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 17:03:48 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Nov20.123333.15524@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by pef@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Panayotis Fouliras; TA
PhD):
>>According to Isocrates
>>Philip [read Perdiccas, sorry ATF!] wished to be a king and left the land of the Hellenes to do so
>>and became king of the Macedonians.  Reading the text without bias the
>>meaning is clear.  As far as Isocrates is concerned the Macedonians
>                     ************************************************
>>aren't Greek.  Remember this is a speech written by one of Philip's
>  ***********
>>supporters and it is surely imporatant that even such a man feels he
>                         ********************************************
>>can't present Philip as a Greek despite knowing of the Argead dynasties
>                 **********************************************************
>>pretensions.
> 
> 
> Now Andy, once you claim the above and after shown what
> missunderstandings(?) you have made, you still insist? Have you
> finally been taught that Isocrates beleived that Philip was
> Greek (since he say so about Philip's father)?

Frankly I haven't been 'taught' anything.  However apologies are in
order a bit I agree.  My typing is not what it could be, perhaps in time
I'll be able to hire a secretary.  OK there is a mistake in the above
due to haste in typing, for 'Philip' in the last sentence read
'Macedonians'. A quick read of the original posting will make the
intended meaning clear enough.  I apologise for the error and I hope
people will have enough honesty not leap up and claim the error was an
intellectual one because it wasn't and more important things are at stake.

To be crystal clear let's start again.  The important distinction in the
speech to Philip is between Isocrates' acceptance of the Argead claims
of being Greek, hence Philip becomes for him a Greek, and his marked
failure to attribute this to the Macedonian people.  Perdiccas (an
Argive according to Isocrates) wants to be a king, he sees that kings
cause dissent in their home towns and that Greeks won't tolerate a king,
therefore he leaves the land of the Hellenes altogether - a point
strongly emphasised by Isocrates and seeks to become king of the
Macedonians.  The natural inference from this is simple, namely that
Macedonia is *outside* the land of the Hellenes, i.e.  Macedonia is not
inhabited by Greeks.  Moreover this is alright according to Isocrates
because whereas the Greeks won't tolerate kingship, other races (that's
to say non-Greek ones) need a firm hand (a liitle bit of racism from
Isocrates here methinks).  The end result is that, according to
Isocrates, P unlike other kings doesn't rule over a related people -
true, on Isocrates' reckoning P is a Greek, the Macedonians aren't,
therefore P the Greek rules over the nonGreek Macedonians.  Throughout
whatever the status of P in Isocrates (he thinks a Greek, I think we can
challenge this) as far as the orator is concerned Macedonia lies outside
the land of the Greeks - the conclusion from this is clear it is not
inhabited by Greeks.  The contrast between Greek and nonGreek is brought
out even more strongly in the Greek by use of the contrasting particles
'men' and 'de'.  Hence the point of the abortive posting - the Isocrates
speech is good evidence that Macedonia was not regarded by the ancient
Greeks as part of Greece and that the Macedonians were not regarded as
Greeks by the ancient Greeks - even by those who like Isocrates were
friendly towards them (at least at this time). 

As to being taught that Philip was a Greek.  We all know of the claims
of the Argead dynasty, Herodotus sets out the tale at length.  Isocrates
wishing to get Philip's favour, while rejecting the idea that the
Macedonians are Greeks, something I think even the Argeads don't claim,
accepts the Argeads' story about the Greekness of their family (nb this
claim says *nothing* about the Macedonians in general).  But then he
would wouldn't he, regardless of its truth? But need we do this? i.e. 
need we believe the Argead claim as set down by its supporters? I.e. 
was Philip a Greek by virtue of his family's descent, even if the people
over whom he ruled the Macedonians weren't? This is the only possible
sort of Macedonian Greekness we can get out of Isocrates - a nonGreek
people ruled over by a Greek king, and this distinction made by a
philoMacedonian is surely telling eveidence the ancient Macedonians
*weren't* Greek. 

The answer is no: there is no good grounds to believe the Argead story,
nor was the belief accepted at the time by those opposed to Macedonian
imperialism - Demosthenes for one obviously didn't think of Philip or
his people as Greeks.  But the objection to belief is wider than this. 
Remember that the false geneaology is typical of antique diplomacy,
think of the king of the Lyncestae, the Roman kings who, inter alios,
claimed to be Greek, of Cleomenes the 'Achaean',and, as I said, of the
honorary Aryan status of the Japanese in WW2.  The Argead claim is an
example of this common ancient diplomatic ploy and was recognised as
such by Appian in antiquity.  The Argeads wanted to be thought of as
Greek - many non-Greeks did in antiquity, and produced a story to help
their claims, but there's no need for us to be taken in by it. 

 
> Tsk, tsk. And then? What is the difference between Sicilian
> Greeks and Hellenes according to Isocrates? What of Greeks of
> Ionia? Cypriots? Even today in Greece, there are people called
> "Russian", "Cypriots", "Chechs", etc. Among us (Isocrates was
> a Greek writing to another Greek), these mean a Greek from
> Russia, Cyprus, Chechoslovakia, etc.

I'm not sure what you intend here.  Isocrates would have regarded the
Sicilian Greeks as Greek since they were inhabitants of colonies formed
from settlers sent out from mainland Greece.  Their Greekness stems from
the fact they are settlers/descendents of settlers from these towns and
says nothing about the status of Sicily.  As Dick Wallace has pointed
out the same is true of Stagira.  It was Greek because it was a Greek
colony, its location in Chalcidice says nothing about the Greekness of
the land of Macedonia or that land's inhabitants, only the settlers and
their city would be regarded as Greek.  The Greeks in Sicily were
Siciliots (i.e.  Greeks in Sicily) and as such firmly distinguished from
the Sicels or native inhabitants. 


> If anyone wishes to put arguments about the present situation,
> I may not agree with him/her, but I welcome them if well
> motivated. Cheap propaganda which tries to find "evidence"
> against Greeks' identity (be it ancient,medieval or modern) to
> support a case, is simply unacceptable.

What motive have I for this conversation save wishing to make sure that
ancient texts are read properly? There is a distressing habit for people
here to find sinister motives for those who disagree with others.  I
don't think you have any bad motives, though I do question your
judgement on this issue on others who knows we may agree.  As for cheap
propaganda look to what your own government is up to before throwing
accusations around.  All I can do once again is to ask you to read the
ancient text carefully (more carefully than I type!) and look at what's
there, not at what you expect to find.  What happened over two milennia
ago doesn't pose a threat to anyone's identity, at least I hope no-one's
that insecure. 

Andy
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek