From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Scopjian Flag
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:34:29 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Nov19.202327.390@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras; TA PhD):
>>Any chance of a reference, I'd like to read this.
> 
> You surprise me! Another anti-Greek "evidence" and you haven't
> found it? Anyway, I do not remember the exact reference (all this
> is from my personal readings during high-school and University
> years). It is where the expedition of Ptolemaios Keraunos
> (I am not certain here) against the "cities"
> of the Aetoleans is attempted. Not decisive outcome. The cities
> are mentioned as not "cities in the normal term", due to their
> condition (not exactly up to the standards of the rest).

Ok I'll try to chase it. There's a lot on Polybius you know so it's
hardly surprising that I can't remember it off the top of my head. Also
I'm not interested in searching out anti-Greek bits of evidence just for
the sake of it.

> 
> [..]
>>Bits on Isocrates...
> 
> Edition: Harvard Univ Press, 1956, George Norlin.
> 
> (1) "PANEGYRICUS" 124-127 (actually 126) or p.198/9 of the book
> 
> "...
> [ about Spartans]; and now they are laying siege to Olynthus
> and Phlius; on the other hand, they are assisting Amyntas, king
> of the Macedonians, and Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, and
> the barbarian king who rules over Asia, to extend their
> dominions far and wide.
> ....."
> 
> Clearly, by your own logic, Amyntas (Philip's father) and
> Dionysius are Greek enough to be placed together and by name,
> whereas the "barbarian king of Asia" is clearly non-Greek and
> not even his name is mentioned.


Oh dear, think about Isocrates more carefully. He's prepared to buy the
claim of the Argead dynasty that they are Greek, hence there's no
problem with the coupling, but this says nothing about the people over
which he rules. Moreover remember that the Argead claim rests on the
dubious story told by Herodotus. I've never denied that this claim
existed, I think there are overwhelming reasons to doubt its veracity.
> 
> (2)     "TO PHILIP" ( Your *own* source)
> 
>>Isocrates, To Philip either 106-108 or 103-104 (there are two standard
>>ways of dividing the text)
> 
>>This is a huge amount of Greek and I just haven't time to write it all
>>out.  What we learn is that the founder of the Argead dynasty wished to
> 
> 32-33   (or pages 264-265 of the book)
> 
> [Addressing Philip of course]
> 
> ".....
>  Now you realize that it is not becoming in you to disregard
> any of these cities if you will review their conduct in
> relation to your ancestors; for you will find that each one of
> them is to be credited with great friendship and important
> services to your house: Argos is the land of your fathers,
>                                      ********************
> .... [goes on about Hercules and his sons being the founders of
> Macedonians, etc]"
> 
> So Philip is Greek according to Isocrates, eh? Why are you
> bullshitting this network then?

I'm not but you are.  This is the Argead claim which rests on the
Herodotus story.  Once again Isocrates is willing to buy this, but it
says nothing about the status of the Macedonians indeed the speech
implies that while the Argeads are Greek the people they rule over
aren't. 

 
> (4) The SAME: 105-108 (or pages 308-310)
> 
> "..., I believe that both your own father [Amyntas II], and the
> founder of your kingdom, and also the progenitor of your race -
> were it lawful for Heracles and possible for the others to
> appear as your councellors- would advise the very things, which
> I have urged...."
> 
> The same stuff...

Indeed the same claim, but there's no reason for us to believe it, any
more than we should believe the king of the Lyncestae's claim to be
Greek.  These things are done for political convenience.  Remember
Cleomenes the king of Sparta who suddenly tells a long story about being
an Achaean not a Dorian at a convenient moment. Entertaining also
remember how the Japanese suddenly became honorary Aryans in WW2.

> 
> (5) The BEST: and realy *YOUR EXACT REFERENCE*  (just the next
> couple of sentences. Come on learn how to read):
> 
> [Saying "The founder of your empire" - Perdikas I and not
> Philip as you wrote] 

OK sorry, but it doesn't affect the argument I'm afraid

>  ...
>>be a king.  Discovers that those who aim at this in their home towns
>>cause civil strife, and therefore left the land of the Greeks altogether
>>and aimed to become king of Macedonia.
>>The reason he did it was because he knew the Greeks could not endure
>>monarchy. The result being alone of kings he didn't rule over a kindred
>>people (homophulon genos).
>  ...
> 
>>The implication is clear. The Macedonians are not Greeks and this is the
>>case whether we assume the Greeks here are a collective unity or a
>>collection of city states.
> 
> "And so it came about, owing to his unique insight in this
> regard, that his kingship has proved to be quite set apart from
> that of the generality of kings: for because HE ALONE AMONG THE
> HELLENES did not claim the right to rule over a people of
> kindred race [actully "OMOFYLLOY GENOUS"],

Well if you insist on the rather crude 'f' for phi. I put it in the
nominative for ease of reference...

Yes Isocrates means the Greeks by this phrase.  Perdiccas according to
him is the only Greek king (the Argead claim) not to rule over Greeks
(the people of a kindred race).  He does this to avoid cause civil
strife among them and in the knowledge that barbarian peoples on the
other hand need this sort of order in their lives.  Read the text!

 he alone was able to
> escape the perils incident to one-man power...."
> 
> After this, whoever you are, there are two possibilities:
> 
>         (a) Someone gave you a stupid list to post in case you
> needed arguments. Hence you are not a historian, but a clown,
> since you could not read two sentences after the one you
> quoted and used something out of context to create impressions.

The context is perfectly clear, all you have to do is read the text. I
fail to see the problem for me here, but the problem you possess is
huge... First and most importantly you conveniently forget the statement
that to found his kingdom Perdiccas leaves the land of the Greeks
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 and goes to Macedonia (implication Macedonia isn't part of the land of
the Greeks), moreover Isocrates emphasises this departure with the
adverb 'holos' in other words its important to his argument that
Macedonia isn't in the land of the Greeks.  P then sets up a kingdom
there because he knows unlike the Greeks, other races need this sort of
discipline in their kingdoms.  Once again to anyone not labouring under
modern propaganda the implication is clear - Macedonians are not Greeks. 
Then we have a naive acceptance of the Argead ancestry myth - something
seen through by the ancient Greek historian Appian (Syriaca 63).  No one
ever said the Argeads didn't claim to be Greek, the important question
is 'is there solid evidence to support this claim?' and the answer is
no.  There is no more evidence than there is to assert that some early
Roman kings came from Corinth.  You then appear to confuse Isocrates'
claim about the Argeads with what he says about the Macedonians, yet the
orator himself keeps the two distinct.  Why? Perhaps because although
his audience will stomach the claim about Philip, it can't stomach one
about Macedonians in general.  In sum all I can say is read more
carefully, and, please, without prejudice. 

 
> FINAL:  Obviously Isocrates speaks using the word "Hellenes" in
> two ways:
> 
>         (a) The whole of the Greek peoples collectively.

OK - I think this is the sense used above and it's fatal to your argument. 

>         (b) Among Greeks to describe (roughly) the area from
> the Homeric "HELLAS" southwards + the islands. E.g. The SAME 65
> (or page 284/5) about Dionysius of Syracuse "...conquered all
> the states of Sicily, which were of Hellenic origin, ...",
> making the dual use of the term "Hellenic" obvious.

And significantly Macedonia lies outside of this...

> 
> This concludes the time I have wasted in a simple "scanning" of
> the speech.

Alas simple is indeed the right word...

> Isocrates is as rich as a diamond's mine!

Now there we can agree, all I would say is he's like any other mine. The
right precautions need to be taken, blundering in will just lead to
trouble...

Andy
Xref: sparky soc.culture.greek:10844 soc.culture.yugoslavia:9695 soc.culture.europe:9767