From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Scopjian Flag
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:35:19 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Nov21.151508.8075@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras; TA PhD):
> In <By1G88.Jp@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
> [..]
>>> Why keep on insisting on something you are clearly wrong? TSK!
>>> TSK!
> 
>>Because I'm not.  This is the second attempt at catching me out over
>>trivia.  So what is wrong with the overall argument which you don't
> 
> And I catch you!

On one typing error! I could have done the same, but why bother?


> Especially during this period that a government of a state next
> to Greece tries to claim "rights" on whatever is Macedonian, by
> using ridiculously false "historical" arguments.

There's nothing ridiculous about saying the ancient Macedonians weren't
Greek, it's simply true. Also remember that the Republic of Macedonia
unlike the Greek republic isn't trying to pretend that they have an
ethnic link to the Ancient Macedonians
 
>>challenge and still works even if we adopt your translation?  Isocrates
>>says Philip is a Greek who doesn't rule over Greeks, but non-Greeks.
>>Not too surprising as he's alreahy said that Macedonia lies outside the
>>land of the Greeks.  As I have said there are also strong reasons to
> 
> (1) I have not only challenged you, but forced you in accepting
> publicly your own errors. Why inisist then?

The error of not typing well! Hardly something terrible. As I've pointed
out error two as you put it, is really your error of not spotting the
nuances of ancient Greek correctly.

> > (2) Where does he say so? You read the text, but you do not
> understand it (unless of course the motives are different).
> Check with the man again. When he speaks about the land(s), how
> does he refer to Cyprus and especially to the land of the
> Greeks in Aegean shores of Asia Minor? Is it "HELLAS" or
> "IONIA"? Also is it "HELLAS" or "SICILY"? Is it "HELLAS" or
> "MACEDONIA"?

Actually what he says here is o topos o hellenicos (in the nominative
here as normnal convention insists...).  We are told that P keeps away
from this *completely*.  Why? He wants to be a king.  Pe knows that that
the Greeks won't have a king and Hellenes here refers to the people, so
Hellenes wherever they are, but on the other hand the other races of the
world Hellenes as opposed to hoi alloi (article important) actually need
one.  (Now if your reading of the text is right.  I take it that this is
that Macedonia is a Greek land which isn't 'Hellas', an assumption which
is massively problematic in itself, what's the point of this comment
which Isocrates makes so much of at a key point in his argument? Why
tell us about the predilictions of barbarians when they don't come into
the argument at all? Why make such a point of the contrast? This alone
should warn you that your interpretation is wrong) It would simply be
superfluous information) Isocrates wants to present P as a good king.  P
knows Greeks don't like kings, but the non-Greeks on the other hand need
them and so keeps aloof from Greek lands and seeks to become king of
Macedonia.  The implication is crystal-clear, P becomes a king in
Macedonia because there his kingship will be accepted and effective, why
because the Macedonians are barbarians. P's wisdom is knowing not to be
a king among the Greeks where it will achieve nothing.

Look at the sequence of sentences, after all it's you who have insisted
on context as important.  Sentence one P keeps wholly aloof from the
land of the Greeks and seeks the throne of Macedonia (natural
implication the land of the Greeks and Macedonia are entirely distinct. 
Why would Isocrates not include Macedonia in Hellas, if the Macedonians
were Greek after all there is geographical continuity).  Sentence two
tells us why.  He knew the Greeks wouldn't bear a king, but barbarians
needed one.  (natural implication he does where he can be a successful
king, namely to a barbarian people, he goes to Macedonia because
Macedonia is a barbarian country).  Sentence three because of this
insight (i.e. that of sentence two) he is unlike any other Greek king,
namely he doesn't rule over a kindred race (translation = Norlin.  Loeb
edition which will be the most accessible to English readers and
incidently bears out my reading of the text).  This is true, he rules
over the barbarian Macedonians not Greeks. 

The structure of this passage is crystal-clear, Perdiccas for Isocrates
is a Greek king ruling over nonGreeks.  His wisdom consists in having
chosen to be such a king as a conscious policy descision.  This is
Isocrates' justificationn of the Argeads' claims to grrekness.  Enormous
amounts of revisionism are needed to make the Greek mean anything else. 
And frankly they just won't work.  There is no other natural reading of
this text. 

> And another very important thing. When writing a (friendly) letter to an
> absolute monarch (be it Ancient, Medieval or Modern Times),
> would you bother to mention much about the people?

You'd think not but Isocrates *does* here. Perhaps we ought to ask why.

>>doubt whether the Argeads' claim to Greekness will work.  The

> Now it is your word against Herodotus, Olympic Games and a
> number of other famous people...

The first two are the same of course.  And it isn't just my word of
course then there are the famous people lining up on the other side,
Demosthenes (yes biasses against Philip, but then Isocrates was
*biassed* in his favour so why believe one rather than the other? You
have to reject one source, my position can accopmodate both), Appian... 

 > >>interesting point is that those they rule
over are clearly not Greek.  > ******************

 > > Boring...  Another mistake, CLEARLY? You haven't given anything 
crystal clear. 

I fail to see how you can read this text any other way than the one
presented above.  I have tried several times to bring out its natural
meaning, all I can say is look at the passage with taking up the a
priori position 'this must show the ancient macedonians were Greek' This
is not a question of politics simply of seeing what is written. 


>>So where's the problem, unless you buy the propaganda of the Greek
>>government?
> 
> Yes. For 4 years in London, I am in chains by the Greek
> government, waiting for somebody to liberate me...

Now propaganda of course enslaves the mind not the body, and for that to
happen you can be anywhere. 

Andy

Andy
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek