‘Homeric Macedonians’: Kings and Clichés
The presentation of the ancient Macedonians as ‘Homeric’ in nature is a trope that endures across modern scholarship, an inevitable consequence, perhaps, of our continued fascination with the life and achievements of the ‘notoriously philhomeric’ Alexander the Great.Footnote 1 Indeed, summary reviews of the Macedonian context – replete with broad analogies to the Homeric world – are a common feature of many influential works on the great Argead kings,Footnote 2 reflecting an ancient source tradition itself infused with epic colour.Footnote 3 The extended set of analogies Dio Chrysostom develops in the Second Kingship Oration provide a particularly striking example. In this imagined dialogue, Philip II asks his son:
ἀλλὰ σύ, ὦ Ἀλέξανδρε, πότερον ἕλοιο ἂν Ἀγαμέμνων ἢ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἢ ἐκείνων τις γεγονέναι τῶν ἡρώων ἢ Ὅμηρος;
οὐ μέντοι, ἦ δ᾽ ὃς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, ἀλλὰ ὑπερβάλλειν πολὺ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους. οὔτε γὰρ σὲ χείρονα νομίζω τοῦ Πηλέως οὔτε τῆς Φθίας ἀσθενεστέραν τὴν Μακεδονίαν οὔτε τὸν Ὄλυμπον ἀδοξότερον ὄρους τοῦ Πηλίου φαίην ἄν· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ παιδείας φαυλοτέρας ἐπιτετύχηκα ὑπ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλους ἢ ἐκεῖνος ὑπὸ Φοίνικος τοῦ Ἀμύντορος, φυγάδος ἀνδρὸς καὶ διαφόρου τῷ πατρί.
‘But you, Alexander, would you like to have been Agamemnon or Achilles or any one of the heroes of those days, or Homer?’
‘Not at all’, Alexander said, ‘but I should like to go far beyond Achilles and the others. For you are not inferior to Peleus, in my opinion; nor is Macedonia less powerful than Phthia; nor would I admit Olympus is a less famous mountain than Pelion; and, besides, the education I have gained under Aristotle is not inferior to that which Achilles derived from Amyntor’s son, Phoenix, an exiled man and estranged from his father.’
(Or. 2.14-15)
In addition to the common pairing of Alexander and Achilles, the wider Macedonian court is also made subject to a strong Iliadic contrast in this royal ‘exchange’, with a detailed comparison developed as part of a Second Sophistic discussion of leadership that draws key ideals from Homer.Footnote 4
But to extend beyond Alexander literary themes and topoi so prevalent in the later presentation of ‘the Great one’ is to misconstrue the ancient evidence, and the representation of Macedonian society, as a whole, in such terms has long been questioned.Footnote 5 When we review the evidence we find that both points of this comparison tend to be inchoate: at one end, any picture presented of early-Macedonian society must always be provisional, given the mean and meagre nature of the ancient source material; while at the other end, problems in establishing the ‘historical’ in Homeric society are notorious.Footnote 6 The problem for any seeking to draw such analogies with the epic world, is that, while Homer’s works may be highly political in a broad sense, ‘the formal structures and institutions of the communities involved are never more than lightly sketched.’Footnote 7 Even those who maintain that the Homeric epics do reflect something of the social and cultural history of early Archaic Greece (used as an Überrest) would still accept that the use of these texts as a Quelle is extremely problematic.Footnote 8
Of course, to question the presentation of a ‘Homeric’ Macedonia is not to deny the enduring importance of those epics as central cultural icons in the ancient world.Footnote 9 Nor is it to deny the particular importance of Alexander the Great’s strong passion for the works of Homer, nor even the ‘cultivated closeness’ of later Macedonian elites to the epic world.Footnote 10 And while it may be seductive to echo Alexander’s famous tirade at Opis (Arrian, Anabasis 7.9.2-3) and present the early Macedonia as a ‘sub-Homeric enclave’,Footnote 11 the evidence from the kingdom itself does not fully support such comparisons. Indeed, prior to the reign of Alexander III, it does seem as though the Macedonian kings were not usually, they were not especially, ‘Homeric’.Footnote 12 For example, although some would cast Philip II as a latter-day Agamemnon, or present him as ‘akin to Achilles’, such depictions are not quite in keeping with ancient presentations of the king.Footnote 13 We should note one example, an anecdote from Book 16 of Diodorus’ Bibliotheca, which tells of this Argead celebrating his victory at Chaeronea in 338 BC:
λέγουσι δέ τινες ὅτι καὶ παρὰ τὸν πότον πολὺν ἐμφορησάμενος ἄκρατον καὶ μετὰ τῶν φίλων τὸν ἐπινίκιον ἄγων κῶμον διὰ μέσων τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ἐβάδιζεν ὑβρίζων διὰ λόγων τὰς τῶν ἀκληρούντων δυστυχίας. Δημάδην δὲ τὸν ῥήτορα κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν ἐν τοῖς αἰχμαλώτοις ὄντα χρήσασθαι παρρησίᾳ καὶ λόγον ἀποφθέγξασθαι δυνάμενον ἀναστεῖλαι τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ἀσέλγειαν. φασὶ γὰρ εἰπεῖν αὐτόν, ‘βασιλεῦ, τῆς τύχης σοι περιθείσης πρόσωπον Ἀγαμέμνονος αὐτὸς οὐκ αἰσχύνῃ πράττων ἔργα Θερσίτου;’ τὸν δὲ Φίλιππον τῇ τῆς ἐπιπλήξεως εὐστοχίᾳ κινηθέντα τοσοῦτο μεταβαλεῖν τὴν ὅλην διάθεσιν . . .
The story is told that in the drinking after dinner Philip downed a large amount of unmixed wine and forming with his friends a comus in celebration of the victory, paraded through the midst of his captives, jeering all the time at the misfortunes of the luckless men. Now Demades, the orator, who was then one of the captives, spoke out boldly and made a remark able to curb the king’s disgusting exhibition. He is said to have remarked: ‘O King, when Fortune has cast you in the role of Agamemnon, are you not ashamed to act the part of Thersites?’ Philip altered his whole demeanour completely.
(Bibliotheca 16.87.1-2)
Diodorus cannot make the alternatives here any more apparent: the Macedonian king can either follow the heroic example set by Agamemnon – the great commander-in-chief of the Greeks – or he can continue to humiliate himself by imitating the impudent Thersites, ‘the absolute antithesis of the “Homeric hero”’.Footnote 14 But while Demades’ reference to these contrasting characters is made to emphasise the inappropriateness of the Macedonian king’s actions, the particular association of Philip and Agamemnon here is neither crucial nor common.Footnote 15 And as Philip planned his own Asian campaign soon after this success at Chaeronea, even still the example of the great Agamemnon was not evoked by the Macedonian. Unlike with King Agesilaus of Sparta, who, before setting off for Asia, attempted to re-stage the ceremonies at Aulis as he launched his own ‘Homeric’ expedition in 396 BC.Footnote 16 Philip attempts no explicit appeal to epic archetypes as he prepares the Macedonian campaign against Persia some sixty years later. In fact, when and where we do see the early Argeads make use of Homeric topoi, it can be to exploit a very different set of associations than those that we might expect.
Consider the occasional pieces written by Pindar and Bacchylides, in the first half of the fifth century BC, in honour of Alexander I.Footnote 17 Fragments of two poems commissioned by the Macedonian king survive (Pindar fr. 120-121 and Bacchylides fr. 20B), which reuse and refashion Homeric material to celebrate the rule of their Argead patron. David Fearn has highlighted the importance of these fragments recently, reviewing them at length and offering a timely assessment of Alexander’s use of ‘rhetorical manipulation to be all things to all people’ in an uncertain period for the kingdom after the Persian War.Footnote 18 The fragment of Bacchylides’ poem, first, presents an intricate sympotic fantasy, during which ‘the gifts of Dionysus’ are imagined to:
ἀνδράσι δ’ ὑψοτάτω πέμπει, μερίμνας·αὐτίκα μὲν πολίων κράδεμνα λύει,πᾶσι δ’ ἀνθρώποις μοναρχήσειν δοκεῖ.
… send men’s thoughts to soar sky-high:For instance, a man is undoing the veils of cities,And fancies he will be monarch over all men.
The image and idea of ‘undoing the veils of cities’ is Homeric, but of particular note here is the ‘essential Trojanness’ of this metaphor which is evocative of the final fall of the great city (see both Iliad 16.100 and Odyssey 13.388). For Fearn, the use of such a striking topos is intriguing given that ‘Macedonian elite receptions of the association between Troy, Paris, and our own Alexander can be established.’Footnote 19 Established with reference to Pindar fr. 120:
Ὀλβίων ὁμώνυμε Δαρδανιδᾶνπαῖ θρασύμηδες Ἀμύντα…
Namesake of the blessed son of Dardanus,Bold-counselling son of Amyntas…
These are the opening lines of another encomium to Alexander I, one that plays on the name Alexander, king of Macedon, and also the Trojan prince Paris Alexander. Here Pindar associates his patron with a famous figure from Homeric myth, and, like Bacchylides, he uses a specific Iliadic paradigm. But, again, the parallel is not quite what we might expect, presenting neither wide-ruling Agamemnon nor even godlike Achilles. Instead, a connection between the Macedonian king and a Trojan hero is made explicit. Further-more, this is a hero so ambiguous that Fearn wonders whether Pindar or Alexander I were ‘particularly concerned about Greek receptions of this association, which have the potential to make a radically different appraisal of the connection.’Footnote 20 But Alexander perhaps sought to exploit an association with Troy in order to draw a favourable response from more-regional communities. We glimpse in these small pieces the careful and balanced presentation of a Macedonian king, in terms agreeable to diverse communities, seeking to garner support from bordering territories in the wake of the Persian Wars.Footnote 21 One wonders, then, whether the link to a ‘blessed son of Dardanus’ was quite particular to Alexander I, perhaps similar to the personal connection to Achilles that Alexander III cultivated during his lifetime.
Although the select use of Homeric models by these poets seems recherché, unfortunately, these fascinating fragments perhaps only hint at early courtly concerns, and there is little more that can be said for sure about this particular presentation of the ‘Philhellene’. But the unusual epic archetypes employed by (or for) this Argead king should make us more circumspect about reading Homeric plots into early Macedonian history.Footnote 22 As we have suggested already, the indiscriminate use of such models is inappropriate: what is more, it is often unnecessary, given that there is a rich body of evidence that highlights the importance of an alternate mythic identity and set of associations for the ancient Argeads. A mythological model that was supremely heroic, but not Homeric. There is much more to be gained from a proper consideration of the Argead appropriation of Heracles, Pindar’s ἥρως θεός (Nem. 3.22), as a key part of the self-representation of successive Macedonian kings. This is not just to substitute one set of vague, heroic topoi for another; but even if it is, at least successive Argead kings actively and consistently used these topoi, and, consequently, we should review why and how they did so.Footnote 23
Early Macedonian Heraclids
As far as we can tell, the Macedonian requisition of Heracles dates to the early decades of the fifth century BC, and the reign of Alexander I.Footnote 24 In Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories we meet King Alexander again, this time exploiting a contentious family association with Argos in order to ‘prove himself an Argive’ and even claim a place in, and victory at, the Olympic games (5.22.2).Footnote 25 Later, in Book 8, Herodotus again returns to the topic of the origins of the Macedonian royal family, and establishes a most distinguished pedigree for Alexander by embellishing the link with Argos and detailing the descent of the Argeads from Temenus (the grandson of Heracles), down to Perdiccas the founder of the Macedonian royal house:Footnote 26
τοῦ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου τούτου ἕβδομος γενέτωρ Περδίκκης ἐστὶ ὁ κτησάμενος τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν τυραννίδα τρόπῳ τοιῷδε. ἐξ Ἄργεος ἔφυγον ἐς Ἰλλυριοὺς τῶν Τημένου ἀπογόνων τρεῖς ἀδελφεοί, Γαυάνης τε καὶ Ἀέροπος καὶ Περδίκκης, ἐκ δὲ Ἰλλυριῶν ὑπερβαλόντες ἐς τὴν ἄνω Μακεδονίην ἀπίκοντο ἐς Λεβαίην πόλιν…
[139] ἀπὸ τούτου δὴ τοῦ Περδίκκεω Ἀλέξανδρος ὧδε ἐγένετο· Ἀμύντεω παῖς ἦν Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἀμύντης δὲ Ἀλκέτεω, Ἀλκέτεω δὲ πατὴρ ἦν Ἀέροπος, τοῦ δὲ Φίλιππος, Φιλίππου δὲ Ἀργαῖος, τοῦ δὲ Περδίκκης ὁ κτησάμενος τὴν ἀρχήν.
This Alexander was seventh in descent from Perdiccas, who got for himself the tyranny of Macedonia in the way that I will show. Three brothers of the lineage of Temenus came as banished men from Argos to Illyria, Gauanes and Aeropus and Perdiccas; and from Illyria they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea . . .
. . . From that Perdiccas Alexander was descended, being the son of Amyntas, who was the son of Alcetes; Alcetes’ father was Aeropus, and his was Philip; Philip’s father was Argaeus, and his again was Perdiccas, who won that lordship.
(Hdt. 8.137-9)
Following the Persian defeat in Greece in 479 BC, and subsequent withdrawal from Europe, Alexander I seems determined to articulate this ‘ancient’ connection to Argos, and versions of the myth of the Heraclidae, in order to legitimize the Argead position both domestically and also in the wider Greek world.Footnote 27 Eugene Borza notes that, from the early-fifth century BC, it was ‘fashionable to lay all manner of heroic and mythical deeds at the door of the famous and ancient Argive state’, and Heracles was certainly the ideal first-ancestor for a remote dynasty at the edge of the Hellenic world, given his fame, his far-ranging adventures, and flexibility of character.Footnote 28
Moving down through the dynastic line, the Argead association with Heracles – again emphasising both the heroic and Hellenic origins of the king, specifically – was also encouraged by Perdiccas II. The reign of this son of Alexander I was a long but compromised one, a period of decline during which the expansion of the kingdom was checked by internal division and the challenge of external powers.Footnote 29 But, nonetheless, the embattled Perdiccas is worthy of note as the first Argead monarch to include the head of Heracles on his coinage, making explicit the royal link with the hero.Footnote 30 This issue of small denominations with a new type seems to have been introduced during the Peace of Nicias (c. 417-416 BC), around the time when the Macedonian was induced to join the Argive-Spartan alliance and it was most opportune to stress Argead connections to the Peloponnese.Footnote 31 Although perhaps born of immediate diplomatic needs, this Heracles-type would become standard on the coins of later kings: from Perdiccas down to Alexander the Great and beyond, the Macedonians included the head of Heracles in his lionskin (whether bearded or unbearded) on their coins to symbolize their own royal legitimacy and authority.Footnote 32
In the last decades of the fifth century BC, Perdiccas’ successor produced further issues with the image of Heracles, and made even stronger assertions of that Argead origin myth. Archelaus was another philhellenic king of note, who – like Alexander I – Hellenised his court at a time when Macedonian and Greek interests were again contiguous.Footnote 33 It was to this king’s court, for example, that Euripides journeyed late in his life, and where he produced a commission piece for this patron – a tragic play called the Archelaus – in about 408 BC. And, once again, this was a piece that went to great lengths to detail the genealogy of the Macedonian royal family. Two of the more informative fragments that survive come from the opening of the Archelaus, where Euripides establishes a mythical ‘Archelaus’ as both the founder of the Argead royal line and a descendant of Heracles:Footnote 34
Of particular note in this long prologue is how Euripides further develops the link between the royal house, Argos, and the Temenids established in the reign of Alexander I. The Archelaus again traces the Macedonian king’s royal line – starting with Danaus and taking in the tales of, among others, Perseus, Alcmene, Hyllus, and Temenus – but this time back through eleven generations, with the ‘glorious Heracles’ himself mentioned three times in the second fragment (lines 16, 18, and 23). The piece ends finally with details of the birth of a ‘mythical’ Archelaus, the new founder of the Macedonian monarchy. This is the most important innovation in the piece, that it establishes the mythical ‘Archelaus’ as the son of Temenus – a birth announced by the priestess of Dodona, that completes the family history of this ruling dynasty.Footnote 35
All of which was no idle flattery or contrived fiction. Such foundation myths were of importance to the Macedonians rulers themselves, and in their external dealings with the rest of the Greek world. Moreover, the genealogy of the ruling house of the Argead kings was also a vital concern within the kingdom at the end of the fifth century. The Archelaus presents a deliberate re-presentation of a quite specific Macedonian royal pedigree, the point of which was perhaps aimed at the domestic audience. Evidence that Archelaus’ legitimacy, not only as king but also as a son of Perdiccas II, was challenged, comes from Plato’s Gorgias (470c9-471d2). Although not historical, Plato’s story of Archelaus – the illegitimate son of a slave-girl, who usurped the throne by killing his uncle – may reflect something of a hostile contemporary tradition opposed to the king’s rule. This presentation of a Heraclid pedigree for Archelaus perhaps compares to the situation at Sparta, where king-lists were established almost as a special kind of ‘genealogical charter’ that served to honour the Agiads and Eurypontids, and confirm those families in their leading political positions.Footnote 36 Similarly, given the fierce competition between different branches of the Argead clan, those with rival ambitions for the Macedonian throne sought any grounds upon which they could establish their claim to power. Euripides’ Archelaus is an early example of the tactic of dynastic revision, which would later become a common practice among successive Argead monarchs who sought to validate their rule by revising the royal ancestral line.Footnote 37
Although the evidence for this period of early Macedonian history is often irregular, there are just enough examples of the Argead invocation of Heracles – from Alexander to Archelaus and for various political ends – to warrant further consideration; consideration of the ways in which the great hero was appropriated as a key part of a self-fashioned identity of the Macedonian royal house. Heracles was used to legitimate the Argead family’s exclusive claims to domestic sovereignty, in the face of challenges from rival nobles, and also to assert that ruling dynasty’s authority in (and over) a disparate kingdom that was disjointed right down to the reign of Philip II. Beyond the borders of the kingdom, the affiliation with Heracles would also ease early-Argead exchanges both with Hellenic powers (Thessalian, Spartan, Athenian, and Argive) and non-Greek neighbours (in regional exchanges with Thracians and Illyrians). Indeed, Heracles’ adaptable and essential double-sidedness – this far-ranging son of Thebes, human and divine, civilized and cruel – made him the ideal figure for Macedonians to invoke when seeking points of contact with different communities.Footnote 38
That these Macedonian kings established and exploited a distinguished Heraclid pedigree, using Heracles himself as a mediating figure within a ‘shifting discourse of power, conquest and legitimacy that could be directed at Greeks and barbarians’ – and did so as capably as any later Classical or Hellenistic monarch – may surprise.Footnote 39 But these Argeads were the first to challenge, and attempt to change, the ancient presentation of the Macedonian kingdom and its court. It was they who established a rich set of associations for the likes of Philip II and Alexander III – and those engaging with these later kings in turn – to work with. Of course, from Herodotus to Theopompus, many would still dispute the Argead presentation of their line as the ‘Greekest’ of all, and attitudes towards the Macedonians remained decidedly ambiguous.Footnote 40 But these early kings did at least establish a basis for future relations to develop, when the interests of the Macedonians and the other Greeks aligned and when arguments in favour of more expansive policies held sway on each side.Footnote 41 Although Philip and Alexander were the great Macedonian innovators and reformers of note, it is important to recognise that each also maintained a degree of continuity with their Argead past, and that both these later kings worked with, and within, established paradigms and perceptions when asserting their Heraclid connections.Footnote 42
Philip II as Heracles
The importance of the Heraclid archetype, and how it helped to facilitate a two-way dialogue between Macedonian kings and the Greeks, is most apparent during the rule of Philip II, even though this was one Argead who perhaps placed less emphasis on his heroic ancestry. In an important work on the political influence of the Heracles figure, Ulrich Huttner suggests that Philip seems to have distrusted myth-based arguments in his public presentations and, as a result, tended not to exploit his ‘Heraklidentum’ systematically.Footnote 43 However, as Emma Stafford points out, if there is ‘little evidence of Philip promoting the family link to Herakles, it was certainly picked up on by others who were anxious to gain his favour.’ Indeed, it is hard to accept that the many manipulations of the Heracles myth that we see in this period were solely the work of agents outside Macedonia.Footnote 44
Certainly we still find the use of the Heracles head on coins produced in the kingdom during Philip’s reign, with that familiar type still issued even among coins with representations of Apollo, Artemis, Zeus, and the king himself too.Footnote 45 But we do see the image of the Heraclid ruler most clearly through the eyes of others who sought to court the favour of this Argead king. As in the private letter addressed to the Macedonian in c. 342 BC by Speusippus, Plato’s nephew and head of the Academy. Soliciting for protection and patronage for one Antipater of Magnesia, Speusippus promotes his associate’s recently-completed compilation of the exploits of Heracles.Footnote 46 Referring specifically to the recent conquest of cities in northern Greece and the Argead’s admission onto the Amphictyonic Council, Speusippus promises that Antipater’s work will help to justify these activities: the links to Heracles provide Philip with many ‘arguments with the strength to help your rule’ (λόγοι δυνάμενοι τὴν σὴν ἀρχὴν ὠφελεῖεν: Ep. Socr. 30.8).Footnote 47
Similarly, Theopompus opened his lost Philippica with words of high praise for Philip – ‘Europe never bore such a man at all as Philip, the son of Amyntas’ (μηδέποτε τὴν Εὐρώπην ἐνηνοχέναι τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα παράπαν οἷον τὸν Ἀμύντου Φίλιππον: FGrH 115 F27) – and goes on to supply another version of the Argead genealogy that links the king’s ancestry back to Heracles:
οὗτος ὁ Κάρανος ἀπὸ μὲν Ἡρακλέους ια ἦν, ἀπὸ δὲ Τημένου…ἕβδομος. γεναλογοῦσι δ’ αῦτὸν οὕτως, ὥς φησιν ὁ Διόδωρος <καὶ> οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν συγγραφέων, ὧν εἷς καὶ Θεόπομπος. Κάρανος Φείδωνος τοῦ Ἀριστοδαμίδα τοῦ Μέροπος τοῦ Θεσπίου τοῦ Κισσίου τοῦ Τημένου τοῦ Ἀριστομάχου τοῦ Κλεαδάτους τοῦ Ὕλλου τοῦ Ἡρακλέους.
This Caranus was the eleventh from Heracles and . . . the seventh from Temenus. His genealogy is given by Diodorus and most of the historians – of whom one is Theopompus – as follows: Caranus, son of Phidon, son of Aristodamides, son of Merops, son of Thestius, son of Cissius, son of Temenus, son of Aristomachus, son of Cleadates, son of Hyllus, son of Heracles.Footnote 48
(FGrHist 115 F393)
This outline brings us back through ten generations to Heracles, the founder of the Argead line; not quite the fourteen generations in the prologue of the Archelaus, and also with a certain Caranus now installed as the legendary first king of Macedon.Footnote 49 In Theopompus, Philip is established as a king of the finest lineage, although the Chian historian does subsequently undercut that presentation by exposing the Argead king as wholly unworthy of his ancestors.Footnote 50
However, a much more positive presentation of Philip as a venerable Heraclid is offered by Isocrates in a public letter addressed to the Macedonian king in 346 BC. In the Philip, Isocrates seeks to present himself as both an adviser to the Macedonian king and a representative of Hellenic interests as he urges Philip to unite and lead the Greeks in a common war against the Persian Empire. Of course, Isocrates had previously issued similar Panhellenic calls to rouse Agesilaus, Dionysius, Alexander of Pherae, and perhaps Archidamus also.Footnote 51 But Isocrates turns now to the Macedonians, and in another symbouleutic piece the old orator’s advice falls into two main parts, with the example of Heracles key in both. First, Philip is urged to help put an end to war among the Greeks by promoting harmony (ὁμόνoια) between cities in the Hellenic world (To Philip 30-80); then Philip is urged to lead a Panhellenic campaign against the Persian empire (To Philip 83-155).Footnote 52
In the call for the Macedonian to save the Greeks from themselves, Isocrates identifies Philip as the ideal man to unite the poleis, for the king’s Argead lineage ties him to each of the other key powers in southern Greece. Philip is advised:
γνοίης δ᾽ ἂν ὡς οὐδεμιᾶς σοι προσήκει τούτων ὀλιγωρεῖν, ἢν ἀνενέγκῃς αὐτῶν τὰς πράξεις ἐπὶ τοὺς σοὺς προγόνους· εὑρήσεις γὰρ ἑκάστῃ πολλὴν φιλίαν πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ μεγάλας εὐεργεσίας ὑπαρχούσας. Ἄργος μὲν γάρ ἐστί σοι πατρίς, ἧς δίκαιον τοσαύτην σε ποιεῖσθαι πρόνοιαν ὅσην περ τῶν γονέων τῶν σαυτοῦ· Θηβαῖοι δὲ τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν τιμῶσι καὶ ταῖς προσόδοις καὶ ταῖς θυσίαις μᾶλλον ἢ τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς ἄλλους· Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ τοῖς ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου γεγονόσι καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν εἰς ἅπαντα τὸν χρόνον δεδώκασι· τὴν δὲ πόλιν τὴν ἡμετέραν φασίν, οἷς περὶ τῶν παλαιῶν πιστεύομεν, Ἡρακλεῖ μὲν συναιτίαν γενέσθαι τῆς ἀθανασίας . . . τοῖς δὲ παισὶ τοῖς ἐκείνου τῆς σωτηρίας.
You should realise that it is inappropriate for you to slight any of these cities when you consider their behaviour toward your ancestors. You will find that each has great friendship for your country and has done it great kindnesses. Argos, for one, is your ancestral home, and it is right that you have as much regard for it as you would for your own ancestors. The Thebans honour the founder of your race with public expenditures and sacrifices more than any other god. The Spartans have bestowed kingship and leadership for all time on his descendants. Finally, reliable authorities on ancient matters say that our city was partly responsible for Heracles’ immortality . . . and also responsible for the safety of his offspring.
(Isoc. To Philip 32-33)
Argos, Thebes, Sparta, and Athens are all linked to Heracles, and through him to the Argead clan.Footnote 53 For the Athenian orator, Philip’s status as a Heraclid works both ways, the weight of the Argead ancestry imposing duties and obligations on the Macedonian king in turn. Attempting to balance Macedonian and Hellenic interests, Isocrates employs the model of Heracles to prescribe, and even limit, the extent of Philip’s dominance over the poleis, while also emphasising the shared background between all that would ‘support requests for reciprocal favours – returning benefits and punishing past injuries.’Footnote 54 Isocrates finishes the first part of his discourse by reminding both his immediate addressee and the extended audience that Philip’s forefather was once the ‘benefactor of all Hellas’ (76): Heracles – the εὐεργέτης Ἑλλάδος – is again the model proposed for Philip’s future actions and dealings with the major Greeks powers.Footnote 55
Once the Macedonian king has established ‘concord’ (ὁμόνoια) between the Greek cities, Isocrates then urges Philip to turn his power against the Persian empire, and launch the Panhellenic campaign anticipated earlier in the letter: ‘I am about to advise you to stand at the head of a Greek alliance and lead a campaign against the barbarians’ (μέλλω γάρ σοι συμβουλεύειν προστῆναι τῆς τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὁμονοίας καἰ τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους στρατείας: 16).Footnote 56 Urging Philip to imitate (μιμήσασθαι: 114) the example of past heroes in a new Asian campaign, we might perhaps expect Isocrates to highlight the great deeds of the Homeric heroes to inspire the Macedonian. Certainly the great exemplar for such an undertaking in the Isocratean corpus is Agamemnon, identified in the Panathenaicus as a king who ‘had not one or two virtues but all that one could mention’ (οὐ μίαν οὐδὲ δύο σχόντα μόνον ἀρετάς, ἀλλὰ πάσας ὅσας ἂν ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν Panathenaicus 72). In a revision of Homer, the son of Atreus receives lengthy and lavish praise as a true Panhellenic champion, who:
. . . οὐκ ἔστιν ἥν τινα τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων ἐλύπησεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἦν πόρρω τοῦ περί τινας ἐξαμαρτεῖν, ὥστε παραλαβὼν τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐν πολέμῳ καὶ ταραχαῖς καὶ πολλοῖς κακοῖς ὄντας τούτων μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀπήλλαξεν, εἰς ὁμόνοιαν δὲ καταστήσας τὰ μὲν περιττὰ τῶν ἔργων καὶ τερατώδη καὶ μηδὲν ὠφελοῦντα τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπερεῖδε, στρατόπεδον δὲ συστήσας ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἤγαγεν. τούτου δὲ κάλλιον στρατήγημα καὶ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ὠφελιμώτερον οὐδεὶς φανήσεται πράξας οὔτε τῶν κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον εὐδοκιμησάντων οὔτε τῶν ὕστερον ἐπιγενομένων.
. . . did not injure a single Greek city but rather was so far from wronging any of them that, finding the Greeks in war and turmoil and many difficulties, he relieved them of these troubles and established harmony among them; he ignored tasks that would be amazing and wondrous but of no practical use to anyone and instead formed an army and led it against the barbarians. You will find no one, either among the best of that time or those who followed, who has made a more noble campaign than this, or one more beneficial to the Greeks.
(Isoc. Panath. 77-78)
But in the Philip, the Athenian orator spares no time on the ancient ruler of Mycenae in dispensing his advice to the Macedonian king.Footnote 57 Instead, Isocrates makes very particular and very pointed reference to the first Trojan War, and Heracles’ ‘original’ campaign,Footnote 58 reminding Philip that:
ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ὁρῶν τὴν Ἑλλάδα πολέμων καὶ στάσεων καὶ πολλῶν ἄλλων κακῶν μεστὴν οὖσαν, παύσας ταῦτα καὶ διαλλάξας τὰς πόλεις πρὸς ἀλλήλας ὑπέδειξε τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις, μεθ᾽ ὧν χρὴ καὶ πρὸς οὓς δεῖ τοὺς πολέμους ἐκφέρειν. ποιησάμενος γὰρ στρατείαν ἐπὶ Τροίαν, ἥ περ εἶχε τότε μεγίστην δύναμιν τῶν περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν, τοσοῦτον διήνεγκε τῇ στρατηγίᾳ τῶν πρὸς τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην ὕστερον πολεμησάντων, ὅσον οἱ μὲν μετὰ τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων δυνάμεως ἐν ἔτεσι δέκα μόλις αὐτὴν ἐξεπολιόρκησαν, ὁ δ᾽ ἐν ἡμέραις ἐλάττοσιν ἢ τοσαύταις καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγων στρατεύσας ῥᾳδίως αὐτὴν κατὰ κράτος εἷλεν. . .
Τούτου δ᾽ ἕνεκά σοι περὶ τούτων διῆλθον, ἵνα γνῷς ὅτι σε τυγχάνω τῷ λόγῳ παρακαλῶν ἐπὶ τοιαύτας πράξεις, ἃς ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων οἱ πρόγονοί σου φαίνονται καλλίστας προκρίναντες. ἅπαντας μὲν οὖν χρὴ τοὺς νοῦν ἔχοντας τὸν κράτιστον ὑποστησαμένους πειρᾶσθαι γίγνεσθαι τοιούτους, μάλιστα δὲ σοὶ προσήκει. τὸ γὰρ μὴ δεῖν ἀλλοτρίοις χρῆσθαι παραδείγμασιν, ἀλλ᾽ οἰκεῖον ὑπάρχειν, πῶς οὐκ εἰκὸς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ σε παροξύνεσθαι, καὶ φιλονικεῖν ὅπως τῷ προγόνῳ σαυτὸν ὅμοιον παρασκευάσεις;
When Heracles saw that Greece was beset by wars and factional strife and many other evils, he put an end to these and reconciled the cities with one another and then, as an example to future generations, revealed which cities one should have as allies and which as enemies when making war. For he launched an expedition against Troy, which at that time had the greatest force in all Asia, and as a military strategist, he was so superior to those who later made the same campaign that although it was difficult for them with a Greek army to capture the city in ten years, he, with just a few men, easily took it by force in less than ten days. . .
I have related these events so that you might know that I am urging you by this discourse to undertake great deeds like those that your ancestors by their actions clearly judged the best. Therefore, although all men of good sense must set for themselves the finest example and then try to become like it, this is especially fitting for you. You do not need to use external examples but have one in your own family, so how can you not naturally be inspired by Heracles, with the ambition to show yourself equal to your ancestor?
(Isoc. To Philip 111-113)
The rhetoric rises in this section with the call for Philip to show himself worthy of Heracles, perhaps forming the highpoint of the letter. But, even so, the responsibilities of the hêgemon do not end here for Isocrates. Even beyond the grand campaign, even after a glorious victory, the Argead king must finally relieve the miseries of Greece by planting colonies of its mercenaries in the newly-claimed lands of Asia Minor. Isocrates pushes further, maintaining:
ἔστιν οὖν ἀνδρὸς μέγα φρονοῦντος καὶ φιλέλληνος καὶ πορρωτέρω τῶν ἄλλων τῇ διανοίᾳ καθορῶντος, ἀποχρησάμενον τοῖς τοιούτοις πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους, καὶ χώραν ἀποτεμόμενον τοσαύτην ὅσην ὀλίγῳ πρότερον εἰρήκαμεν, ἀπαλλάξαι τε τοὺς ξενιτευομένους τῶν κακῶν ὧν αὐτοί τ᾽ ἔχουσι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις παρέχουσι, καὶ πόλεις ἐξ αὐτῶν συστῆσαι, καὶ ταύταις ὁρίσαι τὴν Ἑλλάδα καὶ προβαλέσθαι πρὸ ἁπάντων ἡμῶν.
. . . it is the job of a man with high ambition, with a concern for Greece, and with a more accomplished intellect than other men, to use men such as these against the barbarians, to cut away that portion of the territory we just mentioned, and to free the mercenaries of the troubles they now have, and which they also cause for others, to found cities with these men, to give a boundary to Greece, and to make these cities into a buffer zone for us all.
(Isoc. To Philip 122)
And, again, Heracles – the great ‘culture hero’ – proves to be the ‘ideal role model for the Greeks who took to their ships to found colonies overseas.’Footnote 59 As Irad Malkin notes, the Heracles of the Archaic period may not have been a colonising hero and a city-founder; but the role of the god-hero (and his descendents) did shift, from ‘the Homeric wild man and arrogant warrior . . . in later periods to a civilising hero and founder’.Footnote 60 Again, for Isocrates, who better than a Heraclid to accomplish the final task of his great proposal? Ultimately, at each key point of his address to the Macedonian king, Isocrates chooses the god-hero as the exemplar of heroic action most appropriate for the Argead, selecting these Heracles stories in order ‘to give Philip a pattern upon which to shape his life and actions’.Footnote 61
Of course, drawing attention to the initiative Isocrates tries to take in his letter is not to revive claims that the Athenian’s proposals (made here and elsewhere) strongly influenced the policies of the Macedonian king. No doubt Philip had plans and ambitions of his own, in which thoughts of Isocrates and his writings played very little part.Footnote 62 Certainly, these ideas of a ‘crusade’ against the Persians were neither new nor exclusive to Isocrates.Footnote 63 It is more likely that, as Michael Flower notes, ‘the panhellenist writings of Isocrates reflect popular sentiments to a far greater degree than they helped to form them.’Footnote 64 Indeed, the wider appeal and public nature of Isocrates’ address is important to remember here. As noted already, Isocrates, in the guise of independent counsellor, speaks to both an immediate Macedonian and a wider Hellenic audience; and, in doing so, the Athenian urges fellow Greeks to accept the reality of a new political situation and yield to this Argead in mutually-beneficial endeavours, such as the proposed campaign. But, in all, it is Philip who will lead the way as hêgemon. Echoing that identification of Heracles as the benefactor of all Greece (ἁπάσης κατέστη τῆς Ἑλλάδος εὐεργέτης: To Philip 76), in closing his address Isocrates urges Philip to show the poleis now the same favour:Footnote 65
φημὶ γὰρ χρῆναί σε τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας εὐεργετεῖν, Μακεδόνων δὲ βασιλεύειν, τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ὡς πλείστων ἄρχειν. ἢν γὰρ ταῦτα πράττῃς, ἅπαντές σοι χάριν ἕξουσιν, οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες ὑπὲρ ὧν εὖ πάσχουσι, Μακεδόνες δ᾽ ἢν βασιλικῶς ἀλλὰ μὴ τυραννικῶς αὐτῶν ἐπιστατῇς, τὸ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων γένος, ἢν διὰ σὲ βαρβαρικῆς δεσποτείας ἀπαλλαγέντες Ἑλληνικῆς ἐπιμελείας τύχωσι.
I say that you should be a benefactor for the Greeks, a king for the Macedonians, and master over as many barbarians as possible. If you do this, all will be grateful to you; the Greeks for the benefits they will receive, the Macedonians if you act like a king and not a tyrant, and the other group, if through you they put off the despotic rule of the barbarian and gain protection from the Greeks.
(Isoc. To Philip 154)
Isocrates offers here a famously ambiguous division of humanity into three parts, but with a clear promise that the peoples listed here will all look to the Argead king as grateful clients and subjects.Footnote 66 And although no mortal man can hope to surpass the glorious deeds of Heracles (famously ambiguous too), Philip can certainly prove himself worthy of this illustrious line if he sets his mind on the goals Isocrates has advised (To Philip 152).Footnote 67
Conclusion
Overall, the comprehensive use of Heracles as a role model for Philip in Isocrates’ writings is both distinctive and deliberate. And it is even more noteworthy if it was the case that Philip himself, as was suggested earlier, may not have emphasised these mythic connections and his heroic heritage as heavily as other Macedonian kings had done and would do. Nonetheless, by the period of Philip’s rule, so developed was the Argead identification with Heracles that Greek authors like Speusippus, Theopompus, and Isocrates could take up the connection and expand on it, further, at their end of an ongoing dialogue with the Macedonians.Footnote 68
Again, we must remember that other voices of dissent did also endure, for whom the Macedonians were not even Greek and could never be heroic in any fashion; voices that would disregard even the great Alexander as a lowly Margites.Footnote 69 Moreover, Demosthenes’ famous dismissal of the young king’s Homeric presentation as a puerile affectation echoes a key point made in the opening section of this article. Note how particular the Athenian’s barb is to its target; because that Alexander aspired to an identification with the epic Achilles, he was summarily dismissed by Demosthenes as a comic Margites. In his disdain, Demosthenes highlights that such Homeric pretensions and presentation were quite specific to the son of Philip.Footnote 70
However, down through the history of the Argead royal house, from Alexander I to (and including) Alexander III, Heracles remained the key heroic model for an often-embattled dynasty.Footnote 71 The hero-god was the crucial paradigm for rulers, providing an identity and authority for the Argeads that would appeal to diverse audiences both at home and abroad. Heracles, the ‘ultimate ancestor’ in ancient myth, was exploited by the Macedonian ruling class in a careful, considered, and consistent manner.Footnote 72 That he remained such an important icon of identity for later Hellenistic dynasties too, surely owes much to the innovations of the early Argeads and the strength of the tradition they established.Footnote 73 Overall, it is the liminal Heracles who adds most colour to presentations of the Macedonian kingdom and the courts of the ancient Argead monarchs.
