fugitive once more. Speusippus' assessment of Alcibiades' character does not, however, stand up under close examination. Estimates of Alcibiades character and achievements varied widely both during his own lifetime and subsequently. Xenophon [Hellenica 1.4.13-17] described the division of public opinion for and against him in the year 407, and Isocrates himself [Philip 61] acknowledged that not all Athenians commended

Alcibiades at that time. In the other literature that survives from the fourth century the charge of impiety is mentioned only once by way of censure, and then very generally, by Lysias [Against Alcibiades 1.42). The fact that Alcibiades was absolved of the charge in 407 may account for this. The allegation that Alcibiades was the cause of great injury to Athens is found more frequently [Xenophon Memorabilia 1.2.13; Pseudo-Andocides Against Alcibiades 24]. It is, however, more common to find in fourth century writers an acknowledgment of his great abilities and achievements. Aeschines [On the Embassy 9] bracketed Alcibiades and Themistocles together as preeminent among the Greeks in reputation (πλεῖστον τῶν 'EAAnvov δόξῃ διήνεγκαν), and Demosthenes [Against Meidias 143—146] likewise had high praise for his achievements and abilities. We might notice also Aristotle (Posterior Analytics 97b], who gave Alcibiades, together with Achilles and Ajax, as instances illustrating the term μεγαλόψυχος, by which he meant a proud disposition that refused to accept injury or insult. Theopompus of Chios and Timaeus of Tauromenium esteemed Alcibiades highly, as we learn from Cornelius Nepos [Alcibiades 11.1-2], who made use of both these historians. Von Scala [p.117, n.5] pointed out (citing the work of Fricke), that the story

found in Isocrates' On the chariot-team [9] of how Alcibiades first took refuge in Argos in order to avoid injuring his city (compare the charge made by Speusippus), occurs also in Plutarch's Life of Alcibiades

[23.1], which

draws on the

Commentary

143

works of Isocrates’ former students Ephorus and Theopompus

[32.3]. Isocrates

had even higher praise for Alcibiades, declaring in the Busiris [5) that there was general agreement that he excelled all his contemporaries. The surviving portion of Isocrates’ speech On the chariot-team is a lengthy defence of Alcibiades which emphasises the opposition he faced from the discredited oligarchs of 411 and 404, something that would have done his reputation no harm in the eyes of the fourth century democracy. Speusippus' outrage, then, at Isocrates’ choice of Alcibiades as a paradigm appears to be somewhat contrived in the light of these judgments. Had he chosen to concentrate on the uncontrolled licentiousness of Alcibiades' private life, Speusippus would have found much more support from fifth and fourth century critics; but, such a judgment may have been lost on the Macedonian king, whom Theopompus [F 27; T 19, FGrH 115] described as an alcoholic, a womaniser and one who encouraged every form of lewdness at his court. A good recent discussion of the sources for the life of Alcibiades is that of D. Gribble, Alcibiades and Athens, OUP 1999. Care should, however, be taken over Gribble's use of Nepos, Alcibiades 1\[op. cit. pp. 35-36] to suggest that Theopompus is unlikely to have expressed a high opinion of Alcibiades. Nepos, the friend of Cicero and Atticus, was quite capable of understanding the import of what Theopompus wrote, and we must accept that Theopompus (like other fourth century writers) did in fact praise Alcibiades' abilities and achievements, what-

ever else he may have said on the subject of his private life. See Flower, pp.122123.

᾿Αμύντας δ᾽ ὑπὲρ βασιλείας στάσει ... ἦρξεν: Amyntas III, the father of Philip II of Macedon, reigned from 393—370. The significance of the reference here to the history of events in the reign of Amyntas is discussed in Appendix III.

RGAAV ... πάλιν: note the rhetorical force of the repetition. τὴν Διονυσίου μοναρχίαν: Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse from 405-367. The word μοναρχίαν is used synonymously for τυραννίδα in order to avoid hiatus. Similarly Isocrates in the Philip referred to Dionysius’ ‘monarchy’ [65] and then later to his 'tyranny' [81]. Speusippus reflects the general condemnation of the tyranny of Dionysius I by Greek writers. See also below $13: τῷ Σικελίας τυράννῳ Διονυσίῳ. In the Philip Isocrates employed in a non-judgmental manner the example of Dionysius to illustrate that men with far fewer advantages than Philip might succeed in accomplishing deeds more difficult than those which he was exhorting Philip to attempt. Compare the Archidamus [44—45] and Nicocles [23], where

Isocrates

used the example

of Dionysius

I to illustrate different

arguments. M. Isnardi Parenti (Filosofia, p. 36] has drawn attention to the damning reference here to Dionysius I. She argues that Dionysius was specifically contrasted with Philip because Speusippus wished to emphasise that the Academy under his headship supported a new kind of monarchy (such as Philip represented) which had its roots in the more ancient Greek tradition. Plato's ideal of the mixed constitution (μικτὴ πολιτεία) as set out in the Laws, Isnardi Parenti argues, was overlooked by his successors in favour of support for responsible

144

Commentary

monarchy, which had to be clearly distinguished in political theory from tyranny. It was at this time when Athenian intellectuals were finding themselves drawn to an accommodation with monarchy that respected laws, that we find them vying for Philip's patronage. ἐν ταῖς τέχναις: ‘in his discourses’, that is, the products of his art (τέχνη). Barwick [pp. 46-47] credits K. Reinhardt with showing that the word τέχναι was used by the Greeks not merely for handbooks of rhetoric but for artistic speeches (kunstvolle Reden), which he distinguishes from lawcourt speeches. References

to o.xeia παραδείγματα in Isocrates discourses, to which Speusippus was alluding here, appear in To Demonicus 9, Evagoras 77, as well as in Philip 113. The phrase ἐν ταῖς τέχναις (also found in §4, where it has the same meaning as here) has been a focus of debate over whether Isocrates wrote manuals of

rhetoric (τέχναι), as did some of his predecessors and contemporaries. See Plato Phaedrus 27\c, Isocrates Against the Sophists 19, Aristotle Rhetoric 1354a. The history of the debate is summarized by Barwick [pp. 43—46] and by Too [pp. 164— 171]. While Barwick argues that the young Isocrates wrote a handbook of rhe-

toric (τέχνη) before later dissociating himself from this method of teaching, Too regards the attribution of a techne to Isocrates as a later invention, as did Sykutris also [BS, pp.59—60]. Sykutris argued further that because the letter writer was making a fourth-century distinction between τέχναι and τέχνη, a distinction that would have been meaningless to a writer of the imperial period who understood the word τέχνη to refer to a handbook of rhetoric, that this passage provided proof of an early date of composition. Speusippus is credited by Diogenes Laertius (4.5] with writing a volume entitled Texváóv ἔλεγχος, but what exactly this title refers to is unclear. Taran [p.195] translates the title as ‘Refutation (or Examination?) of rhetorical works’.

Wendland [Anaximenes p.35 n.2) suggested that Speusippus may have made use of this work in his attack on Isocrates’ Philip at $$ 4, 9 and 10 of the letter, but he

offered no evidence for this. If indeed the Texyv@v ἔλεγχος had to do with rhetorical arguments and their refutation, then we have at least prima facie evidence for Speusippus' interest in the techniques of rhetoric and this interest would help to account for his skilful 1f sometimes unprincipled refutation of Isocrates’ Philip and the polished argument generally that he presented in his letter to Philip. οἰκεῖα xai γνώριμα ta παραδείγματα: ...the οἰκεῖον παράδειγμα is an illustrative example taken from one's own family (in the case of an individual or

monarch) or country, and is to be distinguished from the common paradigm, which may derive from any source. For the technical distinction between these types of paradigm see pp.85-87. Jost [pp.122-123] found no reference in Isocrates’ writings stipulating that παραδείγματα should be γνώριμα, which he understood to mean 'bekannt', and so saw no reason to doubt Speusippus' claim. He suggested that by τέχναι Speusippus may have referred to writings of Isocrates that have not survived. However, the meaning of the word γνώριμος is clearly not 'familiar', *well known' or 'bekannt', as it is usually rendered. As a translation for γνώριμα ‘distinguished’ is to be preferred, for the intention of the passage is

Commentary

145

to contrast γνώριμα with toic αἰσχίστοις just as οἰκεῖα and ἀλλοτρίοις are contrasted. Cf. Isnardi Parente who translates 'illustri'. It can be seen, therefore, that Speusippus used the word not to criticise Isocrates’ use of obscure examples but rather his use of discreditable ones. Jost’s desire to formulate invariable principles appertaining to the use of the historical example in the rhetoric of Isocrates and Demosthenes may have caused him to overlook the obvious meaning here.

ὀλιγωρήσας δὲ τῆς τέχνης: ‘having no regard for his art’. There may be a pun on τέχναις τέχνης in this sentence, because it is Isocrates' skill (τέχνη) as a teacher and practitioner of rhetoric (ἡ ῥητορικὴ τέχνη) that Speusippus was making light of in this section of the letter.

ἁλλοτρίοις καὶ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις καὶ τοῖς πρὸς τὸν λόγον ὡς Evavtıὠτάτοις παραδείγμασι χρῆται: the examples inferred here from the Philip are the Athenian Alcibiades, his compatriot Conon, the Syracusan tyrant Dionysius I and the Persian king Cyrus the Great. Speusippus deliberately perverted Isocrates' argument that Philip with his greater advantages would be able to succeed in accomplishing the difficult task of uniting the Greek states in a campaign against Persia because others with fewer advantages had already succeeded in more difficult enterprises [Philip 57, 67]. Isocrates’ argument was directed to success rather than virtue and so he employed common and not oikeia paradigms. Speusippus' objection to disreputable examples is typically Platonic. We only need recall Plato's criticism of Homer's undignified stories involving the gods.

11. καίτοι πάντων

καταγελαστότατα τοιαῦτα γράφων:

this marks the

culmination of Speusippus’ attempt to belittle Isocrates’ rhetorical ability. He has argued that Isocrates failed to praise the services of Philip and his ancestors to Greece, that he failed to defend Philip from the slanders of his detractors, and that his choice of historical examples was inappropriate and contradictory to his argument. In view of these gross deficiencies in oratorical art and judgement, the praise which Isocrates’ students accorded the speech must seem laughable. χαριέντως ἀμύνασθαί φησι τῶν μαθητῶν τοὺς ἐπιτιμῶντας. ... δεδe xao: Speusippus here picked up Isocrates’ words εἰ χαριέντως αὐτοὺς ἡμυνάμην from $22 of the Philip and proceeded to add various elements of exaggeration. To begin with he ironically described the students as being ‘at the very height of their rhetorical powers’ (ἀκμάζοντες τῆς ῥητορικῆς τῇ δυνάμει), a description that does not occur in the Philip. Despite being highly ‘accomplished’, these students were still unable to perceive the gross deficiencies in the work. So uncritical was their judgment that they acclaimed it as being in the first rank of speeches. The statement τὸ πρωτεῖον τῶν λόγων τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ δεδώκασι is an amplification on the far more modest statement at Philip 23, and as such is a second element of exaggeration introduced for effect. The Philip was not merely praised as being in the first rank of Isocrates’ speeches, as most translations suggest (that of Kóhler [p.88] being the exception), but in the first rank of speeches per se. The implication is not so much that Isocrates' students are

146

Commentary

‘intellectually subservient to him’, as has been suggested (Flower, 1994, p.53], but rather that the calibre of student produced by Isocrates’ school is so low that the students do not have the ability to recognise an effective speech. oi δὲ χειρωθέντες τῶν αὐτῷ πλησιαζόντων: Sykutris detected in this phrase a variation of the depreciatory description often applied to sophistry as an art of subduing (τέχνη χειρωτικῇ) or hunting wealthy and distinguished young men. See BS p.57 n.1, citing Plato Sophist 223b. Cf. Euthydemus 290b; Xenophon On Hunting 13.9.

τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ: this is stated emphatically, implying disbelief that such a flawed piece of work should be thought worthy of high praise. τὴν Ἰσοκράτους ἱστορίαν καὶ τὴν παιδείαν: ...the word ἱστορία denotes knowledge obtained by inquiry and observation. A knowledge of history and the heroic tradition was important for the successful rhetor because it supplied the evidence he needed to support his arguments. Mythical and historical examples or paradeigmata were in particular a feature of epideictic and symbouleutic rhetoric. Isocrates stated the role of historical examples in oratory as follows: ‘For the deeds of the past are, indeed, an inheritance common to us all; but the ability to make proper use of them at the appropriate time, to conceive the right sentiments about them in each instance, and to set them forth in finished phrases, is the peculiar gift of the wise’ (Panegyricus 9, trans. Norlin). The skill of the rhetor in choosing appropriate examples is what Isocrates emphasised here and, we may add, that he judged appropriateness not in absolute terms but in relation to the immediate argument. The best known instance of this occurs in the Panathenaicus (172) where Isocrates deliberately called attention to his clever

use of a different version of the Adrastus story to that which he had previously employed in the Panegyricus. The word παιδεία refers to the educational systems employed by the sophists. Isocrates termed his educational system φιλοσοφία. The claim that Isocrates" finest student, sarcastically described as ‘heir to his wisdom’, is such an obnoxious character reflects badly on Isocrates’

educational

system

(παιδεία).

The

principle here is that a teacher's students are the best advertisement for the quality of his education. Sykutris [BS p.51] noted that Isocrates was repeatedly attacked over his deficiencies in ἱστορία and raıdeia and he drew attention to the opening words of the oration On the Sophists by Alcidamas: Ἐπειδή tives τῶν καλουμένων σοφιστῶν ἱστορίας μὲν Kai παιδείας ἡμελήκασι. See Antiphontis Orationes et Fragmenta [Blass ed., Teubner, 1908]. Speusippus' letter itself contradicts the recent assertion that the Alcidamas passage could not refer to Isocrates because “...it would be neither appropriate nor effective to say that he (i.e. Isocrates) took no trouble over ἱστορία and παιδεία".

[J. V. Muir, Alcidamas.

The works and

fragments, London: Bristol Classical Press, 2001, p.41]. See also Merlan [/socrates p.70 n.2] who associates Speusippus' criticism here with Panathenaicus 19, where Isocrates complained that his opponents accused him of rejecting all education (tac παιδείας ἁπάσας) apart from his own. In Merlan's view, what these opponents may actually have said was that Isocrates lacked knowledge and education.

Commentary

Κυρηναίους

μὲν ποιεῖ, τοὺς οπὼ

147

πάντων Onpaiov>e> ἀκούοντας,

ἀποίκους Λακεδαιμονίων: the manuscripts require supplementation and Sykutris’ conjecture makes excellent sense. Orelli supplied Βάττου ὄντας, Battus being the name of the traditional founder of Cyrene, and Maas Θηραίους ὄντας. Cyrene was a Dorian colony established from the island of Thera about the year 631. The primary account of the foundation of Cyrene is Herodotus 4.151159. The colony appears to have been a joint foundation of Cyrene and Sparta, as I argue on pp.87—90, where the rhetoric of this passage is discussed. The reference is to Philip 5 (Λακεδαιμόνιοι Κυρηναίους ἀπῴκισαν), where Isocrates argued that it was preferable to colonise areas like Cyrene, which were inhabited by peoples who were accustomed to being ruled by others, rather than areas such as Amphipolis where the neighbouring peoples possessed the capacity for rule. tov δὲ Ποντικὸν μαθητὴν ἀπέδειξε τῆς αὐτοῦ σοφίας διάδοχον: this student has been identified as Isocrates of Apollonia Pontica. See pp.54—55. The word σοφία is used with heavy irony reminiscent of Plato's usage in attacking sophists. See Sykutris BS p.61 n.3. βδελυρώτερον: see above 89: ὁ σοφιστής. 12. καὶ: the logical connection suggested by xai is that Theopompus, like Isocrates of Apollonia, is ‘also’ an obnoxious sophist. παρ᾽ ὑμῖν: ‘at court’. See Commentary $1: tac εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γενομένας εὐεργεσίας ὑμῶν.

RAVY ψυχρόν: ‘in an altogether obnoxious manner’. The phrase πάνυ ψυχρόν is not parenthetical (as translated by Sykutris (‘ein frostiger Mensch’) and others)

since rap’ ὑμῖν μὲν εἶναι πάνυ ψυχρόν is co-ordinate to περὶ δὲ Πλάτωνος βλασφημεῖν. See Flower p.19 n.3. In the metaphorical sense in which it is used in our letter the word ψυχρός (lit. ‘cold’, ‘frigid’) describes the effect on a second party (in this case Speusippus, who assumes the same reaction in Philip) by the actions of a first party, viz. Theopompus. For the rhetorical assumption here, see Commentary 82: ἀλλὰ ποιῆσαι καὶ toig ἀπὸ σοῦ γενομένοις φανεράν. Compare Demosthenes On the Embassy 187 for a contemporary use of the word in the sense in which Speusippus intended here. The full force of the word ψυχρός can be seen from its use by Athenaeus [11.508e, probably quoting Carystius of Pergamum], to describe Euphraeus of Oreus in Euboea, who was said to have organized King Perdiccas III's entourage so obnoxiously (οὕτω ψυχρῶς) that Philip had his general Parmenion actually kill him because of it. Flower's [pp.19-20] argument that section 12 is evidence that ' Theopompus was appalled by the morally unrestrained behaviour of Philip and his companions’ and displayed his disapproval by acting in a ‘very disagreeable’ (πάνυ ψυχρόν) manner is untenable, for it presupposes that Speusippus would have disagreed with Theopompus' behaviour and so approved of Philip's drunkenness and debauchery. Moreover, we might well ask why Theopompus would go out of his way to offend his patron. Theopompus' ψυχρότης resulted from his membership of the tribe of sophists, like the detestable (cf. βδελυρώτερον) Apollonian, as the argument makes clear.

148

Commentary

The attempt by Laqueur [col. 2190-2191; accepted by H. Bloch, ‘Studies in historical literature of the fourth century B.C.' in Athenian studies presented to William Scott Ferguson, Cambridge: Harvard U.P. 1940 (reprinted Arno 1973) p.320] to equate the meaning of ψυχρός here to the technical term used by Aristotle

[Rhetoric

1405b-1406a]

and Demetrius

(On Style

114—127;

247]

to

describe those defects of style which detract from the persuasiveness of rhetorical composition is not convincing because it makes no sense in the context of the letter. Πυνθάνομαι δὲ καὶ Θεόπομπον ... βλασφημεῖν: By means of the μὲν ...OÉ£ construction Speusippus achieved a kind of crescendo effect: Theopompus is not only a sophist like the Apollonian and for this very reason must be considered despicable (πάνυ ψυχρόν), but what is worse, he has also been slandering Plato. With this skilful transition Speusippus introduced the all important subject of Philip's debt to Plato, which on my reading is the climax of the letter. In view of Plato's great service to Philip in the past and the high regard in which Plato held Philip and his brother Perdiccas, the king might be expected to look on Theopompus' slanders as particularly harsh and reprehensible, just as Speusippus, Plato's nephew, was bound to regard them. Theopompus and his connection with the Macedonian court is discussed on pp.56—59. It seems likely, as I argue below [$12: iv’ οὖν Θεόπομπος ... τυγχάνων), that Theopompus had been reciting from his diatribe against Plato, the so-called Kata τῆς Πλάτωνος διατριβῆς.

ὥσπερ οὐ Πλάτωνος ... κατασκευάσαντος: Carystius of Pergamum [ΕἸ FHG 4.356 = Athenaeus 11.506e-f], an historian writing in the last third of the second century BCE, referred to this very passage, quoting it from memory (Eypawe (sc. Σπεύσιππος) τι τοιοῦτον). Athenaeus, who himself displays no direct knowledge of the Letter of Speusippus, quoted Carystius as having written that the Platonic philosopher Euphraeus of Oreus persuaded King Perdiccas III to assign some territory to his brother Philip (ἀπομερίσαι τινὰ χώραν Φιλίππῳ: 11.506f). The use of the verb anouepilw can only mean that a section of the Macedonian territory was separated off and placed under Philip's control. It was to this assignment of territory that Philip owed the beginning of his kingship (τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς βασιλείας Φίλιππος διὰ Πλάτωνος ἔσχεν; compare Πλάτωνος τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπὶ Περδίκκου κατασκευάσαντος in our letter). From levies raised on this territory Philip trained an army (διατρέφων δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα δύναμιν: 11.506f) and in 359, after Perdiccas had been killed in battle against the Illyrians, he used it to assert his claim to the Macedonian throne. Exactly what proportion or part of the Macedonian territory Perdiccas placed under Philip's control we do not know, but we may conclude from Carystius' account that it was not insubstantial. Griffith [HM p.207] has speculated on a number of possible scenarios. Note the pun on ἀρχῇ. Aristotle [Rhetoric 1412b] gives this as an example of τὰ ἀστεῖα, meaning ‘happy’ or ‘successful’ phrases and he quotes an example from Isocrates. For the definition of ta ἀστεῖα see G. Grube, A Greek critic: Demetrius on style, Toronto: U.T.P., 1961 pp.135-136. In fact this pun was a favourite of Isocrates, who used it at Philip 61, Panegyricus 119, On the Peace 101 and Nicocles 28. Sykutris [BS p.60 n.1] cited also by way of comparison the

Commentary

149

Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis [981a] τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἀρχῆς εὐσχημονέστερον ἔχειν, and he discerned other examples of word plays at §11 τῶν λόγων τῷ λόγῳ and 87

τὴν Topwvaiav τηρεῖν. See also Commentary §10: oA1ywproacs δὲ τῆς τέχνης, where I suggest that there may be a pun on τέχναις τέχνης. καὶ διὰ τέλους χαλεπῶς φέροντος, El tt γίγνοιτο παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀνη᾽μερον f μὴ φιλάδελφον: There can be no doubt, as Griffith [HM p.207] observes, that this was a tactful way of saying that the brothers had in fact quarrelled. The cause of the quarrel is not precisely stated in any of the surviving sources, however I argue on pp.33-37 that it originated as a result of the court reforms instituted by Perdiccas on the advice of the Platonist Euphraeus. That the quarrel was serious and that Philip had considerable support within Macedonia from elements disgruntled with Perdiccas' rule may be inferred from the extreme measure Perdiccas was persuaded to adopt following the mediation of Euphraeus. In this context reference must also be made to the thirty-first of the so-called Socratic Letters, of which our Letter is the thirtieth. The subject of the letter is, I argue in Appendix 1, a serious quarrel between Philip and Perdiccas, and is likely, therefore, to be the same as that described by Carystius of Pergamum. By means of this letter Plato attempted to persuade Philip to be content with the territorial settlement agreed to by Perdiccas. One of the words that Obens [p.48] objected to in his attempt to prove Speusippus’ letter a late forgery was ἀνήμερος ('savage' or ‘untamed’), a word which he argued was only used in poetry during the classical period. Sykutris [BS pp.50-51] replied by citing the prose usage of the word by Aristotle's pupil Clearchus of Soli, albeit in reference to wild animals, and then added 'Ich wüBte nicht, was ein Athener dafür hätte einsetzen können; ἄγριον wäre zu stark.’ But

see Plato Euthydemus 285a: μοι ἐδόκουν ἀγριωτέρως πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔχειν and Laws 649ε: ψυχῆς ἀγρίας. Compare also Plato’s use οὗ the word ἥμερος in the context of stasis at Republic 470e. I argue in Appendix I that Speusippus was, consciously or otherwise, quoting from the thirty-first Socratic Letter and that he used the phrase τι... ἀνήμερον ἥ μὴ φιλάδελφον to represent the notion τι...

πλημμελές. In fact Obens and Sykutris were, it seems to me, both correct and incorrect. The usage of the word was primarily poetical in Speusippus' day and was deliberately chosen by him in order to heighten the effect of the good Platonic but also prosaic adjective πλημμελής. What we have here is a word normally considered part of the poetic vocabulary when employed to describe humans used in a prose work to achieve a rhetorical effect. By emphasising in this way the seriousness of the quarrel between Philip and Perdiccas, that is, the possibility of a vicious civil war, Speusippus enhanced commensurately the value of Plato's service to Philip. Notice also that the qualifying words ἥ μὴ φιλάδελφον have the effect of softening ἀνήμερος, which by itself may well have offended Philip, but without removing the initial dramatic impact. I should like to think that Sykutris, who displayed sensitivity to Speusippus' use of rhetorical techniques, would have approved of this solution. In commenting on this section of the letter, Boehnecke [p.451; cf. Schering p.79-80] related the words ἀνήμερον nj μὴ φιλάδελφον to Philip's cruel character

150

Commentary

and his brutality towards his political opponents, particularly his half-brothers whom he eliminated as rivals to the throne. Compare Dusanic p.121. According to Boehnecke, right up until the time of his death (διὰ τέλους) Plato was aggrieved (cf. χαλεπῶς φέροντος) over Philip’s brutal behaviour. Philip learned of these criticisms from the reports of others, as he was not on intimate terms with Plato, and hence his rebuke of Plato which Speusippus put into the mouth of Theopompus. In support of this strained interpretation Boehnecke mistakenly cited the Suda s.v. Φίλιππος ὁ Μακεδών [Adler phi 355 = Polybius 23.10.15], which refers not to Philip II but to Philip V.

tv’ οὖν Θεόπομπος ... τυγχάνων:

with this sentence Speusippus contin-

ues the theme of Theopompus' attack on Plato. The total inappropriateness of the attack is stressed by Speusippus, for, according to his argument, Plato had been a great benefactor to Philip. and so Philip would be expected to recognize a debt of gratitude to Plato and by extension to his nephew and successors. Theopompus should have no illusions that Philip, as a man of honour, would countenance such an attack. It is because of his attack on Plato that Theopompus is described as τραξὺς, a strong word meaning ‘rough’, ‘cruel’ or ‘brutal’, which I translate as ‘truculent’. Like the expression πάνυ ψυχρόν earlier, the description τραξὺς ὧν describes the reaction of Speusippus and assumes a similar reaction in Philip. Clearly we are meant to relate Theopompus' τραχύτης to his attack on Plato. It is at this point that Speusippus suggests to Philip that he call upon Antipater to read from his history of Greece, in order to silence Theopompus' slanderous attack against Plato (ν᾿ οὖν Θεόπομπος παύσηται τραχὺς ὦν). In the same way that he quoted Antipater’s work on Greek history in support of Philip’s claims to Olynthus and other parts of the Chalcidic region ($85-7) as well as in regard to the

Delphic Amphictyony (888-9), Speusippus was suggesting here that Antipater read from the section of his history that dealt with Plato's role in laying the foundation of Philip's future power, as this would provide the proof of Theopompus' truculence and of Philip's indebtedness. When we ask in what way Theopompus had been slandering Plato, the most likely answer is, it seems to me, that he had presented at court the work variously known as Kata τῆς Πλάτωνος διατριβῆς or Καταδρομὴ τῆς Πλάτωνος 81aτριβῆς, which was an extremely bitter attack against the teaching of Plato. See p.58 for a brief discussion of this work. Antipater’s recitation from his history was meant to counteract the diatribe, not by meeting individual charges but by discrediting Theopompus as the slanderer of Philip’s benefactor Plato. It will be obvious that my reading of this passage differs from the usual interpretation in that I emphasize the logical connection between the mention of Plato’s service to Philip and the proof of this recorded in Antipater’s history. It has generally been thought that the passage refers to Theopompus' works in general [Sykutris BS pp.74—75] or to his Hellenica in particular. Momigliano [Storia, p.188; cf. von Scala p.112 n.3; Shrimpton p.5 n.7; Flower p.20] argued that the passage was proof positive that Theopompus had published his Hellenica by 343-2, the date of our letter, because Speusippus would not have suggested to Philip that Antipater read from his Greek history if Theopompus had not already

Commentary

151

published his work. Analogous, argued Momigliano, is the adversarial manner in which the Philip of Isocrates and the opinions of Speusippus and Antipater are contrasted in our letter. What Momigliano appears to be saying is that one Hellenica demands another Hellenica, that Speusippus was suggesting a kind of contest such as we find in Die Meistersinger, or at the funeral games for Mausolus of Caria, which makes no sense in the immediate context of the letter. It was not because he was a lesser writer than Antipater that Theopompus' diatribe against Plato was being everywhere erased, but because its subject was so offensive. Notice the contrast δικαίως — ἀδίκως, which introduces the notion of justice and injustice. In the context of the argument at this point in the letter, the primary moral sense of these words must be considered the most appropriate, for Speusippus was appealing to Philip's sense of justice in recognizing his debt to Plato. The converse of this was that Theopompus, because of his unjust slander of Plato, had no right to Philip's patronage. τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν πράξεων: ‘from his history of Greece.’ This is a description of the work and not its title, as Sykutris argued. See Commentary $1: γράφει 6 ᾿Αθήνησι πάλαι tac Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις. ἐξαλειφόμενος: a strong word meaning to wipe out completely or obliterate. The word ts often used in the metaphorical sense meaning ‘to blot out from ones’ mind’, as at Plato, Theaetetus

187b. Flower (p.20] takes the word in its

most literal sense of scraping writing from papyrus so that the roll can be reused. It is, of course, Philip who will know (γνώσεται) that Theopompus’ work is not worth the papyrus on which it is written. ἀδίκως δὲ τῆς παρὰ σοῦ χορηγίας τυγχάνων.: the claim that Theopompus was receiving Philip’s patronage is also stated by the fifth century ecclesiastical historian Sozomen [Ecclesiastical History, Hypothesis 5], who included Theopompus among a number of famous writers (Homer, Simonides, Plato and Oppian) who enjoyed the support of wealthy patrons. 13. Ὁμοίως δὲ xai Ἰσοκράτης: ‘In the same way, Isocrates also’. We have here a link with the argument from the previous section. Theopompus’ slander of Plato is compared to the slanders perpetrated by Isocrates and Timotheus in shameful letters addressed to the Athenian Assembly critical of Philip's family. νέος μὲν ὦν: Bickermann [BS p.35] commenting on the apparent incongruity of describing a man who was over seventy years of age in the late 360's as ‘véoc’, concluded that the explanation for it was, (as Wilamowitz had suggested to him), the fact that, except in contrast to the comparative πρεσβύτερος, the Greeks had no word to describe the active or mature part of a man's life [see also Gomme's note on Thucydides 2.36.3]. One might, nevertheless, ask why Speusippus chose not to use a comparative expression such as νεώτερος μὲν Qv, which would have been more appropriate. This was the expression favoured by Isocrates in referring to the earlier part of his own career (see Busiris 50; Antidosis 195; Philip 27,110; Panathenaicus 1, 55; Letter 1 1; Letter V 1). See also Aristotle, Constitution of Athens 26.1, where, as noted by Mathieu [p.154 n.2] Cimon is referred to as νεώτερος. It would seem best to conclude that Speusippus chose

152

Commentary

not to use the comparative construction because he wished to emphasise through his use of the μὲν ... δέ construction [νέος μὲν ὧν ... νυνὶ δὲ πρεσβύτης ὧν] the length of time Isocrates had consistently been hostile to Macedon, that is, the whole span of his adult life, from long before Philip’s accession to the Macedonian throne up to the time of writing. εἰς τὸν δῆμον peta Τιμοθέου: Sykutris (BS p.53] noted that the words

εἰς τὸν δῆμον were not an alternative for the simple dative but carry both the sense of ‘sending’ and ‘he edited it for the Assembly; ἔγραφε τῷ δήμῳ could only have been said of the general Timotheus. καθ᾽ ὑμῶν: ‘critical of your family’, that is to say, earlier rulers of Macedon. See Commentary $1: “tac εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γενομένας εὐεργεσίας ὑμῶν.

ἐπιστολὰς αἰσχρὰς: Τιμόθεος ὁ Κόνωνος, σὺν ᾧ καὶ πολλὰς πόλεις ἐπῆλθε (sc. ὁ Ἰσοκράτης), συντιθεὶς τὰς πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους ὑπὸ Τιμοθέου πεμπομένας ἐπιστολάς" ὅθεν ἐδωρήσατο αὐτῷ τάλαντον τῶν ἀπὸ Σάμου περιγενομένων. This quotation from Pseudo-Plutarch (Moralia 837c] supports the existence of letters written by Isocrates on behalf of Timotheus. These letters were dispatches from the commanding general informing the government at home on the progress of a campaign. One such report is referred to in a decree of 362 honouring Menelaus the Pelagonian. See Tod no.143 11.6-9 (ἐκαιδὴ Τιμόθεος

ὁ στρατηγὸς anoea(iv)ev MevéAaov...); Demosthenes Against Aristocrates 151 (xai τὴν Ἰφικράτους ἐπιστολὴν xai τὴν Τιμοθέου); cf. Thucydides 7.8.1-2; 7.11.1. Isocrates himself seems never to have drawn attention to his presence on campaign with Timotheus, perhaps because he did not regard it as unusual or particularly praiseworthy. It is illuminating for us, however, to catch a glimpse of him in the thick of it, so to speak, for it is all too easy to picture Isocrates as an isolated figure in Athens teaching his students and promoting the panhellenic cause through his writing. Drerup [p.639] argued that the association of Isocrates and Timotheus dated from the first years of the Second Athenian League when in his new position as general Timotheus had need of friendly advice. Dusanic [p.121 n.67] dates the letters to 378/7, during Timotheus' Euboean strategia. Münscher [1916, 2189; cf. Mathieu pp.84-85,154; Mathieu/Brémond (eds.) /socrate (1962) v.4 p.163, who regard these letters as literary works and not genuine reports] supposed that Isocrates accompanied Timotheus on his celebrated expedition of 376/5 around the Peloponnese, probably choosing an early date in order to make sense of the word νέος. Bickermann (B5, p.36] argued that he sailed with Timotheus in 366/5 on the expedition which saw the capture of Samos and other Persian held cities. However, none of these occasions satisfies the requirement that the dispatches should be critical of a member of Philip’s family (καθ᾽ ὑμῶν, see the previous note). Clearly we must look for an occasion when Timotheus

was engaged against Macedonia, and the most likely time is between 363 and 360 when he was campaigning against the Chalcidian League and Amphipolis, and when Philip's brother Perdiccas was king and assisting Amphipolis against Athens. Cf. Blass p.53 n.3 followed by Schering p.70. Perdiccas assisted Timotheus during the campaigning seasons of 364 and 363, as we learn from Demosthenes Olynthiac 11.14 with schol. Dilts 98b p.66 and from Polyaenus 3.10.14.

Commentary

153

It was in the following year that Perdiccas turned against Athens and placed a garrison in Amphipolis, which remained there until Philip withdrew it in 359. Timotheus subsequently carried out operations against the Macedonian coastal towns of Pydna and Methone. See Diodorus 16.3.3 and for the chronology here, J. Heskel The North Aegean Wars, 371—360 B.C., Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997 pp.3235, 49-50. If Aeschines typifies the general feeling of perfidy and injustice (cf. ἡδικημένων: On the Embassy 30) which the Athenians felt in regard to Perdiccas when he took up arms against Athens in defence of Amphipolis, then we may imagine that Timotheus' dispatches were extremely critical of the king. One question remains. Are we to infer from the reference in Pseudo-Plutarch to Timotheus' operations against Samos that the letters predate the capture of Samos in 366? Such an inference is not justified in my opinion because the passage in Pseudo-Plutarch states in very general terms only that Isocrates accompanied Timotheus to many cities and specifies no particular campaign. We are simply told that Timotheus rewarded Isocrates for his various services with a talent from the spoils of the Samian campaign and we have no reason to believe that Isocrates discontinued his practice in 366/5.

τῶν ὑμῖν ὑκαρχόντων ἀγαθῶν: ‘the good qualities which your family has displayed’. Sykutris [pp.58—59] noticed that the word ἀγαθῶν was more than merely a synonym for the εὐεργεσίαι referred to earlier in the letter and had the effect of accentuating μισῶν ἢ φθονῶν; for to pass over the εὐεργεσίαι εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας might be due to ignorance (see $9) but the failure to mention the ὑπάρχοντα ἀγαθά is indicative of hatred or envy. μισῶν: Thus emended by Sykutris (BS p.58 n.3], where the manuscripts have ἑκὼν. Köhler has ἔχθων, which gives a similar meaning. Either of these corrections are to be preferred to those of Wilamowitz who wrote ὡς παριδὼν or

Mullach ὥσπερ ἀγνοῶν, both of which suggest culpable inadvertence or ignorance, rather than hatred or enmity. Hercher retained ἑκὼν.

ἀπέσταλκε δέ σοι λόγον, Sv τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ...: Speusippus' charge that the Philip was ἃ rehashed version of earlier writings was anticipated by Isocrates when he wrote: ‘Let no one suppose that I wish to hide the fact that I have expressed some of these things in the same manner as formerly’ [Philip 93]. When he went on to protest that it would be unreasonable if he alone should not be permitted to repeat his own words when other writers plagiarised his works he betrays a particular sensitivity to this criticism. It was common practice for Attic writers to quote from their own works and this was particularly true of Isocrates [see the instances cited by Smith, pp. 9-10]. That the Philip was in fact, as Speusippus' argued, a reworking of earlier compositions is borne out by a comparison with the Letter to Dionysius. In both works Isocrates wrote of the advantage which a spoken discourse has over the written word when the aim is to advise [Letter I, 2-3 : Philip, 25-27]; Isocrates declared that he was not writing an epideixis but rather an exhortation to action [Leiter I, 5-7 : Philip, 12-13; 93]; Dionysius and Philip because of their great power and wealth were in a position to implement Isocrates" advice [Letter 1, 7 : Philip, 15]. These passages exhibit similarities of argument rather than of language. To them must be added Isocra-

154

Commentary

tes’ somewhat defensive statement that he was qualified to advise on serious and momentous issues despite being neither a general nor a politician, which he acknowledged to the reader was a quotation from his Letter to Dionysius [Letter 1,9 : Philip 81]. Smith [pp. 19-21], who believed that Isocrates may have used the

material he had assembled for an address to Agesilaus 'with relatively little change' in his Letter 9 to Archidamus, described the similarities between Letter 9 and the Philip which, he showed, 'resemble one another very closely'. Speusippus' allegation would therefore seem to be essentially accurate, although we may safely dismiss the imputation that the Philip was in any way less impressive because of the repetition of arguments and some verbatim correspondences. The whole of the subtle masterpiece that is the Philip is inestimably more than the sum of it's parts. This conclusion has important implications for the controversy over the incompleteness of the first and ninth letters of Isocrates in that it provides support to Blass' hypothesis that Isocrates was reluctant to publish material that duplicated what he had already published in his well-known Panegyricus in relation to Hellenic unity and the anti-Persian campaign. Isocrates published only the prooimia of these two letters, which contained new material [see Blass p. 294). Blass

[p. 299] accounted for the incompleteness of the sixth Letter differently by attributing it to the passage of events: Isocrates abandoned the letter when he saw that the successors of Alexander of Pherae were acting in a tyrannical manner impervious to his advice. Blass’ hypothesis, which Too (pp. 194-199] does not take into account in her recent summary of the controversy, is to my mind the most convincing yet put forward, the more so because it finds support in $13 of Speusippus' letter where the very repetition, which according to Blass was the reason why the letters were not published in their complete form, was used by Speusippus to depreciate Isocrates’ Philip. ᾿Ηγησιλάφ: Agesilaus II, King of Sparta from 399—360. Sykutris [BS 56 n.2) remarked on the use of the Attic form of the name that it indicated a time of writing when the Doric form had not achieved general currency and he compared ᾿Αρχύτης in Plato Letter 7. A later writer would not have been capable of employing the transitional form ‘HynoiAaoc. Compare Meyer col. 1202. Harward (p. 227] observed that it was natural for Plato to use the Attic form ᾿Αρχύτης in his correspondence, just as we find Speusippus doing here in his letter to Philip. Isocrates referred to Agesilaus’ Asiatic campaign in sections 86-87 of his Philip but gave no indication there that he had corresponded publicly with the Spartan king. On the basis of Isocrates" silence Blass [pp.89 n.3; 293, endorsed by Susemihl Geschichte p.586 n.26], rejected outright the possibility of a letter to Agesilaus, arguing that Speusippus had confused Agesilaus with his son and successor Archidamus,

to whom

Isocrates addressed Letter 9. Mathieu

[p.105]

was non-committal on the existence of a letter to Agesilaus. He did not rule out the possibility that Speusippus confused the father with the son, and posed the question as to whether an error in the transmission of the text of Speusippus' letter might account for it: ᾿Αρχιδάμῳ τῷ ᾿Αγησιλάου. Friedrich (pp.17—21], who argued in favour of all the recipients as set out in the letter, made an interesting

Commentary

155

case that Speusippus was in fact referring to an earlier version of the Panegyricus, which Isocrates had sent to Agesilaus in 385/4. Isocrates published a later version of the speech in 380, in which he added sharp criticism of Sparta's failure to live up to its earlier panhellenic promise. Drerup [648—649] criticised Friedrich's argument, but in more recent times W. Jaeger [Demosthenes. The origin and growth of his policy. N.Y.: Octagon, 1963 (Sather Lectures 13, 1938) p. 248] revived Friedrich's theory, albeit without ascription. The theory, it must be said, fits in nicely with the chronology of recipients in the letter and accords well with the eminent public standing of Agesilaus and with his attempt to portray himself as the new Agamemnon, the champion of Hellas against the barbarian. See Xenophon Hellenica 3.4.3—4 and Isocrates Letter to Archidamus 11. In addition, the call that Lysias in his Olympic Oration (7] of 388 made to the Spartans to

show leadership in uniting Greeks against their enemies would provide a precedent for an appeal by Isocrates to Agesilaus. However whilst the Panegyricus theory is consistent with Speusippus' attempts to depreciate Isocrates’ work, it would be quite extraordinary if he had in fact intended to dismiss Isocrates' best known discourse as a mere letter to Agesilaus. Smith [p.21] felt that Isocrates may well have assembled material for an address to Agesilaus even if he did not actually send it, and that he later utilized this material in the letter to Archidamus. Sykutris [BS p.56] accepted that the letter was written but never sent, for to his

mind it defied belief that a poor Spartan king could afford the purchase price. The word ἐπώλει, however, applies only to Dionysius and I do not see how Sykutris can justify his reasoning here. Frolífková [p.84] regards it as most unlikely that Speusippus had any independent evidence for a public appeal to Agesilaus. G.L. Cawkwell accepts without argument that Isocrates made separate representations to Agesilaus and Alexander of Pherae as well as to Dionysius I of Syracuse. See his chapter on Isocrates in Ancient Writers (ed. T. J. Luce, N.Y., 1982 v. 1 pp.325, 3277) and his article on Isocrates in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed..

In the absence of any mention by Isocrates of an appeal to Agesilaus and because of the silence of his Letter 9, where one would expect to find such a mention, and in view of Speusippus' omission of the appeal to Archidamus for which we have definite evidence, it seems likely to me that Speusippus, writing almost twenty-five years after Isocrates’ letter to Archidamus, did in fact deliberately confuse the father with the son. The reason for the confusion, it seems to me, is best explained in the context of the argument. There was a distinct advantage for Speusippus in using the name of Agesilaus, for it has the effect of extending the period of time during which Isocrates had peddled various versions of his address to Philip back to the year 399 when Agesilaus became king of Sparta. Compare Speusippus' use of the word νέος in the previous sentence. Furthermore, Speusippus chose to cite the worst possible recipients of Isocrates’ hortatory addresses, namely Agesilaus, the architect of Spartan imperial policy; the tyrant Dionysius and Alexander of Pherae. These were not the sort of people in whose company Philip would be pleased to find himself.

μικρὰ διασκενάσας:

‘having dressed it up a little’. Sykutris (BS p.52]

rightly stressed that διασκευάζω must be interpreted in the metaphorical and, we

156

Commentary

might add, satirical sense demanded by ἐπώλει, ἐμνήστευσεν and ἀπηκόντισεν. as used by Speusippus still retains vividly ‘dress’ and represents a transitional stage work for publication’.

the passage, in which it accompanies The meaning of the word διασκευάζω the notion of σκευή meaning ‘attire’ or to its later meaning ‘to revise or edit a

ἐπώλει: ‘tried to sell’. The use of the imperfect continues the depreciatory effect that is the aim of Speusippus’ rhetoric. Susemihl [Geschichte p.587 n.26] took the imperfect as evidence that Speusippus believed the letters had never been sent. The notion of selling is itself a slight when viewed in the context of Platonic invective against sophists. See note $9: ὁ σοφιστής.

τῷ Σικελίας τυράννῳ Διονυσίῳ: the Letter to Dionysius, of which the prooimion alone survives, is the first of the letters attributed to Isocrates. The reference in $88 of this letter to the dire circumstances of the Spartans at the time, suggests a date after the Battle of Leuctra in 371 and before the tyrant's death in 367. Isocrates was in his late sixties at the time. References in fourth-century writers to Dionysius as τύραννος may be either neutral [Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.5; Isocrates Philip 81) or derogatory [Lysias Olympic Oration 5; Aeschines On the Embassy 10). Speusippus clearly falls into the latter category, as is evident from §§6—7 where we read of Heracles’ suppression of various tyrants and from $10 where Dionysius is described as the most impious and worst of men. From his support for Dion against the younger Dionysius [see Plutarch Dion 22, 1—3], we might expect that Speusippus endorsed his master Plato's strong condemnation of tyranny. In Platonic terms tyranny was the worse form of monarchy or absolute rule, the better form being royalty (m βασιλικὴ μοναρχία), which would aptly describe Philip's rule [see Statesman 291e; 3024]. When at $10 Speusippus used the term μοναρχία to describe Dionysius' rule he did so in order to avoid hiatus. Another dimension of the use of the word τύραννος may be seen in the common association of wealth with tyrants. See J. L. O' Neil, “The semantic usage of tyrannos and related words’, Antichthon 20 (1986), pp. 28-29. The wealth of the elder Dionysius was renowned [see Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 29; Diodorus 14.109.1-2] and in view of the implication inherent in Speusippus' use of the word ἐπώλει, namely that Isocrates had sought to make money from his letter to Dionysius, then the association of wealth with the word τύραννος may be seen to support the argument at this point in the letter.

ἐμνήστενεν: LSJ,

s.v. μνηστεύω IV (λόγον p. τινί), cite this passage for

the meaning 'pass off a speech upon a person, hawk it to him'. The word is generally used in the context of courting, wooing or betrothing and consequently, in keeping with his ironic tone, Speusippus used the word metaphorically to suggest that Isocrates' discourse was like a woman past her prime who, despite having been made to look as attractive as possible (cf. ta μὲν ἀφελὼν ta δὲ προσθεὶς), was unlikely to find a suitor. Compare Isocrates’ metaphorical use of the word in On the Peace 15. I follow Blass [p.293 n.3] who corrected ép vnotevoev to the imperfect Euvnotevev, thereby bringing it into conformity with

ἔγραφεν and ἐπώλει, all of which suggest the repeated or habitual nature of these actions and their lack of success.

Commentary

157

᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ τῷ Θετταλῴῷ: ruler of Pherae in Thessaly, from 369 to 358. From what is known of Alexander of Pherae he would appear to be an unlikely candidate for one of Isocrates’ hortatory addresses, particularly in view of his unpopularity in Athens in the years after 362. Some have, therefore, found it tempting to replace Alexander with the more likely Jason of Pherae, even though there exists no evidence that Isocrates ever wrote to Jason. This suggestion was made by Obens [p.38] and accepted by Köhler [p.122; followed by Westlake, Thessaly, p.119 n.1] because of the reference to Jason's anti-Persian rhetoric in Isocrates' Philip [119], which, like Speusippus' letter, also contains references to Agesilaus

[86-87]

and

Dionysius

[81]. Blass

[pp.89

n.3; 293—4]

had earlier

suggested that in the same way as (he believed) Agesilaus must be replaced by Archidamus, it was permissible to correct Alexander to Jason, either on the assumption of a lost letter to Jason or on the basis of Isocrates' Letter VI, which Speusippus may have recollected as a letter addressed to Alexander rather than to his assassins, the sons of Jason. Bickermann [BS, p.35], on the other hand, argued that the very unexpectedness of the name Alexander strengthened the case for its acceptance. He thought it likely, given the historical situation, that Isocrates did write to Alexander of Pherae. He argued that

Isocrates on his own admission [Philip 138] addressed

many prominent anti-Persian figures. The years 366—364, when Alexander was at the height of his power and still a highly respected ally of Athens [Demosthenes, Against Aristocrates, 120; Diodorus 15.71.3; Plutarch, Pelopidas, 31.4; Moralia 193e; Tod no.147, ll. 39-40], and when Timotheus was campaigning against Samos and other Persian held cities in the eastern Aegean, were, Bickermann believed, a likely time for Isocrates to have approached him with a public letter urging support for the anti-Persian cause. The chronological order of the recipients as given in the letter (τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ... ὕστερον ... τὸ δὲ τρίτον ... τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον) might be seen to support Bickermann's case, for Dionysius, whom Isocrates is generally thought to have addressed in about 368, would logically be followed by Alexander and not Jason, who had been assassinated two years earlier in 370. Modern judgments on Alexander have undoubtedly been excessively influenced by the unanimous verdict of the ancient writers, beginning with Xenophon, whose unfavourable appraisal of his rule was coloured in retrospect by the excesses of his latter years [Cf. Westlake, 156-7]. Alexander, as Bickermann rightly observed, had not always been so poorly thought of by Athenians. When he came to write the Philip some twenty years later, Isocrates understandably omitted any mention of the by then discredited Alexander of Pherae; indeed his name is not to be found in any of the surviving works of Isocrates. See also the discussion of Frolfková [pp. 84-86], who is likewise inclined to accept the existence of an address to Alexander. But having said all this, I remain unconvinced that Isocrates did write to Alexander of Pherae. The reference to Alexander is better explained, I believe, in terms of Speusippus' rhetoric, just as is the reference to Agesilaus. Alexander's image among his contemporaries was that of a harsh despot who, in Xenophon’ words was ‘...a cruel Tagos to the Thessalians, a cruel enemy to the Thebans and

158

Commentary

Athenians and an unrighteous brigand on land and sea’ [Hellenica 6.4.35]. In short, he was a most unpleasant character with whom, Speusippus could be sure, Philip would not want to be compared. Chronologically he fitted in nicely after that other tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse. For almost half a century Isocrates had persisted in seeking the support of these ruthless suppressors of liberty and now he had shot off his speech like a javelin (ἀπηκόντισεν) menacingly against Philip. Speusippus, therefore, judged that truth was expendable, a small price to pay for a strong argument, and Philip could hardly be expected to realize the truth, for everyone knew that Isocrates had approached a number of prominent individuals to implement his political programme. In any case, Speusippus probably hoped that Philip would be distracted by the heavy satire of the passage and so be disinclined to examine the detail of its claims. γλίσχρως: ‘in niggardly fashion’, cf. Plato Republic 553c. Isocrates had in lazy or niggardly fashion chosen to rehash his earlier public letters rather than to put the effort into writing something worthy of Philip. The resulting work, as Speusippus described it, was full of imperfections of style and content. Obens [p.37] compared Philip 142 where γλίσχρως is opposed to ἀληθινῶς and implies insincerity on the part of the speaker, whose aim is to flatter rather than to state the truth. 14. ἐπὶ μὲν yàp ᾿Αμφιπόλεώς

φησι κωλῦσαι

τὴν γενομένην

εἰρήνην

γράψαι λόγον: see Philip 7. In fact Isocrates said all that he intended to say in regard to Amphipolis. He realized that, despite the acknowledgment of Philip's right to the city under the terms of the peace agreement of 346, Amphipolis in Macedonian hands would remain a barrier to Philip’s achieving the goodwill of Athenians. Isocrates argued by means of an impressive rhetorical paradox that by returning Amphipolis to Athens both Philip and Athens would benefit. See Philip 3-7. The subtlety of Isocrates’ rhetoric in the opening sections of the Philip has been little appreciated. The reason why he began with his earlier abandoned speech on Amphipolis was precisely in order to introduce that highly sensitive subject in such a way as to minimize its negative impact on Philip. This, he judged, would be best achieved in an indirect manner that avoided the possibility of giving offence. Therefore, by means of the indirect rhetorical mechanism of summarizing the argument of his earlier speech, Isocrates was attempting to persuade Philip to surrender Amphipolis to Athens in a way that would not prejudice Philip’s reception of the speech as a whole. I am not in agreement with the view that Isocrates introduced this argument primarily in order to appease his Athenian audience, rather than to convince Philip. Consequently, far from avoiding the subject of Amphipolis, as Speusippus suggested, Isocrates introduced it with admirable subtlety. ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἡρακλέους «9» ἀθανασίας ὕστερον αὐτῷ cot φράσειν: Isocrates stated at Philip 33 that Athens was partly responsible for Heracles’ immortality (Ἡρακλεῖ μὲν ovvaitiav γενέσθαι τῆς ἀθανασίας). This may relate to the Athenian claim that they were the first Greeks to worship Heracles as a god [Diodorus 6.39.1]. But see Pausanias 1.32.4 where this claim is made for

Commentary

159

the people of Marathon. Isocrates introduced Heracles into his speech in order to impress on Philip the debt of gratitude he owed Athens and the other major states for the services they had conferred on his ancestor Heracles, and hence on the Macedonian royal house. Isocrates did not elaborate on the theme because it was not relevant to his argument (οὐ καιρός; cf. Helen 29).

ὑπὲρ ἐνίων δὲ διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν ὁμολογῶν μαλακώτερον γράφειν συγγνώμης ἀξιοῖ τυχεῖν: see Philip 149 and compare Antidosis 9 and Panathenaicus 4 for this commonplace statement. Isocrates, of course, did not concede

that the Philip was an inferior work. See Commentary 84: ἦν δὲ xai «τὸ» τὰ παλαιὰ διαλεχθῆναι τῆς Ἰσοκράτους ἡλικίας. μὴ θαυμάζειν δ᾽ Ei καί πως ἀναγνοὺς ὁ Ποντικὸς μωλύτερον, [καὶ]

φαυλότερον ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὸν λόγον: quoting Isocrates Philip 27: τὸν νῦν ἐπιδεικνύμενον μάλιστ᾽ ἂν βλάψειε καὶ φαυλότερον φαίνεσθαι ποιήσειεν. Once again Speusippus has taken an argument from the Philip and wilfully distorted it. The absurd suggestion is that Isocrates felt it necessary to excuse (cf.

προφάσεις, σκήψεις) the incompetence of the Apollonian, his designated successor! Concerning Isocrates of Apollonia see pp.54—55. Isocrates [Philip 25-29, cf. Letter 1, 2-3] objected to the common misconception that written discourses were concerned with less serious subjects and that they were intended only to display the brilliance of the teacher and so attract feepaying students to his school. The Philip, as a symbouleutic work in written form, was at a disadvantage because its ability to persuade was limited by the absence of its author who was best able to present and interpret it. (Note that tov viv ἐπιδεικνύμενον at $27 does not characterise the Philip as an epideictic speech, as Laistner's note suggests, but is better translated with Treves as ‘il discorso ch'io ti presento' or Norlin's 'the discourse which is now presented to you'. See also Isocrates own statement at Philip 93—94 that the Philip was not an epideictic work. Rather than apologising for the incompetence of his Apollonian associate as Speusippus would have it, Isocrates expressed the sense of impotence an author must necessarily feel when he has no control over who reads his words. Had Isocrates entrusted to his namesake the responsibility for presenting the Philip in Macedonia, as von Scala [p. 112] argued, he would to some extent have been exercising vicariously just that control which he expressed regret at the lack of. μοωλύτερον: this rare word, whose comparative form occurs only in later lexica, is the only word identified by Sykutris which could conceivably betray a late origin for the letter. Sykutris, however, argued that the very fact that the word only occurs in the later lexica, which themselves are based on works of the Hellenistic period, proves that the word is of genuine Attic origin. He further postulated that the lexica may have had in mind this very word from Speusippus' letter. See BS, pp.55—56. P.Merlan [From Platonism to Neoplatonism 2nd ed. rev., The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960 pp.120-121] argued, based on the authenticity of our letter, that the presence of the word συμμεμολυσμένον (a word cognate with μωλῦτεpov) in a passage of Iamblichus’ Περὶ τῆς κοινῆς μαθηματικῆς ἐπιστήμης.

160

Commentary

strengthened the view that the passage was a quotation from Speusippus. The uncommonness of the word lends some support to Merlan’s case, but the argument is not a strong one. See also Isnardi Parente, Speusippo p.392. [xai]: deleted by Sykutris (BS, p.55 n.1), who argued that it was inserted at some later date in order to make an erroneous connection with ποιεῖ: Isocrates

Philip 27 simply has φαυλότερον φαίνεσθαι ποιήσειεν. The lexica make it clear that

oA ote pov goes better with ἀναγνοὺς than with λόγος. τὸν Πέρσην δ᾽ ὡς καταστρατηγήσεις αὐτὸν εἰδέναι σέ φησι: see Philip 105, where Isocrates declined, in deference to Philip’s acknowledged ability and achievements as a general, to offer gratuitous advice on how to defeat the Persians in war. What Isocrates had intended as an acknowledgment of Philip’s prowess Speusippus misinterpreted in order to advantage his argument. This was, Speusippus claimed, yet another attempt by Isocrates to excuse (cf. προφάσεις) his deficiencies and omissions. The implication is that it was all very well for Isocrates to propose to Philip a war against Persia, but he deliberately avoided the question as to how it might succeed. The ironic tone of these words, first remarked on by Bremi [Orelli p. 276], is achieved by the emphatic position

of σέ at the end of the sentence. The relevance of this section for the date and authenticity of the letter is discussed in the Introduction p.29. καταστρατηγήσεις: the earliest recorded use of the word. Sykutris [BS p.52] argued that it was a condensed expression for ταὶς στρατηγίαις τοὺς βαρβάρους κατεστραμμένος at Philip 140, formed on the analogy of καταπολεμῶ and similar words. τοσαύτην ἡμῖν σπάνιν βιβλίων βασιλεὺς Αἴγυπτον λαβὼν rEexoinκεν: war was the usual reason for disruption to trade and was probably more common than our sources attest. Herodotus 5.58.3 refers to a shortage of papyrus in Ionia. The Persian reconquest of Egypt in winter 343/2 is mentioned as having already taken place. On the basis of this and other evidence Bickermann [BS p.33-34] concluded that the letter of Speusippus must have been written a short time later. But see also Jacoby FGrH Teil 3b (supplement) bd. 2 p. 430, who expressed disagreement. Cawkwell [‘Demosthenes’ policy after the Peace of Philocrates.

I’, Classical

Quarterly

13(1963)

campaign can have lasted only two or rolls would have been back to normal invasion' then the fact that there was indicates that our letter was written

p.122]

argued

that, as the Persian

three months and that supplies of papyrus ‘within a few navigable months after the still a shortage of papyrus rolls at Athens very shortly after the Persian reconquest.

Brunt ['Euboea in the time of Philip II’, Classical Quarterly 19(1969) p.252 n.6]

on the other hand, questioned whether the shortage of papyrus rolls would manifested itself immediately, as we do not know what stock was available time. The shortage of papyrus was, in any event, rhetorically convenient, served Speusippus' purpose to suggest that had supplies of papyrus been quate he would have continued with his catalogue of Isocrates' excuses.

have at the for it ade-

APPENDIX I A LETTER OF PLATO TO PHILIP Φιλίππφ: To Philip?” Epist. Socrat. 31(Orelli/Hercher) |

Περδίκκας μὲν ἐνδεδεῖχθαί μοι δοκεῖ περὶ KoAλοῦ ποιούμενος κατὰ τὸν Ἡσίοδον τὰ ἡμίσεα πάντων κεκτῆσθαι νομίζων τὰ μὲν χρήματα καὶ διὰ τύχην ἄν τινα πολλὰ κτήσασθαι «οὐ» τῶν

4 βελτίστων εἶναι.

Σοὶ δὲ ὅσιόν ἐστιν ἀδελφὰ

τοῖς παρ᾽ ἐκείνου ὑπηργμένοις πράττειν, ὅπως

ἂν δοκῆς καὶ τὸ ἦθος ἀδελφὸς εἶναι τοῦ περὶ σοῦ διανοηθέντος τοιαῦτα. Νόμιζε δὲ πάντας προσέχειν σοι τὸν νοῦν καὶ σκοπεῖν ποῖός τε 10 ἔσῃ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφόν καὶ τοὺς μὲν βελτίστους ἀγωνιᾶν βουλομένους καὶ ἐξιοῦσθαί σε τῇ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ ὑπερβάλλειν, τοὺς δὲ φαύλους φθονοῦντας ἡδέως av τι ἰδεῖν περὶ ὑμᾶς γινόμενον πλημμελές. Otc δεῖ νομίσαντα πο-

15 λεμίους εἶναι μετὰ τῶν βελτίστων ἀγωνίζεσθαι αὐτὸν ὄντα ἕνα τούτων.

Δοκεῖ γάρ μοι οὐ μό-

νον ἁμιλλητέον εἶναι πρὸς τὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἔργα, ἃ ἐκείνῳ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ πέπρακται, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὰς σὰς εὐεργεσίας, ὅκως μὴ καταδεέ20 στεραι αἱ παρὰ σοῦ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον γίνωνται. Περὶ

κλείστου δὲ δεῖ σε ποιεῖσθαι σώφρονά τε εἶναι καὶ κατήκοον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὄντος περὶ σὲ οἷός περ νῦν ἐστιν. Ερρωσο.

: 29 (Allazzis/Köhler)

Perdiccas appears to me to have demonstrated that, following Hesiod, he esteems highly the possessing the half of everything, considering as he does that one might acquire great possessions by chance also and not be one of the best men. It is right, then, that you should duplicate his record, so that in your character also you will seem the brother of him who has been so well disposed towards you in this way. Consider, that all will pay close attention to you and observe how well you measure up to your brother. The best men will be anxious wanting you to equal or surpass your brother in fairness, while the worse sort of men, being envious, will take pleasure if they see anything discordant happen between the two of you. These latter you must consider your enemies and, as one of the best men yourself, oppose them. For it seems to me that you should vie not only to outdo the actions which your brother has performed on behalf of the State, but also the benefactions he has rendered you personally, so that your benefactions to him will not be infenor. You must, then, esteem above all the attainment of temperance in yourself and heed your brother who acts towards you as he now does. Farewell.

| epdixac V : Περδίκας P 4 ov add. Allatius : κτήσασθαι τῶν βελτίστων V : inter κτήσασθαι et τῶν spatium habet P 5 ὅσιον C. Orellius: ὅτι VP 7 toU περί σοῦ διανοηθήντος Hercher : τοῦ περί σε ov διανοηθήντος V : τοῦπερ ... διανοηθέντος P : τοῦ περί ce διανοηθήντος Bremi 9 σκοκεῖν P in marg. :

ποιεῖν VP: τηρεῖν Allatius

ποῖός te VP : ὁποῖός τις Hercher

bispos. V l4 yevóuevov V. 18G P: QV

[9 cà;

V: om. P

11 xai post ἀγωνιᾶν C. Orellius

11 tij

20 γίνονται V : γίγνωνται Mullachius

There is no general agreement on the authenticity of the thirty-first Socratic Letter or even on the identity of its nominal author. Leon Allazzis, the first editor of the Socratic Letters in 1637, proposed that the letter was written by Plato and 95 The text of the letter reproduced here is that of Köhler (p.50). The manuscripts referred to in the apparatus criticus are cited as earlier for the Letter of Speusippus. See p.101.

162

Appendix I

preserved in the Academy. Speusippus appended the letter to his own letter in

order to remind Philip of his debt to Plato.?96 Orelli, in his edition of 1815, expressed the view that both letters 30 and 31 were by the same hand and considered them to be from the fourth century BCE.?? Mullach held that both letters

were genuine works of Speusippus.?9? Susemihl rejected letters 30 and 31 as coming from the same collection of forgeries used by Carystius of Pergamum.” Schering and Kóhler likewise declared all the Socratic Letters to be forgeries but saw no reason to reject Speusippus as the nominal author of the letter.?!? According to Sykutris the thirty-first letter is a forgery composed in order to provide the

missing letter of Plato postulated by section 12 of the thirtieth letter.?!! In reply, Momigliano rightly observed that Sykutris in his treatment of the letter provided "Nessun elemento positivo contro la autenticità' and, in addition, that his position was weakened by his admission that the compiler of the Socratic Letters lacked the ability himself to forge such a well written letter and must have relied on an earlier work. Momigliano was careful to emphasise that the letter gave him the impression of being authentic, and he was inclined to attribute it to Speusippus.?!? [snardi Parente speculates on the possibility that the letter may have been devised by Speusippus or one of his Academic circle at the same time as the late fifth Platonic letter was composed, with the aim (notwithstanding Euphraeus' subsequent history) of reminding Philip II of his debt to Euphraeus and the

Academy.?!? Looking first at the question of attribution, it seems preferable to me to attribute the letter to Plato rather than to Speusippus. The letter finds its place in the collection of Socratic Letters as an attachment to the thirtieth letter, section 12 of which it was clearly intended to support.?'4 In view of section 12 of the thirtieth letter, it would seem highly probable that the events alluded to in the thirty-first letter are the service rendered by Plato to Philip and the former's high regard for the welfare of the royal brothers. It follows from this that the proof of the claim should logically be a letter written by Plato illustrating his concern for Philip and Perdiccas. Furthermore, in view of the fact that Plato had recommended his former pupil Euphraeus of Oreus as advisor to the king and therefore had a personal interest in the affairs of Perdiccas, it would be strange to find the less 906 Quoted by Orelli p.274. While offering no opinion himself, Ritter [p.382] nevertheless stated the view that Allazzis' position was worthy of consideration.

307 30$ 39 MO

pp.vi-vii. pp. 65, 89. Geschichte p.587 n.28. Schering p.79; Kohler pp.4-5. 123. Westermann (pp. 17-19] had earlier rejected the

entire collection.

*!! Briefe pp.88-89: BS p.79; Sokratikerbriefe col.986. 312 Filippo, p.36 n.l. 313 Speusippo p.399. 314 This observation was made, amongst others, by Allazzis (Quoted by Orelli p.274] and Sykutris [see

n.311 above]. The presumption that the brothers referred to in the letter are Per-

diccas and Philip ultimately depends on the presence of the name Perdiccas and on the intimate relationship of the two letters within the corpus.

Appendix I

163

prominent Speusippus addressing a letter to Philip while Plato was still alive. Another consideration that points to Plato as the nominal author of the letter is the presence of the aphorism that the half is more than the whole, with which the letter as we have it opens. This aphorism from Hesiod appears to have been a favourite of Plato, who quoted it in both the Republic (466c) and the Laws (690e)

and referred to it indirectly at Laws 677d. Turning now to the question of authenticity, I acknowledge at the outset that, as we have seen in the case of the Letter of Speusippus, absolute proof is not possible. The best that can be achieved is to demonstrate that a work is consistent in terms of language and ideas with other work known to be by the author in

question, and also consistent with the period it purports to represent.?!? In the case of the thirty-first letter its very brevity is a complicating factor. Nevertheless, I believe that a good case can be made for the likelihood of its being genuine or, if not genuine, at least a very skilful near contemporary production written by someone with an intimate knowledge of Plato's language and thought. To begin with, it must be acknowledged that the letter is written in a good Greek style which sets it apart (together with the thirtieth letter) from the other

letters in the corpus of Socratic Letters.?!6 Brief though the letter is, its vocabulary is consistent with that of Plato and displays some striking similarities. Of particular interest is the adjective πλημμελής found in the sentence ‘tovc δὲ φαύλους φθονοῦντας ἡδέως av ti ἰδεῖν περὶ ὑμᾶς γινόμενον πλημμελές᾽. Πλημμελής (as also 'πλημμελέω᾽ and ᾿πλημμέλεια᾽ in their various forms), is better represented in Plato than in any other writer of the classical period, so that

we can say with assurance that it is characteristic of his vocabulary.?!? Speusippus appears to have quoted this line, whether consciously or unconsciously, at section 12 of his letter to Philip, where he preferred the word ἀνήμερος in the phrase τι.. ἀνήμερον ἥ μὴ φιλάδελφον to represent the notion τι.. πλημμελές. It was for rhetorical reasons, as I argue in the Commentary, that Speusippus chose to use the word avrnepoc.?!® If we accept the genuineness of Speusippus’ letter to Philip, then the thirty-first letter, which I have argued it quotes, must logically be earlier; unless, of course, it is a forgery which took its theme from Speusippus’ letter. But if it is a forgery we are forced to concede that the hypothetical forger chose to overlook the word ἀνήμερος (unattested in Plato) and deliberately chose to use the excellent Platonic word πλημμελής. On the balance of probability I should think it highly unlikely that a forger could have had such an intimate and 315 For the methodological issues involved here see Introduction pp.18-19. 316 Sykutris [Briefe p.89], whose intimate knowledge of the Socratic Letters has never been equalled, judged that '...der Stil in diesem Brief erheblich besser und flieBender ist als in den andern mit ihrem ungeschichten und qualvollen Griechisch'. Sykutris (Briefe p.109) distinguished the Socratic Letters (except for nos.28/30 and 29/31) from the Letters of Socrates (nos. 1-7),

the latter of which were written in a competent Greek style.

3? According to TLG words containing πλημμελ occur thirty-three times in the Platonic corpus. 318 See Commentary $12: xai διὰ τέλους χαλεπῶς φέροντος, ef τι γίγνοιτο παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀνήμερον f| μὴ φιλάδελφον.

164

Appendix I

instinctive appreciation of Plato's vocabulary; rather it suggests to me that Plato himself was the author. Other examples of words or expressions typical of Plato are the word adeaφός used in the metaphorical sense of ‘twin’, ‘akin’, which is found at Republic 401a, 421c and Laws 683a, and the expression περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαι, which occurs at Euthyphro Sa; Crito 46e; Phaedrus 233d; Lysis 215b—c, 219d—e; Symposium 180a; and Republic 389b to cite just a few instances and without taking into account περὶ πλείονος ποιεῖσθαι and περὶ πλείστου ποιεῖσθαι. While the word ἁμιλλητέον is not used by Plato, it is used in the present sense by his contemporary Isocrates [Areopageticus 73; Letter 7,7]. Plato does however use various forms of ἀμιλλάομαι, as for instance in the Republic [328a; 490a] and Laws (834a; 968b]. I would also draw attention to the objective use of odc in the phrase τὰς σὰς εὐεργεσίας (‘his benefactions to you’). This construction, uncommon in

prose, was also used by Plato in the Gorgias: εὐνοίᾳ yap ἐρῶ τῇ σῇ."}9 A prominent feature of the letter is the contrast between oi βέλτιστοι and oi φαῦλοι. I know of no exact parallel from Plato where these terms are opposed in the moral sense in which they are employed in the letter. However, the contrast between ἀγαθός and φαῦλος would have been a natural one for a writer of Greek in any period. Examples from Plato's writings are to be found at Protagoras 327c; Republic 603a; and Epistle IX 357b. Plato did, of course, use the terms separately in the moral sense. See, for example, Republic 347a; 506a; Laws 658e (oi βέλτιστοι) and Laws 902a (ot φαυλότατοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων), Laws 757a (φαῦλοι Kat σπουδαῖοι). There is, however, a remarkable similarity between the letter and Plato Republic 347a-b where οἱ βέλτιστοι are identified with oi ἐπιεικέστατοι. Perdiccas in the letter is said to endorse Hesiod's aphorism because of his desire to be counted among the βέλτιστοι and his preeminent virtue is ἐπιεικεία. It is assumed that Philip also would wish to be regarded as one of the βέλτιστοι and he is urged to equal or surpass Perdiccas in ἐπιεικεία. The usage here is certainly characteristic of the way Plato used these terms. The remaining vocabulary in the letter is unexceptional and consistent with Plato's usage. Sykutris noted a similarity of expression with the fourth letter of Plato [320d], which he took as evidence of imitation. The image of the whole world

(τοὺς ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης / πάντας) looking intently (eic Eva τόπον ἀποβλέπειν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ μάλιστα πρὸς σέ || προσέχειν σοι τὸν νοῦν καὶ σκοπεῖν) at the behaviour of the addressee in each case is indeed striking and

completely appropriate in both contexts. The similarity of expression strikes me as indicative of the same mind at work, and consequently provides supporting

evidence that Plato was the author of the thirty-first letter.>2° 319

Plato Gorgias 486a. Hercher’s omission of the word oac (following codex Paris. gr.

3054) only serves to make the meaning less clear.

320 Sykutris, Briefe pp.88-89. Plutarch quoted this passage from the Fourth Letter in his Dion 52.3; cf. Moralia 69f. Similarity of expression does not necessarily presuppose imitation, for a number of writers may independently produce similar images just as one writer may express an idea in a variety of similar ways.

Appendix 1

165

A further argument in support of Plato’s authorship, even if it can offer no proof of authorship, may be found in the non-hiatus-avoiding style of the letter.??! Plato seems to have become conscious of hiatus-avoidance after he wrote Theaetetus, which does not attempt to avoid illegitimate hiatus and which, significantly for our purposes, can be dated to around 368, shortly before his departure

for Syracuse.?22 Letter XIII of Plato to Dionysius, which similarly contains a high instance of hiatus, if genuine, must date to about 365, soon after Plato's return

from Syracuse.?2? [t was precisely at this time that Perdiccas III came to the Macedonian throne and a couple of years before our letter must have been written (see below where I argue for a date between

364 and 362). The Fifth Letter,

which also dates to this time, similarly makes little attempt to avoid hiatus. It would seem fair to conclude from the chronological argument based on hiatus, therefore, that had Plato written the thirty-first letter to Philip at this time, it is

likely that he would have made no attempt to eliminate illegitimate hiatus.?* There is, therefore, no good reason to reject the thirty-first letter on grounds of language or style. I will now proceed to examine the content of the letter in order to see whether the ideas it contains are consistent with those known to have been held by Plato. The most prominent feature of the letter is the theme of rivalry between Perdiccas and Philip. The brothers, both sons of Amyntas III and Eurydice, were close in age as we see from Aeschines' admittedly exaggerated description of them in 367 as ‘children’ (cf. παίδων ὄντων: On the Embassy 26, 28). In fact Philip was fourteen or fifteen and Perdiccas perhaps a year or two older at the

time.?2° Their closeness in age may have increased their rivalry and lessened Perdiccas' authority both in the eyes of Philip and of Philip's supporters. My reading of the letter in this and the following paragraphs clearly points to rivalry being in part at least behind the quarrel that threatened Perdiccas’ monarchy. Plato, by means of his advice to Philip in the letter, attempted to divert this destructive rivalry into constructive channels. Philip was urged to do what the best

and most honourable people (oi βέλτιστοι) would wish him to do and that is to equal or surpass Perdiccas in fairness or reasonableness (τῇ.. ἐπιεικείᾳ); not, we 321 Sykutris (BS p.66] detected seven instances of illegitimate hiatus in the Thirty-first Letter. See Harward [pp.%-92 ] for a good summary of the value of this form of stylometric analysis in the works of Plato. Harward saw a close correspondence based on the avoidance of hiatus between Plato's letters and dialogues: the earlier works paying little attention to the avoidance of illegitimate hiatus. The avoidance of hiatus in prose writing became fashionable about 360 under the influence of the School of Isocrates.

322 See A.E. Taylor, Plato. The man and his work, 7th ed. London: Methuen, 1960, p.320. 323 | am convinced by Harward's case for the authenticity of the thirteenth letter. See Harward pp. 230-238. 344 The chronological argument based on the occurrence of hiatus in itself is not completely persuasive. A writer such as Plato was undoubtedly capable of varying his style with effect. Furthermore the presence of illegitimate hiatus in both the thirty-first letter and the thirteenth letter of Plato may simply be indicative of their informal nature as private letters rather than polished works written to impress an audience. 325 See Griffith HM p.204 n.4.

166

Appendix1

note, in a contest for power in the State. Philip should not only compete (Gp .nt&ov) to surpass the actions (ἔργα) which Perdiccas has performed on behalf of the State (an area in which Philip's powerful ambition was so obviously concentrated) but also in regard to the personal benefactions (εὐεργεσίαι) which he has

received from Perdiccas, so that his record will not appear inferior to that of Perdiccas. The word εὐεργεσία refers to benefactions which serve to increase one’s influence through the loyalty and support returned by the beneficiary, and thus gratitude is assumed on the part of the beneficiary. The return of a favour was considered a solemn obligation, and hence the significance of the word ὅσιον in 1.6, as emended by C. Orellius. We know from an independent source that the service Perdiccas had rendered Philip was to install him in a fiefdom within the Macedonian state, thereby giving the ambitious prince independent authority within the territory he had been assigned. Philip was thus being reminded that he had benefited from his brother's good services and as an honourable

man should respond by supporting Perdiccas.?9 In short, Philip must range himself on the side of the best and most upright people and contend (ayoνίζεσθαι) against those contemptible persons who, motivated by envy, would

take pleasure in seeing him quarrel with his brother Perdiccas.?2? There is evidence to suggest that the peaceful resolution of conflict which the letter writer promotes by his attempt to divert the rivalry which Philip obviously felt towards his brother into an acceptable channel reflects what we might expect Plato's preferred approach to have been in similar circumstances. Plato's strong advocacy of conciliation in the conflict between Dionysius II and Dion is a case in point. In his seventh letter Plato plainly indicated that he regarded it as a deficiency in both men that they had refused his attempts at reconcilliation, which, he believed, would have averted the evils that ensued. Likewise in the fourth letter he advised Dion to play the physician and attempt to cure the potentially destructive ambition (φιλοτιμία) of himself and of the other contend-

ers for power in Syracuse after the overthrow of Dionysius.*28 Plato's wellattested abhorrence of stasis and his advocacy of the peaceful resolution of conflict within states is discussed further in the following paragraph. As we have just seen, the best people were anxious that Philip should equal or surpass his brother in fairness and reasonableness (τῇ... ἐπιεικείᾳ). The word ἐπιεικεία, therefore, applies to Perdiccas, and only in anticipation to Philip, who

has yet to prove himself the equal of his brother.??? By examining Plato's use of the words ἐπιεικεία and ἐπιεικής I will attempt to throw light on what it was 326 For the meaning of the word εὐεργεσία see Plato's seventh letter, 351a—c, 332a. The evidence for the fiefdom is set out in n.331 below.

327 The word ἀγωνιᾶν further accentuates the sense of rivalry, for apart from meaning ‘to be anxious about a thing' it can also mean 'to compete'.

328 Letter 7, 350d—e; letter 4, 320e. 329 Notice that the argument is similar to that used urged to prove himself the benefactor of the Greeks. Speusippus' argument in the Thirtieth Socratic Letter, a debt of gratitude to Philip and his ancestors for their

by Isocrates in the Philip, where Philip is See pp.91—92. This is the converse of in which he argued that the Greeks owed past benefactions.

Appendix 1

167

that Perdiccas had done for Philip to justify the description, and in the process to add further weight to Plato’s claim to authorship of the letter. Plato frequently used the word to refer to the good or reasonable man (ὁ ἐπιεικὴς ἀνήρ) or to the

better sort of people (οἱ ἐπιεικεῖς) in an ethical sense. See Republic 387d; 330a, 347c; 409a among other references. There is, however a more specific sense in which Plato used the term which, while not unique to him, is undoubtedly characteristic of his usage and which adds a new dimension to the interpretation of the letter. The pseudo-Platonic Horoi [412b, cf. Aristotle Topics 141a] defined ἐπιεικεία as ‘a making little of [one’s own] rights (i.e. just claims) and interests’

(δικαίων καὶ συμφερόντων ἐλάττωσις), and with this we may compare Aristotle's definition in the Rhetoric [1374a] as ‘justice (or fairness) that goes beyond

the written law’ (ἔστι δὲ ἐπιεικὲς τὸ παρὰ τὸν γεγραμμένον νόμον 6i katov).?99 In this specific sense, therefore, ἐπιεικεία refers to a reluctance to push one’s legal claims beyond fairness where the letter of the law gives one that nght. If we apply these definitions to the letter, the suggestion must be that in acting fairly and equitably towards Philip, Perdiccas exceeded the requirements of strict justice. This interpretation, it seems to me, fits well with the report of Carystius of Pergamum that Perdiccas was persuaded by Plato's representative Euphraeus of Oreus to place Philip in charge of a part of the Macedonian territory, thereby

diminishing his own rightful status as king.??! What the letter writer represented as fairness and equity was in reality motivated by the necessity to avert a potentially destructive challenge by Philip to Perdiccas' authority. When we look for evidence that Plato used the term ἐπιεικεία in this specific context, that is in relation to the avoidance of civil discord, we find that he did so on three occasions. The first occurs in the sixth book of the Laws [756e-757e] where he wrote

that at times every state must through necessity modify the ideal of political justice (τὸ πολιτικὸν δίκαιον) based on true equality in order to avert internal conflict (στάσις). In this event, explained Plato, the reasonable and amicable

action (τὸ ἐπιεικὲς Kat ξύγγνωμον) infringes the ideal and so is contrary to strict justice. Then in the Seventh Letter, we find Plato praising the returning Athenian 330 The distinction between ἐπιεικής and δίκαιος is well attested before Plato. See, for example, Herodotus 3.53.4 and other passages cited by K.J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality, Oxford: Blackwell, 1974 pp. 191, 61.

331 The settlement of Perdiccas on Philip is discussed at Commentary $12: ὥσπερ ov Πλάτωνος ... Katacxevdoavtoc, and below pp.35-36. Philip, the thirty-first letter implies, benefited from some service or euergesia that he received from Perdiccas, a service that accorded with Hesiod's aphorism that the half is more than the whole, and one that displayed Perdiccas' epieikeia. Note also that Perdiccas is said to have already demonstrated (cf. ἐδεδεῖχθαι) the esteem in which he held Hesiod's aphorism. This claim makes sense only if it refers to something that Perdiccas had done to demonstrate his esteem. The clause tov περὶ cov 61avonθέντος τοιαῦτα likewise refers to something that has gone before. The letter concludes with the injunction to Philip that he heed Perdiccas 'who acts towards you as he now does', an injunction that must refer to the euergesia mentioned earlier. The only service we have independent knowledge of is the granting of the fiefdom recorded by Carystius of Pergamum. While it is possible that the grant of a fiefdom to Philip was mentioned in an earlier section of the letter that has not survived this does not seem likely to me. It would have been offensive to raise the matter of a benefaction directly with the recipient.

168

Appendix I

democrats in the year 403 for their ἐπιεικεία in avoiding recriminations against

their opponents.??? The third instance occurs at Laws 736c—e in the context of avoiding terrible and dangerous strife (δεινὴν καὶ ἐπικίνδυνον ἔριν) within a state arising from any gross disparity in the distribution of land and money. Plato ascribed the quality of ἐπιεικεία to those privileged persons who opt to share land with the dispossessed among them in order to maintain social harmony. These enlightened individuals understand the paradox that ‘poverty consists not in decreasing one's substance, but in increasing one's greed'; and this ties in

nicely with the paradoxical aphorism of Hesiod with which the letter opens.??? Hesiod's aphorism that the half is more than the whole, with which the thirtyfirst letter opens, refers to a passage in the Works and Days (27-41) where the poet accused his brother Perses of seizing the greater part of their joint inheritance with the connivance of certain 'bribe-swallowing lords'. Hesiod accused these lords of foolish ignorance in that they had not learnt 'how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and as-

phodel’.?**

The justice represented by the judgment of the lords is contrasted

with the true justice of Zeus. It is because Zeus will ensure that justice prevails that Hesiod can declare confidently that only a fool would strive to acquire the

whole dishonestly in preference to half acquired by honest means.??? The quotation from Hesiod introduces a moral element into the argument of the letter. The essential point of Hesiod's aphorism, as the letter writer asserted Perdiccas understood it, is that while anyone might acquire wealth and possessions this of itself did not make a person one of the ‘best men’ (oi BeAtıctor).??° Perhaps the sense of 'upright and honourable' in combination with an upper class social distinction (such as used to apply to the word ‘gentleman’) comes closest to the

meaning here.??? By treating Philip in a manner that was ἐπιεικής, that is, with true justice, Perdiccas demonstrated that he was one of the best men. Philip is urged to show that he too belongs to this elite group by opposing those forces 332 325b. Aelius Aristides (Panathenaicus 187] may preserve a popular fourth-century tradition in praising the actions of the democrats who 'conquered their own fellow citizens by their equity’ (cf. ἐπιεικείᾳ τοὺς οἰκείους &£viknoav).

33

Cf. πενίαν

ἡγουμένους εἶναι μὴ τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐλάττω ποιεῖν ἀλλὰ τὸ τὴν

ἀπληστίαν πλείω. Plato then adds, ‘for this is the main foundation of the security of a State’. The translation here and in the text above is that of R.G. Bury (LCL).

334 γήκιοι, οὐδὸ ἴσασιν ὅσῳ πλέον ἥμισν καντὸς οὐδ᾽ ὅσον EV μαλάχῃ TE Kai ἀσφοδέλῳ μέγ᾽ ὄνειαρ: 40-41.

335 The Suda [s.v. νήπιος = Adler nu, 325] explains the proverb as follows: ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε yap πλειόνων ἐπιθυμῶν tic ἀποβάλλει καὶ d ἔχει. 336 Allazzis' addition of the word 6v between κτήσασθαι and τῶν βελτίστων where Parisinus gr. 3054 has a small space (but not so Vaticanus gr. 64) seems entirely appropriate. See Kohler p.123. Sykutris [Briefe p.88 n.2] paraphrased the meaning as ‘Geld kann jeder auch durch einen Zufall erwerben, «durch Wohltaten aber sich jemanden verpflichten, das bleibt Vorrecht der Besten'.

337 [n Greek words such as ἀγαθοί, βέλτιστοι, πλούσιοι, χρηστοί, γνώριμοι and evyeveic denote wealth and social position and often also assume a high standard of morality. The meaning of such terms and whether they are used in a moral sense is best interpreted from the reference point of each writer individually.

Appendix |

169

which would have him act in a morally unacceptable manner towards Perdiccas.

By means of a notable pun on ἀδελφά / ἀδελφός Plato virtually challenged Philip to demonstrate that in his character (τὸ ἦθος) as well as by blood he was worthy

to be Perdiccas’ brother.??? The concept of the ‘best men’ (ot βέλτιστοι) as being those best fitted to rule is a feature of Plato's Republic. Education, which has provided these men with a knowledge of the good, ensures that they must of necessity act in a morally upright and honourable manner. At Republic 347a—b Plato used the term of those preeminent men (oi ἐπιεικέστατοι) whom he also described as ‘good men’ (oi

ἀγαθοὶ). These people are to be the rulers, the so-called Guardians of his ideal state. Due to their advanced philosophical education the guardians (once again referred to as οἱ βέλτιστοι at 506a) understand the nature of that which is good

(ta ἀγαθά) and so can distinguish what is truly just and honourable in their administration of justice. When we compare the significance Plato attached to Hesiod's aphorism on the two occasions he cited it with the way it is used in the letter we find that there is much basic agreement. In the Republic [466b—c] Plato described the scenario in which a Guardian might abuse his powerful position to acquire for himself everything in the city. In the Laws [691a] the kings of Argos and Messene are said to have brought ruin upon themselves and on the Hellenic power by overturning the laws which they had formerly agreed upon with their subjects in order to benefit themselves. These passages, then, share a common theme, namely that the abuse of power for self-aggrandisement is wrong and has implications for the individual concerned and for the society. We should add that Plato believed that kingdoms are destroyed from within by their rulers when those rulers disregard justice and the rule of law [Laws 683e]. These instances of the application of Hesiod's aphorism accord well with the situation we find in the letter. Perdiccas, we are given to believe, acted with great fairness/justice in regard to Philip, choosing not to retain everything for himself but to grant Philip a share of power, in order (as we learn from Carystius of Pergamum) to settle a quarrel that might otherwise have threatened the destruction of the Macedonian state. Another moral concept we find in the letter is that of temperance. If Philip chooses the just and honourable side, (as it is implied he must by the rhetorical assumption contained in αὐτὸν ὄντα Eva τούτων), he will have shown himself to 338 The word ᾿άδελφός᾽ occurs five times in reference to Perdiccas as Philip's ‘brother’, thereby emphasising the close family relationship between the two men. This emphasis is further accentuated by the word play on ἀδελφά / ἀδελφός in the sentence ‘Loi δὲ ὅσιόν ἐστιν ἀδελφὰ

toig Rap’ ἐκείνου ὑπηργμένοις πράττειν, ὅπως Gv δοκῆς xai τὸ ἦθος ἀδελφὸς εἶναι τοῦ περὶ σοῦ διανοηθέντος τοιαῦτα᾽, which is very effective in Greek but does not translate well into English. The repetition leaves one with the impression that Plato intended to appeal to Philip's sense of family, with the aim of convincing him to remain loyal to Perdiccas. It may have been his sense of family loyalty that in the end convinced Philip to accept the territorial settlement offered by Perdiccus. Daniel Ogden has shown that among the Argead kings of Macedon and their hellenistic successors disputes were rare amongst full siblings, whereas they were common in amphimetric relationships. A rival claimant to the throne who was not a full brother would not have been subject to the same restraint. See Introduction p.36.

170

Appendix I

be acting in a temperate manner. The word I translate as ‘temperate’ is σώφρων, and the letter writer concluded by urging Philip to strive to be σώφρων. The essential meaning of this word was given by Plato in the Republic [430e ff. Cf. Gorgias 506e-507c; Phaedo 68c] where he described σωφροσύνη as a kind of order (κόσμος) which results from the control of one's pleasures and appetites. The soul of every person is composed of a better and a worse part and the selfmastery of the worse element constitutes temperance. In the Laws [631c] Plato

assigned second place among the divine goods to rational temperance of soul (μετὰ VOU σώφρων ψυχῆς ἕξις). In order to become σώφρων a man must fight against many pleasures and desires and conquer them by word and deed and

skill.??? The Platonic definition of σωφροσύνη fits well within the context of the letter, where Philip's predicament is also described as a struggle for self-mastery as he is drawn between the efforts of the best men and the worse men to win his support. Philip is exhorted to overcome his baser desires and count himself on the side of the best men. It has been observed of the term σώφρων that “its basic meaning is not ‘prudence’ or ‘moderation’ but ‘safe thinking,’ the kind of thinking that protects one from hybris”> Hybris, meaning ‘wanton violence, arising from the pride of strength or from passion’ (as defined by LSJ), of course incurs divine retribution. The violent overthrow of Perdiccas from his rightful position as king would be an act of hybris on Philip’s part and so not the act of a man who was σώφρων or, indeed, ἐπιεικής or βέλτιστος. Five letters in addition to the thirteen Thrasyllan letters survive from GraecoRoman antiquity under the name of Plato. I have reproduced these pseudonymous letters in Appendix II with the aim of demonstrating some essential differences between them and the thirty-first Socratic Letter. The first observation I would make is that these five letters provide examples of some of the types of letters that circulated under the names of famous philosophers. The first in particular, the fifth to a lesser extent, are letters that evoke historical situations. Their purpose was to add life to the bare bones of the accounts of philosophers' lives that proliferated in Hellenistic and Roman imperial times and frequently also to convey ethical teachings. The remaining three missives are letters of recommendation such, indeed, as the Letter of Speusippus purports to be. The only connection with Plato that these three letters can claim is that their author(s) probably regarded (albeit misguidedly) the Atticizing language in which they are written as reminiscent of Plato's language. They fall somewhere between the epistolographic paradigm and the school exercise. The first of the five letters provides the most fruitful comparison with the thirty-first Socratic Letter. We have here an example of the pseudo-historical letter that has been constructed from allusions in the biographical tradition. The principal sources utilised by the letter writer are easily discernable. The reference to Archytas derives from Plato's thirteenth letter [361a-b] and the main theme 339 647d. For a general overview of the development of the concept of sophrosyne in Plato see H. North, Sophrosyne. N.Y.: Cornell U. P., 1966, pp.150—196. *9 H. Lloyd-Jones The Justice of Zeus, Sather Classical Lectures no.41, Berkeley: U. Calif. Press, 1971, p.53.

Appendix I

171

from a well-known passage in the Republic [496c-d]. The association of Plato and Timon is first encountered in late biographies of Plato.**' In short, the historical allusions present in the letter are clearly derivative, as are those in the majority of the Socratic Letters. When now we examine the thirty-first Socratic Letter we find that it contains no obvious historical allusion and yet its entire concentrated argument points to an underlying historical situation, the only clue for which is the mention of the name Perdiccas. With the reference to Perdiccas we may compare that to the Younger Dionysius in the third of the pseudonymous letters. Both are oblique references to historical personages, but whereas Dionysius is introduced in order to highlight an aspect of morality in a letter that is primarily a simple didactic exercise, Perdiccas and his relationship to his brother Philip permeates the thirty-first letter. The argument of the thirty-first letter is certainly based on moral standards of family solidarity, justice and euergesia but it conveys the impression of urgency, the sort of urgency one would expect in a concrete historical situation. I suspect that Sykutris, who appreciated the essential literary quality of the thirty-first letter, was misled by the moral argument of the letter to associate it with the moralising themes frequently found in the Socratic Letters as also in the so-called Cynic epistles attributed to such as Diogenes, Crates and Heraclitus. Notice also that the development of the three distinct historical allusions in the first letter is superficial and simplistic, nowhere more so than in the treatment of Timon. The language of the letter is unexceptional but lifeless and there is a noticeable absence of pleasing stylistic effects. In contrast, as we have seen, the thirty-first letter develops a dense argument of great subtlety and sophistication, which is conveyed through its fine language and stylistic features. The overall impression of the derivative letter is one of artificiality and superficiality whereas the other has the ring of truth. I would make two further points of comparison with the Socratic Letters that set the thirty-first letter apart from the pseudonymous letters in that collection and in other collections from late Hellenistic and Roman periods. The first concerns the attitude of the letter writer towards the ruler and towards temporal power in general. A number of pseudonymous letters display clear signs of Cynic values, one of which is Parrhesia or a blunt freedom of speech in addressing monarchs and tyrants. Anyone familiar with the celebrated reposts which Diogenes of Sinope is alleged to have made to Alexander the Great will recognize the type. We encounter the same Cynic characteristic in the first of the Socratic Letters in which Socrates bluntly rejects the offers of King Archelaus to bestow riches and power on him in return for relocating himself from Athens to Macedon. In the collection of letters attributed to Diogenes we find this type of letter addressed to the likes of Antipater, Perdiccas, Alexander and Dionysius.?*^? In contrast, the thirty-first letter, as also the Letter of Speusippus, displays an uncritical acceptance of the rule of Perdiccas III and of Philip II respectively. Even though the writer of the thirty-first letter exhorts Philip to act in an ethical 341 [n general see Sykutris, Briefe pp.78—79. 42 See letters 4, 5, 24, 29 and 40 in the collection of Hercher. Note also the Letters of Anacharsis in the same collection, in which great and powerful men are admonished.

172

Appendix I

way, he does so in a tactful and respectful manner quite different from the brash tone adopted by the Cynic writers. A second Cynic belief found in letters from various epistolographic collections is autarkia, self-sufficiency and independence from polis society and its traditional values. The Cynic rejection of personal honour (doxa), which was conferred by the public opinion (doxa) they despised, is expressed in a number of

letters.” In the sixth of the Socratic Letters Socrates rejects the honour that derives from participation in the political life of the polis (politike doxa) and espouses the true honour that results from living a virtuous life. The twentieth letter also specifically rejects doxa. When we examine the thirty-first Socratic Letter in this regard we find that Philip is urged to emulate the honourable actions (erga) performed by Perdiccas on behalf of the State. Although the word doxa is

not used, the contest for the reputation that public opinion confers is clearly held in high regard. Whether or not Plato himself held this view strongly is unimportant in the present context. The fact that Philip and Perdiccas could be expected to subscribe to the traditional view of personal honour sets this letter apart from letters advocating Cynic beliefs. It has often been observed that the absense of any mention of Euphraeus of Oreus in section 12 of Speusippus' letter was due to the fact that he was persona non grata with Philip in 342, the year in which Philip's general Parmenion captured Oreus in Euboea causing the death of Euphraeus.*“ If, as Allazzis suggested, Speusippus appended to his own letter a copy of Plato's letter (which likewise made no mention of Euphraeus), in order to remind the king of his debt to Plato, this would account for the survival of the thirty-first letter. The fact that the letters always occur together in the manuscripts might be seen to support this interpretation. Such an explanation, then, seems to me the most likely. Another possibility is that the letter was edited and attached to Speusippus' letter in the third or second century BCE, perhaps by an Alexandrian compiler, because of the perceived intimate connection between the two letters. It remains to consider a likely date for the letter within the short period of Perdiccas' reign, that is between 365 and 359. Accepting that the letter relates to the settlement of a serious quarrel between Perdiccas and Philip, the exact date for the letter would depend on when the settlement took place. It is implied in the fifth letter of Plato that Euphraeus of Oreus took up residence at the Macedonian court early in Perdiccas' reign, and at his request, with the objective of advising the young and inexperiened monarch. The fifth letter contains no hint of a quarrel and so we may deduce that, even if there were basic differences between the brothers after Philip's return from Thebes in 365, the actual quarrel erupted after Euphraeus arrived at court.** It seems probable, as I argued earlier, that the enthusiasm with which Perdiccas embraced the philosophical life in an attempt to 43 For this aspect of Cynic belief see Diogenes Laertius 6.104. The pseudonomous letters of Diogenes provide many instances of the rejection of public opinion. See letters 4, 5, 7. 10.2, 37.3 and letters 6 and 18 of Crates in Hercher's collection.

34 See, for example, Bickermann BS p.33; Brunt, p.292. 45 For the date of Philip's return from Thebes, see Griffith HM pp.204-206.

Appendix I

173

assert his independence contributed to the worsening of relations between the brothers. Now both Plato and Speusippus were in Syracuse from 361 to 360 and consequently the letter is unlikely to have been written during those years. If the quarrel took place after Plato’s return from Syracuse, this leaves little time for Philip to establish himself and train an army on the territory granted him by

Perdiccas, as Carystius recorded that he did.” The more likely date for the letter is, therefore, sometime eighteen years of age, general Callisthenes in king's reign and it may

between 364, when Philip will have turned seventeen or and 362. Perdiccas’ defeat at the hands of the Athenian 362 is the first military reversal that we hear of during the have brought the quarrel to a head and prompted Plato's

letter; but this must remain conjecture.?*? In conclusion, then, while it is not possible to prove conclusively that the thirty-first letter is a genuine work of Plato, just as there will probably never be general agreement on the authorship of the thirteen letters that have hitherto been attributed to him, there can be no doubt that the language, style and content of the letter are entirely consistent with Platonic authorship. Indeed, I have shown that there is a consistent and often profound agreement with Platonic beliefs, an agreement that is inherent rather than expounded. It is this intrinsic agreement with Platonic beliefs that sets our letter apart from the derivative and often naive letters attributed to philosophers in the surviving epistolary literature. The cumulative weight of the evidence I have presented points in the same direction and cannot be lightly dismissed. There remains the possibility that the letter is a near contemporary forgery, perhaps written by Speusippus himself who, we may suppose, was more familiar with Plato's writing than any other contemporary

writer. But, it seems to me, this second possibility is even more difficult to substantiate than the first. Had Perdiccas' name not survived in the text there would be no historical context. A forger intent on verisimilitude would presumably have provided more than the incidental mention of the name Perdiccas, and a prospec-

tive purchaser or reader would presumably have expected the same.?*? While 546 Fl, FHG 4.356 (= Athenaeus 11.506f): διατρέφων δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα δύναμιν ὡς ἀπέθανε Περδίκκας ἐξ ἑτοίμου δύναμεως ὑκαρχούσῃης ἐπέπεσε τοῖς πράγμασι.

47 Aeschines, On the Embassy 30. The veracity of Aeschines’ statement that Callisthenes defeated Perdiccas has been questioned by J. Heskel, The North Aegean Wars, 371—360 B.C., Steiner: Stuttgart, 1997 pp.50-51. The year 362 would seem about right if we allow a year or so after Perdiccas’ accession in 365 for the arrival of Euphraeus and another year or so for the court

reform to be implemented and to become unpopular. Momigliano [Filippo, p.36 n.1] noted that a characteristic of the letter was its apparent unawareness of Perdiccas’ grant of territory to Philip, and he therefore concluded that the letter gave the impression of having been written before this had taken place. It seems probable to me that there was a reference to the settlement in the first section of the letter which has not survived. However, it is not necessary to make this assumption, for the letter itself assumes that Perdiccas conferred some considerable benefit on Philip, and the only one we have evidence for is the territorial settlement mentioned by Carystius of Pergamum. 348 Notice that the inclusion of the name Perdiccas is natural and unforced. In comparison, the writer of the First Socratic Letter (1.4 Kóhler) has Socrates refer to himself in the third person in a somewhat clumsy attempt to identify Socrates as the writer of the letter. Details such as the names of people. events and places may be included by a writer in order to convey the

174

Appendix I

there is no evidence in the surviving literature for a letter of Plato to Philip II, this in itself cannot logically disprove the genuineness of the thirty-first letter. The surviving thirteen letters attributed to Plato reflect the corpus as it was known to

Thrasyllus in the early first century CE.?*

It is not surprising that Thrasyllus

apparently had no knowledge of a short letter without ascription and associated with the collection of letters attributed to Speusippus.

impression of verisimilitude. Sykutris [Briefe] has analysed the detail in the Socratic Letters and the sources from which it derives. The implication is that the audiences for whom the pseudepistolographers wrote demanded this sort of detail. In his discussion of letters, W. Speyer [Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. München: Beck, 1971 p.82] formulates the rule: "Je genauer die Angaben sind, desto falscher sind sie."

39 See Diogenes Laertius 3.61.

APPENDIX II FIVE SPURIOUS LETTERS OF PLATO? Πλάτωνος: Of Plato Socratic Letters 24 (Orelli/Hercher/Köhler) : Plato, Letters 14 (Hermann) l

Οὕπω μὲν εἶχον τούτων tt πέμπειν εἰς Lupa-

κούσας, ὧν ἔφης ᾿Αρχύταν δεηθῆναι λαβεῖν παρὰ σοῦ

θᾶττον δὲ καὶ οὐ διὰ μακροῦ

πέμψομέν

σοι. Ἐμοὶ δὲ φιλοσοφία οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι ποτὲ χρῆμα γέγονεν, dpa γε φλαῦρον ἢ καλόν, ὁπότε ἐγὼ μισῶ νῦν συνεῖναι τοῖς πολλοῖς. Οἶμαι μὲν οὖν ὡς δικαίως διάκειμαι, ἀἁμαθαίνουσι δὲ xat ἰδέαν πᾶσαν ἀφροσύνης οἵ τε ἰδίᾳ τι ποιοῦντες καὶ οἱ τὰ κοινὰ πράττοντες. Ei δὲ ἀλόγως τοῦτο 10 πάσχω, οὕτω γε ἴσθι, ὅτι μόλις Gv τοῦτο ἐγένετό μοι Liv ἄλλως δὲ «καὶ» οὐκ Evi μοι ψυχῆς λαμβάνειν διὸ δὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἄστεος ἀπηλλάγην ὥσκερ εἰρκτῆς θηρίων. Διατρίβω μέντοι οὐ μακρὰν Ἡφαιστιαδῶν καὶ τούτων τῶν χωρίων 15 καὶ συνέγνων ὅτι Τίμων οὐκ ἦν ἄρα μισάνθρω-

πος, μὴ εὑρίσκων μέντοι ἀνθρώπους οὐκ ἡδύvato θηρία φιλεῖν, ὅθεν xa0' ἑαντὸν καὶ μόνος διεβίου κινδυνεύων δὲ τυχὸν ἴσως μηδὲ exei-

vax εὖ λογίζεσθαι. Σὺ δὲ ἐκδέχου ὅπως βούλει" 20 ἐμοὶ γὰρ ὧδε τὰ τῆς γνώμης ἔχει ἄποθεν εἶναι τοῦ ἄστεος εἷς τε νῦν καὶ τὸν ἄλλον ἄπκαντα

χρόνον, ὅντινα dv ζῆν ὁ θεὸς ἡμῖν διδῷ.

I have not yet obtained all the things to send to Syracuse, which you said Archytas wanted to receive from you. I will hurry up and send them to you soon. I do not know what philosophy can possibly have become for me, whether indeed it is a bad or a good thing, since I now hate to associate with people generally. I think, however, that my position is right and that both those who lead private lives and those who engage in public affairs are ignorant, displaying every form of foolishness. And if I suffer this contrary to reason, know simply that while this life may be difficult for me to live, it is not possible for me to partake in life otherwise. It was for this reason, then, that I left the city, as though it were a den of wild animals. I am, however, living not far from Hephaistiadai and the area thereabouts, and I have come to the view that Timon was not, as it seems, misanthropic: but, of course, finding no men he was unable to be friends with beasts. For this reason he used to live a selfsufficient and lonely life, but also one that placed him in danger, and for that reason probably not well considered. Take that however you wish, for my inclination is to be far away from the city both now and for as long a time as God shall grant me life.

The text and apparatus printed here is that of Kóhler, pp.39—40. deest in G Πλάτωνος Orelli : Πλάτωνος οἶμαι P 8 ποιοῦντες P : πονοῦντες C.F. Hermann 10 οὕτω P : οὕτως Bremi 11 xai pos. Orelli 14 Ἡφαιστιαδῶν Bentley : Ἐφεστιάδων P : Ἰφιστιαδῶν Hercher καὶ τούτων τῶν χωρίων Kal guvéyvov P : KaK toutov t. χωρίων guveyvav Hercher 18 διεβίον Orelli : διεβίουν P. κινδυνεύων δὲ Orelli : P : κινδυνεύω δὲ I.K.Orelli ἐκείνως Allat. : ἐκείνοις P

350 The first of the letters reproduced here is included among the Socratic Letters in Cod. Vat. gr. 64. The four letters following derive from Cod. Paris. gr. 1760 (=R) and are not directly related to the Socratic Letters. Hercher included the first three letters in his Epistolographi Graeci as numbers 24, 25 and 26 of the Socratic Letters. Hermann in volume 6 of his Teubner edition (1892) of Plato included all five letters as numbers 14-18 of Plato's Epistles. The manuscripts referred to in the apparatus criticus, with the exception of R, are the same as those listed for the Letter of Speusippus.

176

Appendix II

Πλάτωνος: Of Plato Socratic Letters 25 (Orelli/Hercher) : Plato Letters 15 (Hermann)

| Kpivig, ᾧ δέδωκα τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ἔστι μὲν πά-

ὁ μετὰ ταῦτα λόγος᾽ οὔτε γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἀγνοεῖς κῶς ἔχομεν πρὸς Παράμονον καὶ Kpivıv, οὔτε τὸν

Krinis, to whom I have given the letter, was long ago a friend of yours also. Since I was responsible for the beginning of the acquaintance, and I still think well of it now, as though making another beginning of introduction, I exhort you to look after him. For it happens that he wants to serve in war and to accomplish something worthy of himself. The following commendation will be fairly short. For neither are you unaware of the esteem I have for Paramonus and

10 νεανίσκον ὅτι σώφρων καὶ μέτριος καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν

Krinis nor that the young man is self-controlled and

ὁμιλίαν ὡς εἰπεῖν καὶ χρείαν ἀσφαλής. δεῖν γάρ φασι τεκμαίρεσθαι τὰ μέλλοντα τοῖς γεγο-

moderate in his desires and trusty, so to speak, in every dealing and affair. For they say that one must predict the future by the past and this is especially true in regard to individual character and conduct. Everyone agrees in praising him. Therefore, as he is such a man and a friend of mine and of yours endeavour to make every possible effort to assist him. For such men as these are worthy of favour.

λαι καὶ σοὶ φίλος, ἐπεὶ dE ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς γνώσεως

ἀφ' ἡμῶν γέγονε, καλῶς ἔχειν οἶμαι καὶ νῦν, ὥσκερ ἑτέραν ἀρχὴν ποιούμενος συστάσεως, κα5

ρακαλέσαι σε πρὸς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτοῦ. τυγχάνει γὰρ βουλόμενος στρατεύεσθαι καὶ κρά-

TTELV τι τῶν Kat ἀξίαν αὐτοῦ. σχεδὸν δὲ βραχὺς

νόσι, καὶ μάλιστα τῇ ἰδίᾳ φύσει καὶ προαιρέσει. τοῦτον δὲ πάντες ὁμολογουμένως ἑπαινοῦ-

15 σιν. ὡς οὖν ὄντος καὶ τοιούτου καὶ ἡμετέρου καὶ σοῦ φίλον REtpó τὴν ἐνδεχομένην περὶ avτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι σπουδήν᾽ ἄξιοι γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι χάριτος. 1 Kpivig: xpivacR

ᾧ δέδωκα : ᾧ δώδεκα R 6 και πράττειν τι : πράττειν τι καὶ

R 9 Kpiviv : κρήνην R

12 φασι: φησι R 15 ὄντος : οὗτος R

Πλάτωνος: Of Plato Socratic Letters 26 (Orelli/Hercher) : Plato Letters 16 (Hermann) |

Πολλάκις ἀναγγέλλοντος τοῦ ᾿Αθηνοδώρου mv ὑμετέραν προαίρεσιν, ἐδοκίμαζον γράψας πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀσπάσασθαί τε καὶ προσαγορεῦσαι καὶ

διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἐμὲ συνήθειαν ἧς φαίνεσθε μνημο5

vevetv, καὶ διότι περὶ Διονύσιον ὅμοιοι διαμένετε ταῖς εὐνοίαις. ἤθους γὰρ κρίσιν οὐδεμίαν ἀκριβεστέραν ἡγοῦμαι τῆς ἐν φιλίᾳ βεβαιότητος,

ἧς ὑμᾶς αἰσθάνομαι καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἐπι-

μελουμένονς. ὡς οὖν καὶ διὰ ταῦτα καὶ διὰ τὴν 10 ἄλλην ἐπιείκειαν ὑμῶν, ἣν πυνθάνομαι πολὺ μᾶλλον νῦν ἣ πρώην, ἀπερχομένου μον πειρᾶσθε

καὶ τὸν ὑπόλοιπον χρόνον εἶναι τοιοῦτοι, νομίζοντες ἐλευθεριωτάτην ἐπικαρπίαν εἶναι τῆς τοιαύτης διαθέσεως τὴν παρὰ τῶν εὖ ζώντων

As Athenodorus has frequently brought word of your character, I thought it fitting to write to you to greet you and address you both because of our acquaintance which you appear to recall and for the reason that in regard to Dionysius you continue the same as ever in your goodwill. For I consider no aspect of character

more accurate than constancy in friendship, which I perceive you cultivate even beyond your years. For these reasons, then, and because of your other virtues, which I hear of far more now than before, when I depart try to be of such character for the rest of your life also, considering that a good name among rightliving men is the most liberal harvest of such a fine disposition.

15 εὐφημίαν. 11 πειρᾶσθε - τοιοῦτοι Bremi : πειρᾶσθε - τοιούτου

177

Appendix II

Πλάτωνος: Of Plato Plato, Letters 14 (Hercher) : 17 (Hermann) Γεώργιος, d τὴν ἐπιστολὴν δέδωκα, τῶν φίλων ἡμῖν ἐστὶ τῶν συνεσχολακότων χρόνον Hdn xo-

λύν, καὶ τὸ ἦθος, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑπολαμβάνομεν, ὥσκερ

τις ἄλλος ἐπιεικής.

διὸ καὶ τῶν κατὰ

φιλοσοφίαν κεκοινωνήκαμεν αὐτῷ. τοῦτον οὖν ἐδόκει μοι καλῶς ἔχειν συστῆσαί σοι (τοὺς γὰρ

χρηστοὺς εὖ οἶδα ὅτι βούλει γνωρίζειν), ἄλλως t ἐπεὶ καὶ γειτνιᾷ τῇ χώρᾳ

τυγχάνει γὰρ ὧν

Κιεριεὺς καὶ μέλλει νῦν οἴκοι ποιεῖσθαι τὴν 10 διατριβὴν. ἔσται δὲ σύστασις ἄοχλός σοι καὶ GAunos εὐλαβής te γὰρ ἐστι πάνυ τῷ τρόπῳ, καὶ προήρηται ζῆν ἀπραγμόνως. ἀλλὰ γνώριζε τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ἐπιμελοῦ ὡς τοιούτου καὶ οὕτως

ἔχοντος πρὸς ἡμᾶς. δώσει δέ σοι καὶ τοὺς λό15

γους οὗτος Os ἀνέγνωμεν.

Giorgius, to whom I have given the letter, is numbered among the friends with whom I shared my studies a good many years ago now, and I consider that he possesses a fine character, if ever a man did. For this reason also I have shared with him philosophical interests. It therefore seemed to me a good thing to introduce him to you (for I am sure that he wishes to get to know the best people) and especially since you are in neighbouring regions. For as it happens he is a Kierian and now intends to pursue his interests at home. The introduction will not make trouble for you orcause you pain. For he is both very circumspect in his character and has chosen to live a quiet life. But get to know the man and look after him who is such a fine fellow and thus well disposed towards me. He

will also give you the discourse I read. 12 προήρηται Scheib in Zeitschrift fur Altertumswissenschaft a. 1845, p.214 : προείρηται * Kierion in Thessaly. See Kroll, s.v. 'Kierion' in RE XI.1 col.380.

Πλάτωνος: Of Plato Plato, Letters 15(Hercher) : 18 (Hermann) Καλλίμαχος, ὑπὲρ οὔ γέγραφα τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ἔστιν ἡμῖν τῶν συνεσχολακότων᾽ συμβέβηκε δ᾽

αὐτῷ συμπεπτωκέναι τύχῃ τινί, περὶ ἧς εὖ οἶδα ὅτι καὶ σὺ ἀκήκοας. ἀπῆκται γὰρ ὑπὸ τοῦ Apoμοκλείδου Ex τινος φιλονεικίας μειρακιώδους. καὶ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι χρόνον ἤδη πολύν᾽ ἀξιοῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς δικαίαν ἀξίωσιν καὶ ἣν ἂν φίλος ἀξιώσειεν, βοηθεῖν αὐτῷ. τὴν δὲ βοήθειαν οὔθ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἔχομεν εἰς ἄλλον ἀνενεγκεῖν, ἐκεῖνός τε διαρρήδην λέγει καὶ οἴεται σοῦ βουληθέντος

ῥᾳδίαν εἶναι τὴν σωτηρίαν αὐτῷ, οὔτ᾽ ἀπέχθειαν οὐδεμίαν ἔχουσαν οὔτ᾽ £y0pav: οὐδένα γὰρ

εἶναι τὸν ἐναντιωθησόμενον. ὁ γὰρ αὖ Δρομοκλείδης ἀεὶ μὲν καὶ ἐν ἅπασιν, ὡς ἐγὼ κρίνω,

χρηστός ἐστι καὶ εὐνώμων, ἀτὰρ δὴ καὶ τὰ πράγματα πάλαι σπουδάζει 15

διαλυθῆναι.

καλῶς ἂν

οὖν ποιοῖς καὶ ἡμῶν ἕνεκα καὶ αὐτοῦ, κοιησάμενός τινα ἐπιμέλειαν τοῦ ἀνδρός, ὅπως σωθῆ᾽

τὰ γὰρ φιλάνθρωπα εὖ οἷσθ᾽ ὅτι καὶ ἡμεῖς αὖ, εἰ βούλοιο, παραινέσαιμεν. ὥστε μὴ καταπροίεσθαι μηδ᾽ ἄλλῳ παριέναι τὸ συντελεῖν, ἀλλὰ

ταῦτά γε ποιεῖν. ἔρρωσο.

Kallimachus, on whose behalf I have written the letter, is one of those with whom I shared my studies. It has happened that he has met with a certain misfortune, about which I believe that you also have heard. For he has been arrested by Dromokleides for some act of youthful contentiousness and has been in prison already for some time. He makes a just request of me to assist him and one which a friend may expect to make. I, however, am unable to provide assistance to another and he expressly states and considers that, if you are willing, it is a simple matter to achieve his deliverance, there being neither any enmity at all nor hatred involved. For there is nothing to stand in its way. And then again, Dromokleides is, in my judgment, always and in all things both upright and fair and, to be sure, in the past he has always shown himself eager to resolve matters. Therefore, you would be acting well both for my sake and his by showing an interest in the fellow, so that he may be released. For well you know that I also would, if you like, encourage humanitarian actions. Therefore, do not forsake him nor leave to another the accomplishment of his release, but carry out these things yourself. Farewell.

2 ἡμῖν Scheib in Zeitschrift fur Altertumswissenschaft a. 1845, p.214 : ὑμῖν βούλοιο * : βουλήσοιο

16 εὖ οἷσθ᾽ idem : εὖ οἶδ᾽ 17

APPENDIX III THE EXPULSION OF AMYNTAS

III

Diodorus, cited two divergent sources for the expulsion of Amyntas III in 393. According to the first of Diodorus' sources, Amyntas was expelled from Macedonia by the Illyrians and then reinstated by the Thessalians a short time later (uet ὀλίγον δὲ χρόνον). According to the second source, Amyntas recovered his kingdom after a two year period during which Argaeus II ruled as king (Apyatov

βασιλεῦσαι τῶν Maxe6óvov).??! Argaeus was a son of King Archelaus II and it was doubtless on this relationship that he based his claim to the Macedonian

throne.??? The Macedonian kinglist in the first book of Eusebius’ Chronica supports Argaeus’ brief two year reign as does Syncellus.??? The other major source for the expulsion of Amyntas is Isocrates Archidamus

46, which has much in common with Diodorus’ first source.??^ According to Isocrates, Amyntas was defeated in battle by the neighbouring barbarians (ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τῶν προσοικούντων) and regained his throne with assistance (βοήθειαν), probably from the Thessalians mentioned by Diodorus. Isocrates was intent on amplifying the magnitude of Amyntas' achievement and so he emphasized that Amyntas had been deprived of the whole of Macedonia (πάσης

Μακεδονίας àxoctepnOeic), subsequently regained the country in its entirety (κατέσχεν ἅπασαν months (ἐντὸς μὲν either to the period far more likely, the rhetorical element

Μακεδονίαν), and accomplished all this in less than three τριῶν μηνῶν), the latter statement being understood to refer of time that had elapsed since Amyntas’ expulsion or, what is actual length of the campaign.?55 Geyer clearly recognized the present in Isocrates" account but still decided to accept the

351 14.92.34. 332 See HM, pp.175-176.

353 Eusebius, p.118.11-14 (Helm). Syncellus, Chronographia, P. 260b P. 263b, v.1 pp.495, 500 (Dindorf). Syncellus' chronology may here be based on the work of Eusebius. In general see Beloch's tabulation of the source material in Griechische Geschichte, 2nd ed. (1922-3) v.3, pt.2 p.51.

354 The Archidamus was published about the year 366. At the time of the Illyrian invasion of 393 Isocrates was forty-three years old and so may have heard first hand reports of the events surrounding the expulsion of Amyntas.

355 The fact that the Olythians, to whom Amyntas entrusted part of his kingdom adjoining the Chalcidice, had time to enjoy the revenues from the land before Amyntas returned to claim back his territory, accords best with a period of exile longer than three months. See Diodorus 15.19.2, which, as a recapitulation of earlier material, undoubtedly refers to events of 393. See J.R. Ellis ‘Amyntas III, Illyria and Olynthos', Makedonika 9(1969), p.2.

Appendix III three month period for Amyntas’

179

exile because of Isocrates' closeness to the

events.?56 Turning now to Speusippus' paradigm of Amyntas, we notice as its most striking feature his use of the word στάσει in writing that Amyntas was defeated

in an internecine struggle for the kingship (Αμύντας δ᾽ ὑπὲρ βασιλείας στάσει νικηθεὶς). Support for the claim that Amyntas was expelled as the result of stasis is to be found both in a fragment of Porphyry, where we read that Amyntas was expelled by the Macedonians after he had ruled as king for one year (Apvvtac ἔτος α΄ βασίλευσας ὑπὸ Μακεδόνων ἐξεβλήθη), and from Diodorus, whose second source, as we have seen, assigned a two year reign to Amyntas’ rival Ar-

gaeus.?5? According to this version of events, Amyntas' expulsion was the result of an internal dynastic dispute which involved foreign powers. Argaeus, it would seem, enjoyed the support of the Illyrians and Amyntas, at least after his expulsion, acquired Thessalian backers. Argaeus ruled for two years as a puppet of the Illyrians, probably paying a high price for their support. Intervention by foreign powers in the affairs of Greek states was common; a few years later we find the

Illyrians attempting to restore the exiled Molossian king Alcetas.55 Kóhler claimed that Speusippus falsely introduced the concept of stasis, for which he had no real evidence. She argued that by portraying Amyntas as having been expelled by his own people (otdoet) rather than by the Illyrians, Speusippus

sought to achieve a closer comparison with Alcibiades.??? Kóhler's observation was indeed perceptive, and in explaining the structure of Speusippus' rhetoric here she was certainly correct; but we need not accept her suggestion that Speusippus fabricated the internal struggle in order to stress the parallel with Alcibiades. Such struggles between rivals for the Macedonian throne we know to have been the norm rather than the exception; witness the struggle for power that took place between the death of Archelaus and the accession of Amyntas III, of which Geyer wrote ‘Das Land war durch die inneren Kämpfe seit 400 nicht zur Ruhe gekommen' .*™ Speusippus simply chose to emphasize one aspect of the historical situation (the stasis) over another (the Illyrian invasion) in support of his rhetorical argument. A second notable feature of Speusippus’ account is that he, like Isocrates, minimized the time Amyntas spent in exile (cf. βραχὺν χρόνον ὑποχωρήσας: 10). The principal effect of this emphasis was to magnify Amyntas' achievement in comparison with Alcibiades, who went into exile in 415 and did not return to Athens until 407. Returning now to Diodorus' first source, we can discern traces of the same rhetorical amplification of Amyntas' achievement that we saw in the paradigms of Isocrates and Speusippus. Diodorus' source recorded that Amyntas was ex356 F. Geyer, Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II, München/Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1930 p.115.

357 358 359 360

Porphyry F1, FHG 3.691. Diodorus 15.13.1-3. Kohler p.119. op. cit. p.111.

180

Appendix LII

pelled from his country, despaired of his kingdom and finally lost it (cf. ἐξέπιπτεν EK τῆς χώρας ἀπογνοὺς δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ... ἀπέβαλε mv βασιλείαν) and then was restored by the Thessalians pet’ oAiyov δὲ χρόνον. This is, as we have seen, the language of rhetorical amplification and we should not place much credence on the assertion of the brevity of Amyntas’ exile. One or two years might be considered a relatively short time in a reign of over twenty years, and it is significant that Diodorus’ first source appears to have used only a very imprecise indication of time, more consonant with a rhetorical source than a chronological one. It is a good guess, then, that Diodorus’ first source was either partisan or, for some other reason, sought to achieve a similar rhetorical effect to that which we find in Isocrates and Speusippus. Diodorus’ second source was more detached, such as might be found in a straight historical or chronological summary of Macedonian history. It seems likely, therefore, that the conflict which Diodorus reported between his two sources was in reality no conflict at all but merely reflects two different ways of looking at the same event. Amyntas, it is true, was expelled by the Illyrians, but as part of an internecine conflict which saw Argaeus rule for some two years, after which Amyntas regained his kingdom. The implication of the foregoing argument for the history of Amyntas' reign is considerable. No longer is it necessary to postulate that Diodorus confused the reign of Argaeus with the period of the Illyrian invasion instead of placing it some years later when he ruled as an Olynthian puppet [Geyer and Ellis], nor is there need to postulate two Illyrian invasions both of which resulted in Amyntas"

expulsion [Hammond]!

36! For the history of the controversy see the discussions of Hammond (HM and Ellis [op. cit. pp.1-8], where reference is made to earlier literature.

pp.172-176]

INDEX LOCORUM Aelian Varia historia 3.19 4.19

55 38

Aelius Aristides: In defence of the four 120.2 36 Panathenaicus 187 168 Aeschines: Against Ctesiphon 8 70 85 70 107-112 138 130 136 On the embassy 9 142

10

156

26 28 30

165 165 153, 173

3l

30, 67, 68, 127

33 79 114-115 115 116 142-143 172

69 92 137 75 74 136 8]

Alcidamas: On the sophists ] 146

F.27 F.28 T.4 T6.3 T.11 T.14 Andocides: On the peace 3 13

60 60 60 60 60 60

81 69

[Andocides]: Against Alcibiades 24 142 Androtion (FGrH 324): F.58 75, 137 |

Antoninus Liberalis (Papathomopoulos) 4.6

134

Apollodorus: Bibliotheca (Frazer)

1.6.1 2.5.9 2.5.12 2.6.2-3 2.7.3 2.7.7 2.8.3 2.8.4 2.7.3 3.10.5 3.11.2 6.15b

130 133 116 126 129 138 131 128 71 129 71, 130 132

Alcman (Campbell):

Fl

72

Anaximenes of Lampsacus (FGrH 72): F.2 60, 137 F.4 61, 62 F.7-8 60 F.9 61 F.10 61 Fila 61 F.12 61

Anstides: Panathenaicus 175-176 82 Aristodemus (FGrH 104): F.2.2 82 Aristophanes: Clouds 1205

58

182

Index Locorum

Aristotle: Constitution of Athens 26.1 151 Constitution of Syracuse 34 Fragments [Rose]

Problems

63

Carystius of Pergamum (FHG 4.356): Ἰστορικὰ ὑπομνήματα F.1 23, 35, 36, 37, 148, 173 F.2

FF.651-655 47 Nicomachean Ethics 1172b 43 Politics 1309a 7] 1311b 40 13128 34 Posterior Analytics 97b 142

F.3 F7 F10 F.13 F.14 Διδασκαλίαι Ε.17 F.18

33, 40

23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Chares of Mytilene (FGrH

29.2 70 Rhetoric 1354a 144 1367b 59 1357b 86 1374a 167 1393a 86 1394a 86 1405b-1406a 148 1412b 148 Topics 141a 167 Arrian: Anabasis 2.14.2 4.10.1-2

T.25

29, 84 64

Athenaeus: 6a-b 279f 435b-e 506e-f 506f 508c 508d 508e

55 42, 34 35, 173 38, 33, 147

Callimachus: Hymn 2 65-68 71-79

87 89

43 36, 37, 38, 39, 148 39 40

Callisthenes of Olynthus (FGrH 124): F.1 76 F.15 64 T.2 63

F.15

125):

62

Cicero: Ad familiares 5.12.2 63 Tusculan disptations 3.21 63 Conon Mythographus (FGrH 26): F.1.13 132 F1.17 126 F.1.10 131 F.1.32.3 128, 133 Cosmas Hierosolymitanus (Migne PG 38) p.451 133 Demetrius: On Style 114-127 247

148 148

Demochares [Baiter/Sauppe]: F.2 47, 48 Demosthenes: Against Aphobus Il (28) 15 70 Against Aristocrates (23) 111 115 119 40 120 157 121 115 127 40 151 152 163 40 200 115, 135

Index Locorum Against Leptines (20) 148 38 Against Meidias (21)

143-146 142 Against Timocrates (24) 139-141 86 Letter 2 10 4] Letter 3 27 70 Olynthiac ! (1) 9 131 13 123 15 123 Olynthiac 2 (2) 7 131 14 152 Olynthiac 3 (3) 4 123 23 86 On the Chersonnese (8) 35 92 44 123 On the crown (18) 43 113 67 53 67-68 51 76 61 79 61 136 41 149 139 180 128 269 96 276 141 On the embassy (19) 10-12 92 26 115 128 73 187 113, 147 246 141 250 141 269 86 302-306 92 305-306 93 327 30, 73, 139 330 113

183 11 90 20 131 Philippic 3 (9) 27 134 34 134 72 134 Philippic 4 (10) 15 123

[Demosthenes]:

Against Aristogeiton | (25) 11 70 Against Olympiodorus (48) 24 134 On Halonnesus (7)

2ff. 69 6 113 10 131 21 113 22 38 23 54 28 131 32 134 33-35 113 34 92 38 113 44 113 On Organization (13) 24 115 Philip's Letter (12) 10 115 19 52, 61 21-23 65, 69, 135 Reply to Philip's letter(11) 3 113

On the Peace (5)

Didymus: Commentary on Demosthenes 5.64-6.18 62 6.19-35 62 9.46-47 61 10.24-30 61 10.29 113 11.7-14 61 12.6466 53 15.89.3 60 13.3-12 53

22 140 Philippic I (4) 35 131 48 84, 123 Philippic 2 (6) 7 92

Dinarchus: Against Demosthenes 9 70 14 131 81 70

184

Index Locorum

Diodorus of Sicily: 4.14.3 4.15.1 4.23.2-3 4.25.1 4.31.4 4.33.5 4.37.1 5.71.4 6.39.1 11.2.5 11.2.6 11.9.3-10.4 12.32.3 14.33.5 14.92.3 14.109.1-2 15.13.1-3 15.19.2 15.71.3 15.74.1 15.76.1 15.76.4 15.81.6

116 130 133 116 126 71, 138 130 158 78, 78, 79 129 130 70, 156 179 70, 157 125 70 60 131

16.3.3

153

16.8.5 16.29.1-2 16.34.5 16.35.6 16.37.3 16.38.2 16.60. 1 16.60.3 17.2.1 17.3.3

131 74 131 136 123 123 139 136 58 134

Diogenes Laertius: 3.40 3.46 3.61 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.11 4.14 5.2 5.5-8 5.27 5.38 5.44 6.15

38, 40, 174 44 44, 46 45 46 48 62 47 48, 63 70

129, 130

81 120

178

178

6.104 9.40 9.65 3.62 4.5 4.8-9 5.26

172 55 40 24 24 45 23

Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Isocrates 4 26 12 26 18 114 Lysias 29 156 Thucydides 5 79. 120 Ephorus (FGrH 70): F.93 76, 138 Euripides: Heracles 613

116

Syleus (Nauck)

F.694

127

Eusebius: Chronica [Helm] p.118.11-14 178 p.126.11 45 Praeparatio evangelica 15.2 47

58 55

70, 144

63

Greek historical inscriptions (GHI), Tod: 5 87 133.30-32 115 143 152 146 131 147 157 150 129, 136 158 136 165 70 166 93 172 139 173 28, 115 187 62 Harpocration: ᾿Αμφικτύονες ᾿Αλόννησος

60 69

6.16

114

ERAKTKOG ὄρκος 54

6.57

60

Εὐφραῖος

23

185

Index Locorum

Κραγαλλίδαι Mévón

139 132

9.58.1 9.89.4

119 135

Hegesippus of Mecyberna (FGrH 391) F.1 130 F2.1 131

Homer: Iliad 11.670-705

Hesiod: Shield of Heracles 58-59 138 Works and Days 27-41 168

Homeric Hymn to Apollo 278-279 138

Hesychius: Φλεγυρά

138

Herodotus: 3.53.4 3.59.1 4.150.1 4.151-159 4.154.1 4.156.2 5.17.1-2 5.21 5.43 5.46.1 5.58.3 5.94.1 6.39 6.44.1 6.52.1-2 6.86 7.6.2 7.32 7.113.2 7.115.2 7.123.1 7.130.3 7.131-133.1 7.172.1 7.173.2 7.173.4—4 7.174 8.43 8.65.4 8.121.2 8.136.1 8.140-141 8.143.3 9.1.1 9.26.4 9.44—45

167 70 87 87 87 88 118, 120, 135 118 133 88 160 115 38 118 131 70 119 81 128 127 130, 133 119 81 78, 119 78 78 78 138 117 135 115 81,82 115 119 131 82, 121

126

Hyperides: Fragments (LCL] F.19 48 Inscriptiones Graecae (IG): i? 89 36

ii? 210

30

ii/iii pt.1 885 xiv.1293.54—56 xiv.1293.58-65 xiv. 1293.85

68 126 71,129 133

Isocrates: Against Lacritus 2 141 22 141 40 141 Against the sophists 16-17 122 19 144 Antidosis 4-7 51 9 159 69-70 11 79-83 114 87 112 101 97 108 131 155-156 114 195 151 235 141 268 114 299 90 313 141 Archidamus: 6 71 16 132 17-19 132 18 71, 129, 130 19 69, 126 20-22 128 22 132 26-27 73

186

Index Locorum

44-45 46 73

143 178 88

Letter to Philip Il (3) 54 3 51 Letter to Timotheus (7) 7 164

Areopageticus

73 164 Busiris | 114 5 143 50 151 De Bigis 22 97 Demonicus 9 86, 22 70 34 86 Evagras 3-4 51 10 122 77 144 80 86 Helen 3 114 29 159 Letter to Alexander 22 ] 53, Letter to Antipater 22, l 51 12 70

Nicocles

23 28

143 149

On the chariot-team

144

9 On the Peace 15 22 101

142 156 50 148

Panathenaicus

(5) 151 (4) 53-54

Letter to Archidamus (9)

3 50 ll 155 Letter to Dionysius (1) l 151 2-3 153, 159 5-7 153 8 156 9 154 Letter to Philip I (2) l 52 1-12 53 2 52 10-11 53 ll 53 13 124 14 115 14-15 93 15 53, 124 18 53 21 53, 115 22-23 5] 24 53, 70

l 2 3 4 17 18 19 26-28 33 40 55 63 64 70 89 172 177 187 223-224 251 253 260-261

151 122 122 159 85, 112 141 146 115 124 80, 151 90, 24 90, 90 75, 132 9] 91 112 90, 51

90 134 132 146

132

Panegyricus

8 9 61 93 100 119 Philip l 1-7 3-7 5 7 10 12 12-13

140 146 132 90 134 148 22, 27 52 51,93 158 87,89, 115, 146 158 122, 124 94, 114 153

Index Locorum 13 15 17 22 23 25-27 27 29 32 32-38 33 36 42 50 57-67 61 65 72 73 74 75 76 76-77 77 78 79 80 81 85-67 86-87 93 105 105-108 105-115 106 109 109-110 109-114 110 111-115 113 114 114-115 118-119 119 123 134 134-135 138 140 142 145 149

51 32, 51, 153 115 124, 145 145 153, 159 122, 151, 159, 160 140 92,317 91 158 91 140 140 86, 90, 145 142, 148 143 124 52, 61, 93, 124 93, 126, 140 93 92 93 52. 121 93 92, 93 115 143, 154, 156, 157 85 154, 157 153, 159 117, 160 92 86 115 92 83 92 151 83 86, 92, 144 121 51 51 157 51 91 51 157 160 158 90, 91 51, 124, 159

187 153 154 Plataicus 31

91 52 139

Justin: 2.11.12-18 7.3 7.3.1-7.4.1 8.2.3 11.4.5-6 11.2.1

79 118 81 136 68 58

12.6.17

62, 63

Leon of Byzantium (FGrH

T.1 Lycophron: Alexandra 115-116

132):

76

133

Lycurgus: Against Leocrates 71 82 Lysias: Against Alcibiades I 42 142 Funeral oration 3 86 Olympic oration 1-2 128 5 156 7 155 Nepos: Alcibiades 11.1-2 Dion 3 Epaminondas 6

68

Nonnus: Dionysiaca 21.287

133

142, 143 35

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus: 2455 126 2469 9-11 82 Parian Marble (Jacoby): ep.5 137

188

Index

Pausanias: 1.32.4 2.2.2 2.18.7 2.26.3 3.1.4 3.1.5-6 3.14.3 3.15.3-6 4,3.3-5 4.33.5 4.34.9-11 6.57 8.29.1 9.8.2 9.27.7 9.36.2-3 10.3.3 10.3.5-8 10.4.1 10.7.1 10.8.1 10.8.2 10.37.5

158 126 126, 128, 129, 130 138 129 131 87 129 128 130 138 60 130 74 128 138 139 139 138 138 75, 137 139 139

Pherecydes (FGrH 3) F.19 138 Philochorus (FGrH 328) F.50 131 Philodemus: Academica [Gaiser] col.6.15—20 40 cols.642-7.248 col.7.19-21 46 Rhetorica [Sudhaus] 11.249 26 Philostratus

Life of Apollonius 1.34 43, 44-45 7.2 40 Lives of the sophists 486-6 41 Pindar: Fragments (Race) F.169a 127 Isthmian 6

32

130

Isthmian 7

12-15

132

Locorum

Nemean 1 67

Nemean 4 27-30

Pythian4 4—8 19-20 257-261 Pythian5 72-82 Pythian10 5 67-72

Plato: Apology 33e Crito 46e Euthydemus 290b 285a Euthyphro 5a Gorgias 471a-d 471b 506e-507c Laws

631c 649e 658e 683a 683d 677d 683e 690e 705b 736c 736c-e 756e-757e 757a 802a 902a Letter4 320d 320e Letter 5

32-33

Letter7

328b-c 329b 329d-330b 332a

51 35 35 166

Index

333a-c 338e 344e-345a 350d-e 35la— Letter 9

357b Letter 13 36la—b

362b-c Lysis 215b—c 219d—e

35 35 35 166 166 164 171 43 164 164

Phaedo

68c Phaedrus 233d

237¢ 267a-b 271c

Protagoras 313c 316d-317b 327c

Republic 325b 330a 347a 347c 387d 389b 401a

409a 421c 430e 466b—c 466c 470e 496c-d 506a $53c 603a 691a Sophist 223b 224a-e Statesman 291e 302d

Symposium 180a

170 164 38 140 144

Thirty-first Socratic letter 9, 35, 149, 161-174 6 166 [Plato]: Epinomis 981a Horoi 412b

149

Letter 14

177

Letter 15

177

167

Plutarch:

Alcibiades 23.1 32.3

142 143

Alexander

8.4 55 55.5

46 63 62

Dion

141 141 164 168 167 164, 169 167 167 164 164 167 164 169 169 163 149 171 164, 169 158 164 169 146 141 156 156 164

Theaetetus

187b

189

Locorum

151

6.2 7.4 11.2 ff. 12 13 13.3 14.1-2 19.5 22.3 34.1 35.3 Aristides 15.2-5 16.1 Cimon 14.2-4 Demosthenes 20.1

34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 34 34 34 82, 121 82 82 136

Dion

22,1-3 52.3 Pelopidas 31.4 Phocion 14.4.5 18.4-5 27.14 Themistocles 10.2 Theseus 30.5 33

156 164 157 42 46 45 70 116 116

190

Index

Timoleon 16.2 24.1 Moralia 52d 69f 193c-d 193e 338b 542e-f 810f 816e 837c 864e 866a 1043d 1126c 1126d Polyaenus: 1.6 3.10.14 Polybius: 2.41.4 23.10.15

Socratic letters (Köhler):

70 88 34 164 68 157 34 40 68 40 152 78 79 62 40 41, 46

128 152

132 150

Porphyry (FGrH 691): F.1 Ps. Skylax: Periplus 66

179

119

Scholia Aristophanes Plutus: 84 116 Scholia Euripides Orestes: 1094 75, 137 Scholia Homer /liad: 8.368 117 13.302 76, 138 Scholia Lycophron: 115 115-124

Locorum

130 133

Scholia Pindar /sthmian: 6 47 130

Letter | Letter 6 Letter 20

Letter 24 Letter 25

18, 26 171, 173 172 172 170-171, 175 176 171, 176

Letter 26 Letter 29, see under Plato: Thirty-first Socratic letter

Letter 34

43

Solinus: 140.11

88

Sosibius (FGrH 595): F.13 129 Sozomen: Ecclesiastical history (Bidez) 5-7 56, 79, 151 Speusippus: Letter to Philip: | 51, 52, 58, 85, 96, 99, 100, 110-112, 125, 152 2 27, 31, 56, 68, 94, 95, 96, 97, 112-117, 122, 123, 125 3 80, 92, 97-98, 99, 112, 117120, 121-122 4 78-79, 93, 95, 97-98, 99, 120-123, 124, 125, 144, 159 5 20-21, 67, 98, 100, 111, 122, 123-126 6 25, 30, 73, 98, 126-133, 156 7 25, 28, 65, 98, 111, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 133-135 8 30, 68,73, 75, 99, 111, 124, 125, 126, 135-140 9 25, 30, 67, 125140-142. 144, 153, 156 10 10, 25, 77, 85, 112, 117, 121, 141, 142-145, 156 11 25, 38, 54, 76, 97, 124, 140, 141, 145-147 12 22, 23, 25, 33, 36, 37, 57, 58, 65, 95, 97, 99-100, 111, 112, 122, 125, 162, 163 13 25, 51, 112, 141, 143, 151158 14 25, 27-28, 29, 51, 54, 55, 93, 124, 158-160

191

Index Locorum

Stephanus of Byzantium: Δίκαια 128 Παλλήνη 130 Σκιώνη 132 Τορώνη 133 Strabo:

7.F.25 7.F.27 9.3.4 9.3.7 9.5.21 10.1.8 10.2.24

10.5.1

130, 132 130 139 75, 137 138 132 129 87

Suda (Adler):

᾿Αναξιμένης (alpha, 1989) 60 ‘Avtixatpos Ἰολάου (alpha 2703) 110 Aayudotng (delta, 41) 120 Ἑλλάνικος (epsilon, 239) 120 Θεοδέκτης (theta, 138) 54 Ἰσοκράτης ᾿Αμύκλα (iota, 653) 54, 76 Λέων (lambda, 265) 76 γήκιος (nu,325 168) Τεχνῶν ἔλεγχος 10 Ξενοκράτης (xi,42) 46

Theocritus: Idylls 16.34

119

Theopompus (FGrH F.21 F.25 F.26 F.27 F.63 F.134 F.224 F.225a-b F.232 F.236 F.247-249 F.250 F.255-256 F.259 F.275 F.283a-b F.294 F312 F.345 F.359 T.1 T.5a T.6 T 6b T.8 T.19 T,20a T,24 T 38 T 39 T.48 Diatribe

115): 57 57,59 57 59, 143 74, 137 34 59 59 76 34 58, 76 59 58 38, 58 58 34 38, 58 76 57 58 56 56 57 56 56 143 56 56 56 56 38, 57, 58 11

Φίλιππος ὁ Μακεδών (phi,355) 150

Φιλίσκος Μιλήσιος (phi,360) 76 Syncellus: Chronographia P247a P260b P262d P263b

(Dindorf) 81 178 81 178

Theagenes (FGrH 774):

F.11

130

Theophrastus: Enqiry into plants 3.11.1 63 4.16.3 63 Thucydides: 1.9.2 1.24.2 1.25.3 1.97.2 2.36.1 2.40.4-5 2.72.3 2.99.3 2.99.4

67 88 88 79 86 96 70 117 135

192

Index

2.100.3 3.92.3 3.92.5 4.19 4.101.1 4.102.3 4.103.3-4 4.120.1 4.123.1 5.8.2 6.4.2 7.8.1-2 7.11.1

35 132 88 115 127 129 129 132 132 117 88 152 152

Tzetzes:

Chiliades 2.320-321 2.429—435 Theogony 93

133 126 133

Locorum

Xenophon: Hellenica 1.4.13-17 2.3.5 3.4.3-4 6.1.2 6.1.18 6.3.2-6 6.3.6 6.4.35

142 156 155 70 70 68 116, 117 158

Memorabilia

1.2.13 On hunting 13.9

142 146

GENERAL INDEX Acamas 67, 68 Acrisius, King of Argos 75 ayxıoteia 72 Aeschines 30, 67-68 Agesilaus IT: addressed by Isocrates 154—155, 157 Doric form of his name 154 Alcetas, son of Alexander I 35-36 Alcibiades 77, 85 99, 141, 142-143, 145, 179 Alcyoneus 130 Aleuadae 78-79, 119-120 Alexander I: 21, 35, 90, 92, 97-98, 99, 117, 121, 125-126 captures Ennea Hodoi 135 friend of Athens 115-116, 120 killing of Perian envoys 77-84, 118 Alexander I] 35 Alexander of Pherae: 154, 155, 157addressed by Isocrates 158 Ambracia: acquired by Heracles 134 crisis of 342 28, 113, 134

Amphipolis, disputed claim to 21, 30, 67-68, 69, 73,89, 93, 113, 127 acquired by Heracles 30, 73, 126-127 Athenian colony at Ennea Hodoi 129 Isocrates’ speech on 158 Amyntas I: killing of Persian envoys 80-82, 118 relations with Athens 115 Amyntas III: 92, 117, 143 deposits territory with Olynthus 70 expulsion of 10, 77, 178-180 Anaximenes of Lampsacus 59-61 ἀνήμερος used by Speusippus in place of πλημμελής 149, 163 Antipater of Magnesia 10, 67, 71, 72, 77, 93, 96, 99-100, 110-111, 123, 127, 139, 150151 Apollo, Carnean - festival of 89 Anthemus, acquired by Hippias 115 Antisthenes 58

ἀρχηγός, used of Philip's ancestor Heracles 92 Archelaus I] 35

Arcesilas of Cyrene 89 Archidamas III 89, 154 Argaeus II 178—180 Aristippus 58 Aristodemus 131 Aristomachus, son of Sithon 135 Aristotle 10, 47-49, 62-63 Arrybas of Molossia 28, 115 Athens, hereditary friendship with Macedon 115-116 Attalus I, acquires Aegina 68 autarkia 172 authorship of the Letter of Speusippus 18-31, 116 Battus, colonizes Cyrene Bentley, Richard 18

87-88

Callias, son of Hipponicus 68 Callisthenes of Olynthus 62—64, 76, 139 Carystius of Pergamum 19, 23-24 Cassander, wedding of 44 Cephisodorus, of Athens - defends Isocrates 114 Chalcidian League 30 Charates, entrusted with Ambracia 134 Chionis, colonizes Cyrene 87-88 Cirrhaeans, see Crissaeans Cleadas of Thebes 68 Cleides and his sons, slain by Heracles 134 Colonies, joint foundations of 88 Conon 85, 145 Cresphontes 128, 131 Crissaeans 73-76, 138—139 Crocus Plain, battle of 136 Cyrene, foundation of 87-90, 146 Cyrus I 85, 145 Damastes of Sigeum: 77, 99, 120-121 used by Speusippus 78-79 Datis 68 Delius of Ephesus 41 Delphic Amphictyony 30-31, 60, 67, 73-77, 93, 136, 137-138, 139 Demochares 47-48 Demosthenes 28, 61 Deposit in trust: see παρακαταθήκῃη

194

General Index

Dicaeus, brother of Syleus 126-127, 128 Dion 34-35 Dionysius I: 125 addressed by Isocrates 156 discredited exemplar 85, 99, 141, 143, 145, 155 granted Athenian citizenship 115 Dionysius II of Syracuse: 34—35, 43 letter to Speusippus 43 Dioscuri: initiated into Eleusinian Mysteries 68, 117 Doreus 71 Dryopes 73-76, 138, 139

Egypt: Persian reconquest 28, 160 encomium of the living 58—59 Ephorus of Cyme: used by Damastes 78—79, 121 Epidamnus, Corinthian colony 88

ἐπιεικεία

166-168

Erythrae 70 Eryx 71 euergesia 9, 22, 27, 95-99, 112, 166 εὐαγγέλια 125

evvoia 95, 112, 122 Euphraeus of Oreus 147, 148, 172 Eurysthenes 131

32-33,

35-38,

39-40,

Gela, joint foundation of 88 gigantomachy 130 γνώριμος, meaning at 810 144-145 Gorgias, of Leonini 114 Halonnesus 69 Hegesippus 28, 92, 131 Heraclea in Sicily, foundation of 88 Heraclea in Trachis, foundation of 88 Heracles: adopted by Pylius 116 acquires Ambracia 28, 134 acquires Messene 69, 126 acquires Potidaea 131 acquires region of Amphipolis 30, 73, 126-127 acquires Sparta 71, 130 acquires Torone 133 benefactor to Greece 80, 83, 93, 98, 126127 immortality of 158-159 initiated into Eleusinian Mysteries 68,

97, 116-117 slays Cleides and his sons 134 slays Tmolus/Polygonus and Telegonus 133 labours of 116, 128 Heraclids, return of 117, 128, 132

Heracleum in Macedonia 79-80, 119 Hermias of Atarneus 29, 42-44, 61, 62, 70 Herodotus: depiction of Alexander I 77-84, 99, 120 Heroic traditions: 66-7 and political claims 67 hiatus avoidance 22, 25, 61, 143, 156, 165 Hippocoón 72, 129 Hydrea 70 Hyperides: Delian speech 67 Intellectuals, Greek 10, 51, 57-57 Isocrates: 10, 18, 26 and Academy 22 and Speusippus 22, 122 and Philip II 50—56, 90—94 and Theopompus 55-56 attacks Plato 37, 113-115 letters to Athenian Assembly 151,152 omits mention of Alexander ] 83 students of 145-146

use of paradigms 84-87, 145, 146 Isocrates of Apollonia 54-55, 76, 95, 146, 147, 159 Ἱστορία, meaning in Speusippus 126, 146 Jason of Pherae: addressed by Isocrates

157

κάθοδος (Ἡρακλειδῶν) 132 κατὰ δόσιν 71, 72, 130 Ladices, entrusted with Ambracia Leon of Byzantium 42, 76 letters, introductory formula 110 Leucas, foundation of 88

134

Magnesia 111 Medus, half-brother of Theseus 68 Messene: acquired by Heracles 69, 126 reclaimed by Heraclids 128 μοναρχίαν. used by Speusippus to avoid hiatus 143, 156 μῦθος, meaning in Speusippus, 125

195

General Index

Neleus Nestor

69, 126 126, 128

οἰκεῖον παράδειγμα

11, 85-87, 144, 145

οἰκειότης 115 Olynthus 30, 93, 113, 124 Oropus 70

raıdeia, meaning of 146 Pallene 130, 131, 132-133 papyrus, shortage of 27—28, 160 paradeigma 84—87, 90, 142, 146, 158 xapaxata0r"nxn 30, 69-70, 71, 72, 130 parrhesia 171-172 Peace of Philocrates 30, 45, 54 Perdiccas I 92, 117 Perdiccas II 36, 115 Perdiccas III 9-10, 32-33, 111, 165-174 territorial settlement with Philip 35-37, 148, 166, 167, 169, 173 Pharsalus 70 Philip II: acquires Phocian votes in Delphic Amphictyony 139-140 Aleudae, expulsion of 79 and Academy 9-10 and Perdiccas II]. 35-37

and Plato 9, 32-39 and Isocrates 10, 50-56, 90-94 and Persia 29 and Thessaly 79 benefactor of Athens 113 capture of Potidaea 131 capture of Torone 133 champion of Apollo of Delphi 76, 136— 137 claim to Ambracia 28, 134 claim to Amphipolis 30 compared to Apollo 74, 80 compared to Heracles 74 descendant of Heracles 117, 132 εὐεργέτης 95, 98 funeral of 58 Olynthus 124, 125 patronage 10, 22, 51, 56-57, 62, 63, 98, 100 territoria] settlement with Perdiccas III 35-37, 148, 166, 167, 169, 173 Third Sacred War 136 war with Sparta 123 Philip V 150 Philip, son ot Alexander I 35 Philiscus of Miletus 76

Philistus 34 Phlegyae 73-76, 138, 139 Phocians, punishment of 73-76, 113, 139 Phyllis, in Thrace 128 Plataea 70 battle of 82-83, 121 Plato: and Dionysius I] 34 and Philip II 32-39 letter to Philip II 35, 149, 161—174 letters, five spurious letters 170-171, 175-177 Philip's benefactor, 9, 94-98, 148, 150 κλημμελής typical of Plato's vocabulary 149, 163 Polycrates, sophist 114 Polygonus, killed by Heracles 133 Potidaea 30, 93, 113, 132 acquired by Heracles 131 Procles 131 πρόγονος, used of Philip's ancestors 92 Propaganda: based on heroic traditions 66-77 racial - twentieth century 11 Protesilaus 132-133 ψυχρός, meaning at $12 147-148 Ptolemy of Alorus 35 Python of Aenus 40-41 Python of Byzantium 40-41, 53, 54 Sacred War, first 125, 139 Sacred War, third 57—58, 60, 63, 123, 136 Scione 132 Selinus, Sicilian - foundation of 88 Simonides of Ceos: source for Ephorus on Thermopylae 79 Sithon, king of Thrace 128, 131 σοφία, used ironically at $811 147 sophists, attacks against 140-141, 146 σωφροσύνη 169-170 Sparta: claimed by Heraclids 71-72 colonizes Cyrene 87-90 Speusippus: and Philip II 22, 42-45 attack on Isocrates 22, 90-94 present at Cassander's wedding 44

use of ridicule and satire 140, 145, 146, 155-156. 160 συγγένεια 72 συγκτίσται 88-89 Syleus

73, 126-127, 128

11, 117, 122,

196

General Index

Telegonus, killed by Heracles τέχναι, meaning of 144 Temenus 117, 131

Tempe

77-80, 119

133

Thucydides: and heroic traditions Thuni 70

Timotheus

66

151-152

Theophrastus 62-63 Tmolus, killed by Heracles 133 Theopompus of Chios: 11, 18, 23, 37, 55-59, Torone 30, 93, 113 94, 95 acquired by Heracles 133 attacks the teachings of Plato 58, 99, acquired by Philip 133 148, 150 captured by Timotheus 133 criticized by Speusippus 147-148 Tyndareus 71, 129, 130 judgment on Alcibiades 143 τύραννος connotations of the word pupil of Isocrates 55-56 Περὶ συληθέντων €x Δελφῶν χρημάτων — Xenocrates 10, 45-47 76 Xerxes: 79, 83, 118 Thera, colonizes Cyrene 87-90 confused with Darius 80-82 Thessalians: Medism of 78

143, 156