Saturday, June 27, 2009
Member of Athens Academy
Abstract from the book “the Hellenism of Ancient Macedonians”, pages 69-76, Institute Balkan of Studies, Thessaloniki, 1965
But the passage which right from the beginning has been the strongest card in the hands of those who support the theory of a non-Greek Macedonian language having existed in ancient times, is the one in the Latin author Curtius Rufus recounting the trial for conspiracy and the execution of Alexander's general Philotas, son of Parmenion. In spite of its interpretation and refutation by many Greek and foreign experts, this passage is still quoted as a fundamental argument by those denying the Hellenism of the ancient Macedonians; hence we must deal with it at length.
In reporting the plot of Philotas and his execution by Alexander, C. Rufus presents him as being tried by the army. After numerous speeches and the pronouncement of the charge, Alexander permits Philotas to defend himself "patrio sermone." Philotas replied that he preferred to use the same language as had just been used by Alexander (in order to be understood by a greater number of those present). Philotas prefers to speak in the language used by Alexander because he sees present in larger numbers those who he thinks will thus understand more easily what he has to say. Upon this Alexander chides Philotas before the onlookers for loathing his paternal tongue because he was bored at having to learn it thoroughly. Next, before leaving the trial, Alexander charges the judges not to forget that "Philotas equally loathes our customs and our language," obviously, in the author's view, with the object of weighing the scales against Philotas. A prolix rhetorical trend and a bombastic manner with continued orations marks the whole of Curtius Rufus' work. No earlier writer records these and it would have been impossible to have them verbatim if no minutes were kept.
So no weight need be given to these bombastic declamations and texts with dialogue in them the context of which is to be found nowhere else. Fer¬tile imagination and a literary bent carry him away from the facts of history into descriptions of the life, achievements and adventures of Alexander the Great, obviously mythical in character and written with the unconcealed intent of delighting his readers. In fact elsewhere he himself admits that he transcribes more items than he believes. This applies more truly to the long harangues abundant in Curtius Rufus' work, which recall the fireworks in the Roman schools of rhetoric, so customary at that time in dealing with rhetorical subjects. The subject of Philotas' trial naturally proved highly interesting to them.
But even if after critical scrutiny we take this narrative of Curtius as a reliable source of history, we should still be justified in feeling astonish¬ment that it should be put forward so persistently in an attempt to de¬rive "Macedonian," from it, that is, not a Greek dialect, but another lan¬guage, not understood by the Greeks. According to Curtius, Philotas answers Alexander clearly that he would rather speak the language in which the king had spoken (obviously Greek), because he would thus be more easily understood by a larger number, that is by the non-Macedonians too, or the Greeks present. But if it were a case of a non-Greek Macedonian tongue, then the question of its being easily understood would not arise, for the simple rea¬son that the Greek bystanders would not have understood a word of what Philotas was saying. Thus, even if we take this passage of Curtius Rufus as a verified and unimpeachable historical source, the only deduction we can make is that he is referring to a Macedonian dialect of the Greek language, to which the non-Macedonian Greeks present would naturally prefer stand¬ard Greek.
But in the examples already cited as well as in the present trial of Phi¬lotas, we maintain that not even a Greek-Macedonian dialect is to be thought of. We regard this extract from Curtius as wholly imaginary, or as arbitrary the addition of the passage giving Alexander's remarks in usual Greek or a Macedonian vernacular, either from misunderstanding or through the desire to tell a good story. It is not certain when Curtius Rufus lived, cer¬tainly not before Augustus, and in the view of some scholars during the time of Constantine the Great. In the course of the many centuries which had elapsed since the events he deals with, Alexander's personality and the feats of his expedition in Asia had been embellished with all sorts of agreeable legends, which were not derived from the stories of eye-witnesses, but from later traditions. The lost work of Cleitarchus, itself widespread during Ro¬man times, which contributed much to the growth of legend around Alexan¬der's campaigns and was drawn on by Curtius, is found to be based large¬ly on anecdote; as a source of history it is of very questionable authority.
Looking at the subject from a logical point of view we are led to the conclusion that Philotas' defence is a figment of the imagination and a rhe¬torical exercise which was never delivered. How can we possibly imagine that this young general, son of the illustrious Parmenion, till the day before en¬joying power and renown, when dragged in tatters, with his hands bound and the prospect of frightful tortures ahead of him, would have the presence of mind to deliver in reply to Alexander's charges an extremely long ex tempore speech to the army, full of rhetorical forms and profoundest syllogisms ! In our view, this whole passage of Curtius is a purely rhetorical exer¬cise based on no historical foundation whatever.
Curtius' account of Philotas' trial does not tally with the known sources on this subject. The passage about the use of the Macedonian or the usual Greek language is found in no other historical writer. More specifically, neither Plutarch, nor Arrian, not even Diodorus has anything to say about it. These writers, recording the history of Alexander and the adventures met with on his campaigns in Asia on the basis of genuine contemporary accounts, be it even that of Cleitarchus, would be the only people qualified to know and would not have omitted anything of the sort.
Plutarch in recording the scene of Philotas' arrest and execution says that the unfortunate son of Parmenion, on suspicion of plotting against Al¬exander's life, was suddenly arrested and subjected to torture to make him reveal his accomplices. Certainly the troops would not have been present at the loathsome scene of torturing a brave and distinguished Macedonian, son of Alexander's bravest general; but only some trusted courtiers, "the hetairoi witnessing the torture," and those administering the inquisition. Alexander, as Plutarch clearly records, was not present, but listening behind a curtain to the loud cries of the tortured man and his prayers to those about Hephaestion administering the inquisition, deplored his guilt. Philotas was straightway put to death. Thus, as far as Plutarch goes, this trial and defence in front of the army in Alexander's presence never took place. But if Plutarch had had reliable sources of such a court martial for Philotas, and of a defence speech before the Macedonians at Alexander's command, it seems very doubtful that he would have omitted them, both on account of the dramatic story and because he would have been able to draw many and typical moral lessons from it, with apt judgements thereon.
Throughout the whole of Macedonian history, we cannot find anything definite about the existence—like a hard and fast unwritten law—of a Macedonian custom that persons guilty of conspiring against the king's life should be tried by the Macedonians. On the contrary, because of the very frequent conspiracies and ceaseless danger of the throne being seized by some other member of the family, the kings of Macedonia for the most part settled such matters in the fashion of absolute monarchs: by ordering the execution of the guilty person, or the murder of the one suspected. Parmenion had received an order from Alexander immediately after the latter came to the throne, to kill Attalus. At the revolt near Opis, Alexander himself arrested 13 Macedonians and ordered that they should be put to death forthwith. During his campaign in Asia, he ordered the death of many of his brothers-in¬arms without a trial, either because he suspected them of plotting against him, or else because they blocked his plans. Olympias sought from Kassander to be tried before all the Macedonian Army, but he refused and she was executed. Sometimes it is stated that the Macedonians had "equal rights of speech," but that meant the right to express an opinion in other circumstances, particularly in military operations, but not in cases of conspiracy or of a death verdict. According to Polybius the Macedonians asked of their king—by virtue of equal rights of speech—that they might take part in the trial of Leontius, but their request was not considered at all.
It is true that in the affair of Philotas the circumstances were altogether exceptional. The man arrested and accused of conspiracy had been till the day before a renowned general, son of a famous general, commander of the most prominent battle corps, the hetairoi. Even if this custom had not existed, it would have been justifiable to bring him before the Macedonians in order to persuade them of his guilt. But in that event, his appearing before them would have had to come after the torture and extraction of a confession; not beforehand, when he was denying his guilt with rhetorical sword-play. In other words, historically speaking and apart from the words which Curtius puts into his mouth, the second alternative after the torture and confession would have been possible, just before Philotas was executed; but in no circumstances the first, with the rhetorical flights which Curtius intersperses, inventing among other things that conceit about the "paternal tongue of the Macedonians," for greater elaboration.
Most fitted of all to provide detailed information on the subject is Arrian who undoubtedly used as his sources the accounts of contemporaries and eye-witnesses that had accompanied Alexander on his Asiatic campaign. Arrian clearly states that he took his account of Philotas's plot and execution from Ptolemy and Aristobulus, who evidently were eye-witnesses. What Arrian writes about the trial of Philotas is pretty vague, because from the phrase ''to be brought before the Macedonians" which he takes from Pto¬lemy we cannot judge with any certainty whether he is referring to a trial before the Macedonian Army, as Curtius has it, or within a close circle of Alexander's generals and other men of high rank. But the fact of his record¬ing Alexander's charge, Philotas' defence, the exhaustive examination of accusers in order to nullify the defendant's claims of innocence and establish his guilt, leads us to the latter. From a logical angle, a case so grave could only have been tried in a closed circle constituting a court of law and not amid the hurly-burly of the Macedonian Army. Obviously, in that closed circle of the generals and courtiers of Alexander, who had been nurtured on Homer's epics, by whom as is often recounted the ancient tragedies were recited from memory and which included men rivalling one another in Greek learning and verbal elegance, a proposal of Alexander that Philotas should speak in a Macedonian dialect, and a reproach too for loathing his native tongue, as part of the indictment, would have appeared inconceivable, if not laughable. At any rate, Arrian writes nothing at all about Alexander's proposal. We may draw the conclusion that the eye-witnesses Ptolemy and Aristobulus, from whom he took his account, had heard nothing of it and had not included it in their works.
It now remains to examine the related passage in Diodorus, who is not apt to scrutinize very closely the information which comes to his hand from every source, but who all the same is possessed by a feeling for historic truth. In his narrative Diodorus divides the incident into three stages: First, the examination during which Philotas did not confess his guilt, but during which damaging facts emerged against him. Second, his being sent for judgement before "the Macedonians" who after hearing many speeches "passed sen¬tence of death." In this case it is not disclosed whether "Macedonians" refers to the army or to the generals and first lords of Alexander's court. Diodorus gives more or less the same order of procedure as Curtius (presu¬mably because he is using Cleitarchus as his reference), connecting the incidents of his arrest, judgement by a court of Macedonians and execution, with many speeches (i. e. a great deal of discussion). Very probably this mention of "words" by Cleitarchus, or someone in his tradition, gave Curtius the opportunity of manufacturing speeches for Alexander and Philotas of the type of harangues in the public manner before the Army.
Anyhow, when it comes to a judgement, which Alexander entrusted to the Macedonians, we must infer that this meant the council of trusted senior officers, who uttered the many "words" before condemning Philotas, after he should first be put to torture in order to extract a confession from him.
The third stage of Diodorus' narrative gives the torturing of Philotas, after which he confessed his guilt and was executed. Thus Diodorus is perhaps the clearest narrator of Philotas' conspiracy among the Greek historians who have dealt with it; at any rate he does not say what Curtius fancied concerning a "trial before the Macedonians" and mentions absolutely nothing about a speech by Philotas, still less any discussion whether he should give it in Macedonian rather than in Greek. It is worth noting that Diodorus uses Cleitarchus as one of his most important sources of information about Alexander's campaign. Like Plutarch, Cleitarchus is almost the only relatively reliable author, as writing a bit after the events and used by Cur tius Rufus also. We may therefore conclude that as Diodorus does not mention the speech, nor did Cleitarchus write anything about it; so this last very doubtful source of historical fact was not employed by Curtius in his "battle of words"' over the use of Macedonian or ordinary Greek, who must have invented it himself.
We thus have the three Greek historians who wrote in detail about Alexander, drawing on contemporary accounts, writing nothing which connects up with Curtius' tale of Alexander's proposing to Philotas that he should speak in "patrio sermone" or the latter's reply that he would rather speak Greek in order to be better understood. We can therefore affirm positively that this passage of Curtius is not supported by any historical source and is purely a figment of the Latin author's imagination. We can also conjecture that the state of political and military life in the Roman Empire during its last period had some influence on the origin of this scene of Philotas' trial, either in the form of a tradition, or through Curtius, own fabrication. The Roman generals and pro-consuls who governed subject peoples and exercised the "imperium" of the Roman people at that time, left local justice in force and generally respected the laws and customs of the conquered people. These were certainly included in the "edictum," with which they inaugurated their yearly rule. Thus Curtius Rufus also imagined that in such a grave case, told in a book aimed to fascinate a wide public, the ancient historical facts about the trial might be rounded off in the fashion then prevalent throughout the Roman Empire. So Philotas the Macedonian grandee should be tried "in his native speech" as was the rule for merce¬nary troops under Rome;
A thorough scrutiny of this whole passage of Curtius Rufus persuades us that the Latin author wrote this without reference to a source of Alexander's time. A critic's glance gives us such discrepancies and historical inac¬curacies as to preclude anything serious. As told by Curtius, Alexander recommends Philotas to use his paternal tongue, and when the latter declines, rebukes him in front of a large number of non-Macedonian Greeks for "loathing both our way of life and our language." As we shall see later on, Arrian drawing on contemporaries and eye-witnesses, mainly Ptolemy (whose me¬moirs are always accurate, as he had the "ephemerides" in mind), records the texts of speeches delivered in Greek by Alexander to Macedonians only, and these at critical, dramatic junctures.
All through his Asiatic campaign Alexander never spoke any other lan¬guage than the Greek in use at the time, not even in a Macedonian dialect. How therefore could he have rebuked Philotas, and that so harshly, for speaking "his paternal tongue" because he loathed it, if he himself even when addressing Macedonians never made use of it and presumably, if such "speech" existed,loathed it too? Anyone present could have turned the tables on Alexander himself. Alexander's entourage of generals, high lords and men of letters, steeped in the Hellenic traditions, used to quoting Homer and classic tragedy by heart would, to say the least, have been surprised at hearing the king of Macedonia, who was triumphing throughout Asia in the name of the Hellenic spirit and of Hellenism's institutions, champion as a "native idiom" something peculiar to the Macedonians, and not at all Greek.
Curtius falls into another downright inconsistency when he makes Alex¬ander rebuke Philotas for loathing his paternal speech, because " he alone hated learning it." But if Philotas' paternal speech had been some separate Macedonian tongue, he would not have had to learn it at all, for it would have been his vernacular and naturally would have known it well. A native language, though supposedly abandoned in favour of another more advanced, is not learned by instruction but simply at our mother's knee, and is thus perpetuated from generation to generation; here Curtius has blundered not only from a historical but also from a logical point of view.
Philotas' reply quoted in the above passage, namely that he would rather use the Greek language which Alexander too was using, so as to be better understood by the non-Macedonians present, i.e. Greeks, shows how little Curtius knew about the customs and the social and political life of Macedonia. For if Alexander were handing over to his Macedonian fellow soldiers his right of judging Philotas for plotting against his life, Philotas would have made his defence to them and been judged by them alone.The proud, untamed Macedonian warriors, firmly adhering to their ancestral ways, would on no ground have brooked that a high personage, son of the most eminent general after Alexander, who had been their commander till the day before, should defend himself, much less be judged by the other Greeks too, who besides did not know of this custom. So if this trial did really take place, not in the presence of Alexander's courtiers and generals alone, as seems likely to us, but before whole army bodies like the hetairoi, hitherto commanded by Philotas, and the king's guard, there should not have been others, non-Macedonian Greeks, present who could not have been as numerous anyway, as Curtius would have us be¬lieve. The Greeks scattered throughout the units hardly reached one fifth of the Macedonian army's total, and those in the corps closest to Alexander, which was composed almost exclusively of Macedonian hetairoi or bodyguard units, were a very small proportion.
The exclusion of Greeks, in large numbers at any rate, was imperative not only for reasons of Macedonian prestige, but also on practical grounds. Because, given that the verdict was reached by a shouting vote, the voices of the other Greeks could not affect the decision of the Macedonians, the only people with the right to express an opinion on such a topic. If in spite of this they were indeed present and Alexander really advised Philotas to use "paternal speech" in his defence, it would have been quite incomprehensible for the Macedonian general, after such a stern rebuke, to answer that he was interested in being better understood by the Greeks present, who had no rights in the matter, rather than devote all his attention to the Macedonians, on whom his life depended. It would also have been unthinkable not only for a Macedonian nobleman, who would never allow himself for personal and traditional reasons to beg for mercy from non-Macedonians, but for any man who, if not successful in convincing the Macedonians of his innocence, was doomed to death by frightful tortures.
Besides, not only Alexander and the other accusers, all pure Macedonians, spoke in standard Greek, but the Macedonian himself who is presented as accusing Philotas of being unable to speak his native language, addressed the Macedonians in faultless Greek. Such discrepancies, devoid of any historical foundation, could only have come from the frivolous literary imagination of Curtius. They could never have actually occurred.
But even if so many other indications did not exist, merely these amazing inconsistencies would be enough to show that this notorious passage of Curtius' narrative is historically false. It is strange indeed that the Greek and foreign historians after half a century's ample debate and rebuttal should not have discerned that these discrepancies are incontrovertible proof of the historical forgery of the passage and voiding it of all significance.
-Curtius VI, 9, 34-36, VI, 10, 23 and VI, 11, 4.
-Curtius IX, 1, 34. Curtius' work contains many "Rhetorical essays" of the kind used in schools of oratory at that time. He clearly had full command of the orator's art, sacrificing historic accuracy to that and it is probable that he was himself a teacher of rhetoric (See Curtius edited by H. Bardon, Belles Lettres Paris, 1947, introd., ix).
-Η. Bardon, (ed. B.L. vol. I, p. 201, η. I) who in many occasions supports the Latin writer's authority, remarks in connection with the supposed speech of Philotas : "Curtius is given to school exercizes in bombast and retort: he is a master of the rhetorical art's formulae and arrays his arguments with a technician's expert skill."
-Plut., Alex. XLIX, 6.
-Pol. V, 27, 5.
-Arr., Anab. Ill, 26 ff.\
-Diod. XVII, 79, 5-80 ff.
-Curtius' account of the frightful tortures, to which Philotas was subjected in order to make him confess, also smacks more of Roman practices under the Empire.
-H. Bardon, editor of Curtius asks at this point: "Is it not astounding to hear Alexander accusing Philotas of philhellenism, when he was himself trying to expand the Hellenic world all over the East?" If Alexander ever accused Philotas of this, it would indeed have been amazing, but he never even thought of doing so.
-Diod. XVII, 17. Here it must be remembered that these events took place in Bactria, after the complete destruction of the Persian Empire and amid prepar¬ations for the advance into Middle Asia. During this period, the Greek forces taking part in the expedition had been demobilised as provided by the terms of the Corinth Alliance and the Greek warriors, who did not wish to return to Greece, were enlisted in the Greek mercenary forces. There was no question of seeking their opinion.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The title is: "Зошто светската наука не ја разбира Македонија" ["Why the Global Science Does Not Understands Macedonia"], Globus, № 114, 23-VI-2009
The prologue by Siniša Stanković gives an introduction to the letter to President Obama, but a greater emphasis is put on the reaction of marginal authors and groups from Canada and Australia, including Bill Nikolov's MMHRI and writings of the autodidact Risto Stefov about the "artificial character of modern Greek nation" and the "anti-Macedonian pogrom by Athens in XXth century".
Interview is given in form of contextualized and-as far as I can see-put in objective context excerpts. The bulk of the interview is predated by key-points to the unpublished letter to "Archaeology" magazine.
Right bellow the picture of the FYROMian Government office decorated with statues there is an article unrelated per se with Prof. Miller interview and his views, entitled: "Revisionism or Idiotism" in which recent publication of a monumental "History of the Macedonian People" by the state-funded INI (Institute for National History) whose main claim is cultural and demographic continuity of the Ancient Macedonians who were only marginally affected by the medieval Slavic settlement and continued as a people with their own tradition. This subtext contains rejection of this thesis by several mostly senior academics, less relevant in recent times.
Only after the picture of Prof. Miller profile facing a statue a main body of the interview follows.
After the interview, there is a text by obscure person, Aleksandra Aleksovska, which occasionally writes for "American Chronicle", website syndicated on "Google News", entitled: "Counter-Stance" "Already Seen Greek Propaganda!". Miller's personal ties with Greece are emphasized, the fact that excavations in Greece can be approved only by authorities which would allegedly forbid any future participation of a scholar which doesn't publish results consistent with their politics, the fact that some names: Borza, Badian and Green are missing from the list of the signatories and that most of the signed academics do not have Ancient Macedonia as their specialized career.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A philhellene (φιλέλλην) or Greek-lover is frequently used of non-Greeks, but it is also well known as descriptive of Greeks who sacrifice themselves for the common good. For example, in setting up his ideal state, Plato prescribes that the citizens are to be both Greek and Philhellenes (Republic 470E). But the word is also used to describe specific historical characters such as Agesilaus of Sparta who as a good Greek was a philhellene (Xenophon, Agesilaus 7.4). See further Liddell, Scott, Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon sv. φιλέλλην).
No. The inscriptions from Macedonia are all written either in Attic (koine) Greek, or a Greek dialect showing affinities both with the north-western ('Doric') dialects of Epirus and with the north-eastern ('Aeolic') dialects of Thessaly. This is the Macedonian dialect of Greek. If the ancient documents preserved today on stone reveal only those two possibilities, there is clearly no basis for a separate language.
It may be noted that Plato (Protagoras 341C), in referring to the Aeolic dialect of Lesbian authors, calls it “barbaric” by which he may intend crude or rough, but Greek all the same.
Quintus Curtius (6.9.34-36) has Alexander give the conspirator Philotas the chance to defend himself before his Macedonian troops, and asks if Philotas will speak to them in their native tongue (patrio sermone in the Latin). There is, however, no way to know if the reference is to a separate language, or to a dialect of Greek. The ancient text would allow either interpretation.
The same is true when, in the middle of the Kleitos episode, Alexander calls out to his guards in “Macedonian” (Plutarch, Alexander 51.6), and when Macedonian soldiers hail Eumenes in “Macedonian” (Plutarch, Eumenes 14.5). In every case, Macedonian could be a Greek dialect rather than a different language.
These stories cannot be used as proof of a Macedonian non-Greek language.
4) Even if the kings of Macedonia became Hellenized, doesn’t the language and culture of the common people show a non-Greek basis?
This question is often asked of Macedonia, but not of the helots of Laconia or the penestai of Thessaly. In fact, there is no evidence that the commoners of Macedonia were not Greek, even if definitive proof of their ethnicity is not preserved. But the evidence grows – both from archaeological artifacts and from linguistics – that they were Greek. Note, for example, the curse-tablet of the 4th century B.C. which was discovered in a common grave in Pella and is written in what was a Macedonian dialect of Greek. See the article "The speech of the ancient Macedonians, in the light of recent epigraphic discoveries".
Yes, he does. But beyond the fact that Demosthenes harbored a personal grudge against Philip because of the humiliation he suffered when he lost his power of speech at the Macedonian court (Aischines, On the Embassy 35), Demosthenes could call anyone he did not like a barbarian, including fellow Athenians (e.g. 21.150). The word, at least in some uses by Demosthenes and others, should be understood as a generic insult. Thus, for example, in some parts of the USA people are dubious that people from other parts are “real Americans.”
Yes, but this is a political distinction, not an ethnic one. After the Battle of Chaironeia in 338 B.C. Philip formed a “Hellenic League” (frequently called the “League of Corinth” by modern scholars after the site of its first meeting). He was the leader (ηγεμών) of the league, but he had been and still was the king (βασιλεύς) of the Macedonians. There was, in other words, a very marked difference in the relationship between Philip and his allies on the one hand, and his subjects on the other. The League was largely about preparations for and participation in the invasion of the Persian Empire, and the number of votes of the various Greek states or regions was assigned on the basis of the size of the military contribution of each. Membership in the League was, at least in theory, voluntary, and Sparta refused to join and was not forced to. But the Macedonian contingent was present as subjects to their king. In other words, the distinction was not that the Macedonians were not Greek, but that the allied Greeks were not Macedonians, and Alexander retained his father’s institutions.
One consequence of this arrangement is to be recognized in the dedications made by “Alexander and the Greeks” (Arrian, Anabasis 1.16.7 and Plutarch, Alexander 16.18). This is the same distinction as the one between the Macedonians (=Alexander) and the Greeks.
For the sources and good commentary on some of the more difficult evidence, see M.N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions II, no. 177. For more complete narrative accounts see J.R. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism 204-209 and I. Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia 158-163
In the same way that Greeks fought one another so many times including the most famous example of the Spartans vs. the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War.
But Philip was actually at Chaironeia on the invitation of the Delphic Amphiktyonic Council. Already in 346 B.C. he had settled the Third Sacred War in favor of the Council, and been awarded a seat on that council (where no non-Greek ever served). Now, in 338 B.C., the Amphikytonic Council called upon him again, and it is Demosthenes, the Philip-hater, who records the actual decree of invitation from the Council (De Corona 18,155).
The two sides in the battle were totally Greek. One side (the ultimate losers) was led by Athens and Thebes which together supplied more than 60% of the forces. They were joined by Corinth, Megara, Akarnania, Phokis, Achaia, Euboia, Leukas, and Kerkyra (Demosthenes, De Corona 18.237). Note the missing: Sparta, Elis, Aigina, Epidauros, and many more.
The other side was dominated by the Macedonians, but there were substantial numbers of Thessalians as well as Argives and Arkadians (Demosthenes, Letters 4.8). In other words, as throughout so much of their history, the Battle of Chaironeia was Greek vs. Greek.
8) Since Aristotle states that barbarians are slaves by nature (e.g. Politics I.ii.18 [1255a29]) does it make sense that, if Philip were a barbarian and non-Greek, he would have hired Aristotle to teach his son?
Both are common Greek names used by hundreds, if not thousands of ancient Greeks.
The name Philip comes from philippos or “horse-lover”; the fact that Philip II’s horses won so many victories at Olympia, Delphi, and elsewhere is probably a coincidence, but a happy one.
The name Alexander derives from a combination of two Greek words: alexo (a verb meaning to defend or protect), and aner (man). Together the meaning is “defending men” or “protecting men”.
10) If the Macedonians were Greek, why did they call themselves Macedonians?
For the same reason that the Athenians called themselves Athenians. When, for example, Demosthenes is speaking to his fellow citizens, he calls them Men of Athens (e.g. De Corona 18.251), not Men of Greece.
Note that already in 479 B.C. on the eve of the Battle of Plateia, Alexander I, forced by circumstances to be in the Persian camp (as were other Greeks like the Boiotians and the Thessalians), secretly revealed to the Athenians the Persian battle plan. He justified this action by stating his care for all Greece because he, from ancient descent, is a Greek (Herodotus 9.45). Clearly Alexander has no doubt of his ethnicity.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
By Miltiades Hatzopoulos, VII International Symposion on Ancient Macedonia, 2002.
In my communication to the last Ancient Macedonia symposium on the character of the ancestral tongue of the Macedonians I cautioned that I did not pretend to solve the controverted question of the “nationality” of the ancient Macedonians, not only because language is, at best, only one of the several elements which contribute to the formation of group identity, but also –and mainly– because such a debate presupposed a previous response to the question of the nature of “nationality” in ancient Greece, provided of course that this question is well formulated and admits an effective answer.In the ensuing years “ethnic” studies, as they are now called, have enjoyed, especially on the other side of the Atlantic, a wild success comparable only to that of that other New World invention, “gender” studies. Among recent publications on this subject the collective volume Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge, Mass. and London 2001) edited by Irad Malkin stands out for its scholarly quality. Several of the included contributions and especially the “Introduction” and “Greek Ambiguities: Between ‘Ancient Hellas’ and ‘Barbarian Epirus’” by Irad Malkin himself and “Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Ethnicity” by Jonathan Hall, go a long way towards satisfying the condition I had laid down, to wit that the nature of Greek “nationality” be previously explored. Although a certain conformism of most contributors in their unreserved adoption of the “politically correct” antiessentialist view, which reduces group identities to mere inventions constructed on pure discourse, needs to be watered down, the result is impressive, and Jonathan Hall’s paper in particular sets the parameters within which the question of the ancient Macedonian identity, which interests us here, can be approached.
Hall challenges the view that Macedonia was marginal or peripheral in respect to a Greek centre or core, for the simple reason that such a Greek hard core never existed, since “‘Greekness’ is constituted by the totality of multifocal, situationally bound, and self-conscious negotiations of identity not only between poleis and ethne but also within them”, and because a view such as this “assumes a transhistorically static definition of Greekness”. As he argues at greater length in his monograph, in the fifth century, mainly as a consequence of the Persian Wars, the definition of Greek identity evolved from an “aggregative” noninclusive conception based on fictitious descent from the eponymous Hellen and expressed in forged genealogies (which may leave outside not only Macedonians and Magnetes, but also other goups such as Arcadians or Aitolians) into an “oppositional” one, turned against out-groups, relegating thus (fictitious) community of blood to the same level –if not to an inferior one (vide infra)– as linguistic, religious and cultural criteria. (In this perspective there is not much sense in opposing a putative compact, homogeneous and immutable “Greekness” to the contested identities of groups such as the Aitolians, Locrians, Acarnanians, Thesprotians, Molossians, Chaones, Atintanes, Parauaioi, Orestai, Macedonians).
Hall proceeds to a penetrating analysis of the shifting definitions of Greekness in Herodotus, Thucydides and Isocrates, our main sources for the evolution of the concept in the Classical period. Of Thucydides in particular he writes that, contrary to Herodotus, he did not view Greeks and barbarians “as mutually exclusive categories” but as “opposite poles of a single, linear continuum.” Thus, the inhabitants of north-western Greece “are ‘barbarian’ not in the sense that their cultures, customs, or behavior are in direct, diametrical opposition to Greek norms but rather in the sense that their seemingly more primitive way of life makes them Hellènes manqués.”
Finally, not only he but also I. Malkin in his introduction and Rosalind Thomas in her contribution “Ethnicity, Genealogy, and Hellenism in Herodotus”, which contains a section on the Macedonians, stress the importance of religion, or rather of cults (“common shrines of the gods and sacrifices”).
J. Hall in his conclusions confirms my doubts about the possibility of answering the question concerning the “nationality” of the ancient Macedonians. “To ask whether the Macedonians ‘really were’ Greek or not in antiquity“, he writes, “is ultimately a redundant question given the shifting semantics of Greekness between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C. What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the fourth century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians”.
This finely balanced verdict is all the more praiseworthy in that it does not hesitate explicitly or implicitly to contradict authoritative views current in the American academic establishment, or even to modify opinions previously expressed by the author himself. Moreover, it was partly attained through sheer reasoning and intuition, as crucial evidence was not accessible to him.
Epigraphic data of capital linguistic interest which have become available only after the Center of Hellenic Studies Colloquium of 1997 and important recent monographs and articles which seem not to have been accessible in the United States, if known, would have provided additional arguments and prevented some minor inaccuracies. It is worth noting, however, that although Hall fully shares Malkin’s view on the overriding importance of religion and in particular of common shrines and sacrifices, he does not exploit the unique evidence of the theorodokoi catalogues, which precisely list the Greek states visited by the theoroi, the sacred envoys, of the panhellenic sanctuaries and invited to participate through official delegations in sacrifices and contests celebrated in those sanctuaries.
It has long been established that the theoroi of the Panhellenic sanctuaries, did not visit mere urban centres, whatever their importance, but only states, be they of the polis or of the ethnos variety, for their mission consisted in announcing (ἐπαγγελία) the sacred truce and the oncoming contests to the state authorities.
Since only Hellenes participated in the Panhellenic sacrifices and contests, it is obvious that the theoroi visited only communities which considered themselves and were considered by the others as Greek. Starting with one of the oldest catalogues, that of Epidauros, dating from 360, and continuing with those of Nemea, Argos, and Delphi, the Macedonian kingdom is never absent from their surviving North Aegean sections. At such an early date in the fourth century as that of the first one it cannot be claimed that the Macedonian presence was the result of the kingdom’s political and military might. Nor can it be said that the invitation concerned only the “Greek” royal family, for, as we have already stressed, it was addressed not to individuals but to states.
One might object the “post-Philippian“ date of the Nemea, Argos and Delphi lists. It is true that none of the three is earlier than the last quarter of the fourth century, but even the most recent one, the late third century great list of the theorodokoi of Delphi, following a long established tradition, includes, with very few and obvious exceptions, only the coastal, ἀρχαιόθεν ἑλληνίδες cities of Asia. Still for the sake of argument, we can start by considering only the list of Epidauros, which dates back to around 360, years before it could be argued that Macedonia by its meteoric rise had imposed itself on the terrorised personnel of the panhellenic sanctuaries.
The Epidaurian list, in its surviving sections, on a first stele, starting from Megara moves through Attica and Boeotia to Thessaly, Macedonia, Chalkidike and Thrace. On a second stele are listed the theorodokoi of Corinth, Delphi, Ozolian Lokris, Aitolia, Akarnania, Sicily and southern Italy. Of particular interest are the Macedonian (including Chalkidike) and Epirotic sections. In the first, after Thessalian Homolion, one reads the names of the theorodokoi of Pydna, Methone, Macedonia, Aineia, Dikaia, Poteidaia, Kalindoia, Olynthos, Apollonia, Arethousa, Arkilos, Amphipolis, Berga, Tragila, Stagira, Akanthos, Stolos, Aphytis, Skiona and Menda.
Fortunately we possess a contemporary document describing the same region, the work of Pseudo-Skylax. He describes the Macedonians as an ethnos after the Peneios, mentions the Thermaic Gulf, and lists Herakleion as the first city of Macedonia, then Dion, Pydna a Greek city, Methone a Greek city, the river Haliakmon, Aloros a city, the river Lydias, Pella a city and a palace in it and a waterway up the Lydias to it, the river Axios, the river Echedoros, Therme a city, Aineia a Greek city, Cape Pallene, and after an enumeration of the cities of Chalkidike, Arethousa a Greek city, Lake Bolbe, Apollonia a Greek city, and “many other cities of Macedonia in the interior”.
As U. Kahrstedt was the first to understand, the distinction between “Greek cities” and “Macedonian cities” or simple “cities” is not ethnological but political. Independent cities are qualified as Greek, while the cities remaining within the Macedonian kingdom have to content themselves with the simple qualification of “cities”.
The list of the theorodokoi of Epidauros confirms the nature of this distinction, for in the section west of the head of the Thermaic Gulf it enumerates only three states: Pydna, Methone and Macedonia. Thus the first, although a city originally Macedonian, is called a “Greek city”, just like the originally Eretrian colony of Methone, because at the time they were both independent from the kingdom and members of the Second Athenian League, while the equally Macedonian Herakleion, Dion, Aloros and Pella were simply styled as “cities”. The Epidaurian theorodokoi visited only “Macedonia”, that is to say the capital of the state, presumably Pella or Aigeai, not because this was the only Greek city of the kingdom and even less because they intended to invite the king only –the invitation, as we have seen, was extended to communities not to persons–, but because there was the seat of the authorities to whom the epangelia had to be made, as at that time, before the reforms of Philip II, the several Macedonian cities did not possess sufficient political latitude to qualify as autonomous cities and to be eligible to participate as such in panhellenic festivals.
Similarly the section Epirus lists the states of Pandosia, Kassopa, Thesprotoi, Poionos, Korkyra, Chaonia, Artichia, Molossoi, Ambrakia, Argos (of Amphilochia). Of these the Elean colony of Pandosia and the Corinthian colonies of Korkyra and Ambrakia represent the southern Greek element, while Kassopa, the Thesprotoi, the Molossoi, Chaonia and Argos the “native” Epirote one. (Nothing is known of Poionos and Artichia). The important point is that colonial cities, Epirote cities and Epirote ethne, republican and monarchical alike, are considered equally Greek and invited to the great panhellenic sacrifices at Epidauros.
The same picture emerges from the slightly later lists of Argos and Nemea and from the late third century list of Delphi, the main difference being that after Philip II’s reforms the several Macedonian cities take the place of the central Macedonian authorities, while Epirus wavers between a single centralised and several civic representations.
A piece of evidence which until very recently had gone unnoticed is the actual presence of Macedonians and Epirotes in the panhellenic sanctuaries, which is first attested in the Archaic period, but increases dramatically in the second half of the fourth century. Alexander I was neither the first nor the only Macedonian active at a panhellenic sanctuary in the fifth century. He had been preceded at Delphi by Macedonians from Pieria, and both his fifth century successors Perdikkas II and Archelaos participated in panhellenic festivals at Olympia, Delphi or Argos.
It is in this context that we can properly understand some other facts that have puzzled modern historians, such as the participation of Macedonian envoys in the panhellenic conference held at Sparta in 371 or the inclusion of the Macedonian ethnos –and not just king Philip– in the Delphic Amphictiony. Under these conditions Demosthenes’ outrage at the presence of Philip II and his Macedonians at Delphi loses much of its candour and credibility. As J. Hall rightly observes, the rhetorical contrast between Greeks and Macedonians in the age of Alexander, by which some American scholars set much store, “has military-political rather than ethnic connotations”. A case in point is the list of Alexander the Great’s trierarchs in Arrian’s Indica, which E. N. Borza, labouring to demonstrate the un-Hellenic character of the ancient Macedonians, adduced inter alia in an article in honour of E. Badian.
“The men appointed by Alexander to command the Hydaspes River”, he writes, “are named according to their ethnicity: ‘these were the Macedonians altogether: as for the Greeks ....’ (houtoi men hoi sympantes Makedones, Hellenon de...). Arrian concludes by mentioning the appointment of a single Persian, thus preserving the distinction among Macedonians, Greeks, and others, as mentioned elsewhere (2.17.4 and 7.30.2-3). I regard the men...de usage as significant”.
The list of the trierarchs is admittedly an interesting document and the μὲν.....δὲ... usage is indeed significant, provided they are accurately reported and correctly analysed. In reality, to the μὲν of the Macedonians are opposed not one but two δὲ (Οὗτοι μὲν οἱ ξύμπαντες Μακεδόνες. Ἑλλήνων δὲ.....Κυπρίων δὲ....), followed by the single Persian (ἦν δὲ δὴ καὶ Πέρσης...). Thus Arrian, or rather his source, distinguishes (if we leave aside the odd Persian), between three groups: the Macedonians, the Greeks and the Cypriots. The next point which arises concerns the exact nature of this distinction. Borza has no doubt that it relates to the “ethnicity” of these men. He explains that he uses this term “to describe a cultural identity that is near the meaning of nationality, but without the necessity of membership in a political organism...” and proposes to use as criteria “language, contemporary perceptions, historical perceptions, and cultural institutions”.
As I recently wrote in a different context, the case of the Macedonians is bound to remain paradoxical as long as it is viewed by itself. I then had in mind the parallel case of Epirus, which was geographically excluded from Greece and whose inhabitants from the time of Thucydides to that of Strabo were qualified as barbarians, even from the linguistic point of view, although they undoubtedly spoke a Greek dialect that we have no difficulty in understanding, enjoyed Greek institutions and shared, as we have seen, the same shrines and sacrifices and participated in the same panhellenic events as the other Greeks. In their case, the reason for the occasional and paradoxical denial of their Hellenism is probably to be sought in the absence before the Hellenistic period of urban centres deserving the name and status of poleis.The Cypriot case, however, is equally instructive.
An overview of the evidence concerning Cyprus, which I reserve for fuller treatment elsewhere, would lead us to the conclusion that, whatever the physical appearence of ancient Cypriots, it did not cast any doubts on the Hellenic origin of the kingdoms of the island, on the Greek character of the local dialect or on the Hellenic nature of the gods venerated there with the only –and obvious– exceptions of the Phoenician city of Kition and of the “autochthonous” one of Amathous.
The Cypriot syllabic script was indeed an obstacle to written communication, but from the middle of the fourth century the use of the Greek alphabet spreads across the island. For oral communication the Cypriot dialect probably sounded exotic –then as now– to some –but not all– Greek speakers from the Aegean area. But then many Greeks were aware of the existence of other Greeks with uncouth tongues. Did Thucydides not write that the Eurytanians “speak a most incomprehensible tongue” and has it not been said of the Eleans that they are “speakers of a barbarous tongue”? Nonetheless, at least as far as practical policies are concerned, the Greekness of neither of them was ever contested. Sacred prostitution assuredly shocked more than one Greek. But it was in no way a Cypriot monopoly. The Epizephyrian Locrians, for instance, reputedly followed the same practice. The Cypriot kingships, whatever their exact origin and nature, were for most city-state Greeks an anomaly. But monarchies had survived in Cyrenaica and the northern fringes of the Greek world or had reappeared in Sicily. Thus, no single criterion can satisfactorily explain the exclusion of the Cypriots from the Greek community in the list of Alexander the Great’s trierarchs, but not from participation in panhellenic sacrifices and contests, as the theorodokoi lists attest. For, whatever the conditions in earlier periods, it seems that by the last quarter of the fourth century most Greeks and apparently all foreigners recognised the Cypriots as Greeks.
The unsatisfactory results of our inquiry oblige us to question the validity of the premisses on which it was based, to wit that Alexander’s trierarchs “are named according to their ethnicity”, as Borza thought. An obvious anomaly should have made us suspicious. The list of the Macedonian trierarchs comprises at least two persons whose impeccable Greek “ethnicity” the American historian would readily recognise: Nearchos son of Androtimos and Laomedon son of Larichos hailing respectively from the Cretan city of Lato and the Lesbian city of Mytilene. Borza makes no mention of this difficulty in his comment on the list, but attempts to deal with the first case in a note referring to a different context, hesitating between casting doubts on the reliability of the listand on that of Nearchos’ origin. In fact, just as the presence of the “forgotten” category of the Cypriots contradicts the alleged binary opposition between Greeks on the one hand and Macedonians on the other, discrepancies such as the above belie the supposed “ethnic” character of the list and cannot be explained, unless the latter reflects “nationality”, “Staatsangehörigkeit”, rather than “ethnicity”. Borza, who sets great store by the case of Eumenes’ handicap as an “ethnic” Greek, despite his long years in Macedonian service, could not convincingly argue that Nearchos and Laomedon and thousands of other Greeks from beyond Olympus ceased to be “ethnic” Greeks -- whatever that may mean -- when they settled in Macedonia.
The explanation of the presence of Nearchos and Laomedon in the Macedonian list is obvious: contrary to Eumenes, when they moved to Macedonia, they did not simply settle in the country, but became citizens of Amphipolis and ipso facto also of the Macedonian Commonwealth.
It is thus more than clear that the trierarchs are not “named according to ethnicity”. The classification is determined by political criteria. All citizens of Macedonian civic units are classified as Macedonians, whatever their origin. Who then are the Greeks? Medios son of Oxythemis from Larissa, Eumenes son of Hieronymos from Kardia, Kritoboulos son of Platon from Kos, Thoas son of Menodoros and Maiandros son Mandrogenes from Magnesia, Andron son of Kabeles from Teos. Now, the home cities of these trierarchs share a common feature: they were all members of the Hellenic League (of which Macedon itself was no part), Larissa and Kardia from the time of Philip II, Kos and Magnesia and Teos since 332. On the other hand the kingdoms of Cyprus, which joined Alexander at the siege of Tyre, never adhered to the League officially styled as “the Hellenes”.
A closer look at other passages collected and adduced by Borza as supposedly revelatory of the –“ethnic” that is to say, according to him (vide supra), of the cultural– distinction between Greeks and Macedonians betrays similar difficulties and discrepancies. As M. B. Sakellariou has aptly stressed, the contrast and occasionally the antagonism between Greeks and Macedonians in the age of Philip and Alexander, of which the American historian makes so much, was political and had to a certain extent social causes. In fact the Macedonians satisfied the criteria of Greekness put forward by the Athenians in their celebrated answer to the Spartan envoys, as it is reported by Herodotus. Nevertheless, it is equally true that their Hellenic quality was recurrently disputed, especially when political animosities created a suitable political environment. For the opposition was political and doubly so, between polis-states and an ethnos-state, as well as between regimes which ideally were democratic and a reputedly tyrannic monarchy. Thus, even for pro-Macedonians wanting to dispel legitimate fears that the Macedonian kings might extend their monarchical regime to the Greek cities, it was important to dissociate as much as possible the Temenid kingdom from the world of the polis-states. This was the reason why Isokrates, eager to reassure his readers that a Macedonian hegemony was not dangerous for their liberties, insisted that, just as Philip’s ancestors, knowing that the Greeks could not suffer monarchical regimes, rather than enslave their fellow citizens, preferred to leave Greece altogether and rule over a different (οὐχ ὁμοφύλου γένους) people, so Philip himself would not dream of imposing his rule on the Greeks, but would content himself with reigning over the Macedonians. In this often-cited passage the Athenian orator masterfully exploits the implicit correspondence between the geographical term ἑλληνικὸς τόπος and the ethnic Ἕλλην, from which it derives, in order to enforce in the mind of his readers the un-Hellenic character of οἱ ἄλλοι, the subjects of the Macedonian kings, since for most writers of the Classical and Hellenistic periods Hellas did not extend geographically beyond the Ambracian Gulf and the river Peneios. It is not excluded that the Macedonian king himself shared the Athenian orator’s concern, and that, heeding his advice, he preferred to keep his kingdom completely apart from the Hellenic League. It should then not come as a surprise that the modern scholars who have best understood the Macedonian paradox are the nineteenth and early twentieth century Germans, who were aware of the particular position of Prussia vis-à-vis the rest of Germany, initially outside the borders of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and, even after the abolition of the latter, an entity whose citizens were to be reckoned separately from the other Germans. Did not Jakob Salomon Bartholdy write in such terms to his brother-in-law Abraham Mendelssohn on 6 February 1817: “Als ich hier (in Neapel) kam, fand ich viele deutsche und preussische Künstler von entschiedenen Anlagen und Talenten”, and can one not still in 1990 publish a book under the title Preussen und Deutschland gegenüber dem Novemberaufstand 1830-1831? Does not the reluctance of the South German states to submit to Prussia, and at the same time the Prussian king’s desire to maintain direct and exclusive hold on his own kingdom, for which reason William I styled himself “Deutscher Kaiser, König von Preussen” rather than “Kaiser der Deutschen“ in 1871, ring Isocratic echoes?
Badian, “Greeks” = E. Badian, “Greeks and Macedonians” in Beryl Bar-Sharrar – E. N. Borza (ed.), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times (Washington D.C. 1982) 33-51.
Borza, “Archelaos” = E. N. Borza, “The Philhellenism of Archelaos”, Ancient Macedonia V (Thessalonike 1993) 237-44 (= Makedonika 124-33).
Borza, “Greeks” = E. N. Borza, “Greeks and Macedonians in the Age of Alexander: The Source Traditions”, in R. W. Wallace – E. M. Harris (eds.), Transitions to Empire. Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360-146 B.C. in Honor of E. Badian (Norman, Okla.-London 1996) 122-39.
Daskalakis, Hellenism = Ap. Daskalakis, The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians (Thessalonike 1965).
Hall, “Ethnicities” = J. Hall, “Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Greek Identity”, in I. Malkin, (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge, Mass.-London 2001) 159-86.
Hall, “Language”, = J. Hall, “The Role of Language in Greek Ethnicities”, ProcCamPhilSoc 41 (1995) 83-100.
Hatzopoulos, “Epigraphie” = M. B. Hatzopoulos, “Epigraphie et philologie: récentes découvertes épigraphiques et gloses macédoniennes d'Hesychius”, CRAI 1998, 1189-1218.
Hatzopoulos, “Herodotos” = M. B. Hatzopoulos, “Herodotos (VIII 137-138), the Manumissions from Leukopetra, and the Topography of the Middle Haliakmon Valley”, The World of Herodotus (forthcoming).
Hatzopoulos, “Macédonien” = M. B. Hatzopoulos, “Le macédonien: nouvelles données et théories nouvelles”, Ancient Macedonia VI (Thessalonike 1999) 225-39.
Hatzopoulos, Institutions = M. B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings: A Historical and Epigraphic Study (= «ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ» 22; Athens 1996).
Malkin, “Ambiguities” = I. Malkin, “Greek Ambiguities: Between 'Ancient Hellas' and 'Barbarian Epirus'”, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge, Mass.-London 2001) 187-212.
Malkin, “Introduction” = I. Malkin, “Introduction”, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge, Mass.-London 2001) 1-28.
Mari, Olimpo = Manuela Mari, Al di là dell'Olimpo: Macedoni e grandi santuari della Grecia dell'età arcaica al primo ellenismo («ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ» 34; Athens 2002).
Perlman, City = Paula Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese (Göttingen 2000).
Thomas, “Ethnicity” = Rosalind Thomas, “Ethnicity, Genealogy, and Hellenism in Herodotus”, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge, Mass.-London 2001) 213-33.
* Abbreviations are listed at the end of this paper. Christine Sourvinou-Inwood’s important paper “Greek Perceptions of Ethnicity and the Ethnicity of the Macedonians”, Identità e prassi nel Mediterraneo greco (Milano 2002), which the author had the kindness to send me, came to my knowledge too late for inclusion in the present discussion.
.Hatzopoulos, “ Macédonien ” 225: « La présente communication ne prétend nullement résoudre la question tant controversée de la “nationalité “ des anciens Macédoniens. Un tel débat présuppose une réponse à la question préalable de la nature de la “ nationalité “ dans le monde grec, à supposer qu’une telle question soit bien posée et qu’elle comporte effectivement une réponse. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est hors de doute que la langue n’est au mieux qu’un des éléments qui concourent au sentiment d’appartenance d’ un groupe... ».
. Cf. F.W. Walbank, “Hellenes and Achaeans: ‘Greek Nationality’ Revisited”, Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschriften 138; Stuttgart 2000) 18. F. W. Walbank, in 1951, still named his relevant article, without any inverted commas, “The Problem of Greek Nationality”, Phoenix 5 (1951) 41-60 (= Selected Papers [Cambridge 1985] 1-19). Is it merely coincidental that the word “ethnicity” is untranslatable –except as a calque– in languages such as French or Greek?
. Cf. the rich bibliography in J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 1997; in I. Malkin, The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity, Berkeley, Cal. 1998; and at the end of each contribution in the collective volume I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge Mass.-London 2001. Among the numerous recent works, besides those already cited, I would also mention the following: Cinzia Bearzot, “La Grecia di Pausania. Geografia e cultura nella definizione del concetto di Ἑλλάς”, in Marta Sordi (ed.), Geografia e storiografia nel mondo classico, Milan 1988, 90-112; Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy, Oxford 1989; Catherine Morgan, “Ethnicity and Early Greek States: Historical and Material Perspectives”, PCPhS 37 (1991)131-63; E. N. Borza, “Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander’s Court”, AncW 22 (1991) 21-25 (= Makedonika, Claremont Cal. 1995, 149-58); Marta Sordi (ed.), Autocoscienza e rappresentazione dei popoli nell’antichità, Milan 1992; P. Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, Oxford-New York 1993; Catherine Morgan, “The Origins of Panhellenism”, in Nanno Marinatos – R. Hägg (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries, London-New York 1993, 18-44; A. Giovannini, “Greek Cities and Greek Commonwealth”, in A. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, A. Stuart (eds.), Images and Ideology: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1993, 265-86; J. Hall, “The Role of Language in Greek Ethnicities”, PCPhS 41 (1995) 83-100; F. Cassola, “Chi erano i Greci?”, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci: Storia, cultura, arte, società, 2.1, Turin 1996, 5-23; D. Asheri, “Identità greche, identità greca“, in the same work 2.2, Turin 1997, 5-26.
. And attracts the ironic scepticism of the editor (p. 1): "The tone of the current writings about ethnicity, any ethnicity, reflects a ubiquitous antiessentialism. Things have no essence, no "core". Ethnicity? There is no such thing, as such, and the key words for discussing it are now "invention" and "construction"". (He might have added "discourse").
. Hall, “Ethnicities” 166.
. Hall, Identity 40-51; cf. id., “Language” 91-96.
. As, for instance, E. N. Borza systematically does for the Macedonians. Cf. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon, Princeton, N.J. 19922, 94-97; 258; 268-72; 275-82; id., Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia. Publications of the Associations of Ancient Historians 6, Claremont Cal. 1999, 32-34.
. Hall, “Ethnicities” 169-72.
. Hall, “Ethnicities” 179, n. 92; Malkin, “Introduction” 6; Thomas, “Ethnicity” 215 and 219.
. Cf. Herod. 8.144.2: αὖτις δὲ τὸ ἑλληνικόν, ἐὸν ὅμαιμόν τε καὶ ὁμόγλωσσον, καὶ θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι ἤθεά τε ὁμότροπα...
. Hall, “Ethnicities” 172.
. Hall, “Ethnicities” 173, n. 8.
. Cf. Hall, “Ethnicities” 171.
. Cf. E. Badian, “Greeks and Macedonians”, in Beryl Bar-Sharrar – E. N. Borza (eds.), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Washington D.C. 1982, 33-51; id., “Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon: A Study in some Subtle Silences”, in S. Hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography, Oxford 1994, 35-51; E. N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon, Princeton, N.J. 19901; 19922; id., “Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander’s Court”, AncW 22 (1991) 21-25 (= Makedonika 149-58); id., “The Philhellenism of Archelaos”, Ancient Macedonia V, Thessalonike 1993, 237-44 (= Makedonika 124-33); id., “Greeks and Macedonians in the Age of Alexander: The Source Traditions”, in R. W. Wallace – E. M. Harris (eds.), Transitions to Empire. Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360-146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian, Norman, Okla.-London 1996, 122-39; id., “La Macedonia di Filippo e i coflitti con le ‘poleis’”, in S. Setis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, Cultura, Arte, Società 2.3, Turin 1998, 21-46; id., “Macedonia Redux”, in Frances B. Titchener – R. F. Moorton Jr. (eds.), The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1999, 249-66, and particularly 263, n. 17; P. Green, Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1990, 3-5; Sarah B. Pomeroy, S. M. Burstein et al., Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History, New York-Oxford 1999, 373-75, etc.
. Cf. Hall, Identity 63-65.
. See C. Brixhe, “ Un ‘nouveau’ champ de la dialectologie grecque : le macédonien ”, ΚΑΤΑ ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΟΝ. Atti del III Colloquio Internazionale di Dialettologia Greca, A.I.O.N. 19 (1997) 41-71; Sophia Moschonisioti, A. Ph. Christides, Theodora Glaraki, «Κατάδεσμος ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀρέθουσα», in A. Ph. Christides – D. Jordan (eds.), Γλῶσσα καὶ μαγεία. Κείμενα ἀπὸ τὴν ἀρχαιότητα, Athens 1997, 193-98; E. Voutiras, ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΟΣ ΓΑΜΟΙ: Marital Life and Magic in Fourth Century Pella, Amsterdam 1998; M. B. Hatzopoulos, “ Epigraphie et philologie : récentes découvertes épigraphiques et gloses macédoniennes d’Hésychius ”; CRAI 1998, 1189-1218; id., “ Le Macédonien : nouvelles donnnées et théories nouvelles ”, Ancient Macedonia V, Thessalonike 1999, 225-39 ; id., “ ‘L’histoire par les noms’ in Macedonia ”, in Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence, ProcBritAcad 104 (2ooo) 99-117; id., “ La position dialectal du macédonien à la lumière des découvertes épigraphiques récentes ”, Die alte griechischen Dialekte, ihr Wesen und Werden (forthcoming); id., “ Herodotos (VIII. 137-138), the Manumissions from Leukopetra, and the Topography of the Middle Haliakmom Valley ”,The Word of Herodotus (forthcoming).
. This is the case of much of the fundamental archaeological and epigraphic scholarly production published in Greece, such as the fourteen volumes of Tὸ ἀρχαιολογικὸ ἔργο στὴ Μακεδονία καὶ Θράκη, 1-14 (1987-2000) series, the volumes of the Ἐπιγραφὲς Μακεδονίαςseries and the seventeen volumes of the ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ series devoted to Macedonia, some of which have a direct bearing on the present subject.
. For instance, the epigraphic discoveries mentioned in the previous notes have greatly reduced the importance of glosses and have rendered redundant much of the relevant discussion. In particular, dreptos (p. 162) is a ghost (see Anna Panayotou, «Γλωσσικὲς παρατηρήσεις σὲ μακεδονικὲς ἐπιγραφές», Ancient Macedonia IV, Thessalonike 1986, 417). Strabo 7.7.8 (p. 163) does not say that Macedonians, Epirotes and Illyrians shared some dialectal commonalities. In fact he says two different things: 1) that some extend the term Macedonia to the whole country (west of Upper Macedonia) as far as Corcyra, because the inhabitants of this area (to wit the Epirotes opposite Corcyra and not the Illyrians, who lived farther north, beyond the Ceraunian mountains), use similar hairstyles, dress and dialect (cf. R. Baladié, Strabon, Géographie. Livre VII, Paris 1989, 228, n. 4 ad locum; 2) some of the Epirotes inhabiting this area are bilingual (presumably they spoke Greek as well as Illyrian). Epigraphic evidence accumulating over the years has rendered Tarn’s list of divinities and its discussion (p. 164) irrelevant. Thaulos, Gyga, Zeirene, Xandos, Bedu, Arantides, Sauadai, Sabazius never occur in epigraphic documents; Totoës, attested once in Roman times, is an imported Egyptian deity (cf. H. Seyrig, “ Tithoës, Totoës et le Sphinx panthée ”, Annales du Service des Antiquités d'Egypte 35 (1935) 197-202; Ch. Picard, “ La sphinge tricéphale, dite 'panthée', d'Amphipolis et la démonologie égypto-alexandrine ”, CRAI 1957, 35-46; id., “ La sphinge tricéphale dite 'panthé', d'Amphipolis et la démonologie égypto-alexandrine ”, Mon.Piot 50 (1958) 49-84; Gazoria is a local epithet from the name of the eastern Macedonian city of Gazoros (cf. M.B. Hatzopoulos, “ Artémis Agrotéra, Gazoreitis et Bloureitis: une déesse thrace en Macédoine ”, Festschrift Ivan Marazov [forthcoming]). Judging from dedicatory inscriptions, the most popular gods of the Macedonians were Zeus, Herakles, Asklepios, Dionysos and a feminine deity variously appearing as Demeter, the Mother of the Gods, Artemis, Pasikrata, Ennodia etc. Catherine Trümpy’s excellent monograph, Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen (Heidelberg 1997) 262-65, has made obsolete previous discussions of the Macedonian calendar. For the months Peritios, Dystros and Hyperberetaios in particular, cf. Hatzopoulos, “ Macédonien “ 237-39 ; id., “ Epigraphie ” 1202-1204. Klodones and Mimallones (p. 176, n. 54) have nothing to do with Thrace; see M. B. Hatzopoulos, Cultes et rites de passage en Macédoine («ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ» 19; Athens 1994) 73-85. On the political system of the Molossi (p. 166), cf. the divergent view of J. K. Davies, “A Wholly Non-Aristotelian Universe: The Molossians as Ethnos, State, and Monarchy”, in R. Brock-St. Hodkinson (eds), Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford 2000, 258: «...so far from being un-Greek, as supercilious southerners thought, their world shows clear signs of similarity to that of the communities of southern Aegean and proto-urban Greece in the archaic period». Concerning the Aiolian ancestry of the Macedonians in Hellanicus’ version, as opposed to the Dorian one of the royal dynasty (p. 169), it is not impossible that this Lesbian historian’s invention may have stemmed from the contrast between the Upper Macedonian origin of the Argeads and the north-Thessalian one of the Lower Macedonian commoners; cf. Hatzopoulos, “Herodotos”.
. Hall, “Ethnicities” 72, n. 92.
. Malkin, “Introduction” 5-6.
. See now Paula Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece. The Theodorokia in the Peloponnese, Göttingen 2000. For the Delphic catalogues, awaiting for the new edition by J. Ouhlen, Les Théarodoques de Delphes (doctoral dissertation, Université de Paris X, 1992), see A. Plassart, “ Inscriptions de Delphes. La liste des théarodoques ”, BCH 45 (1921) 1-85. Its date in the late third century, first proposed by G. Daux, “ Liste delphique de théarodoques ”; REG 62 (1949) 12-27, has been confirmed by a series of new discoveries; cf. Ph. Gauthier, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes II, Geneva 1989, 149-50 ; M. B. Hatzopoulos, “ Un prêtre d’Amphipolis dans la grande liste des théarodoques de Delphes ”, BCH 115 (1991) 345-47 ; D. Knoepfler, “ Le temple de Métrôon de Sardes et ses inscriptions ”; Museum Helveticum 50 (1993) 26-43.
. Cf. Hatzopoulos, Institutions 472-76. This has been admirably done now by Manuela Mari in her monograph Al di là dell’Olimpo: Macedoni e grandi santuari della Grecia dall'età arcaica al primo ellenismo («ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ» 34; Athens 2002).
. See in particular L. Robert, “ Villes de Carie et d’Ionie dans la liste des théarodoques de Delphes ”, BCH 70 (1946) 510 (= OMS I 331); id., Documents d'Asie Mineure, Paris 1987, 292-95; cf. BullEpigr 1980, 297; cf. Perlman, City 32-33; ead., «Θεωροδοκοῦντες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν. Panhellenic Epangelia and Political Status», in M.H. Hansen, Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State, Copenhagen 1995, 113-47).
. This widely attested fact (cf. Herod. 5.22.1-2) has recently been commented upon by R. Parker, Cleomenes on the Acropolis, Oxford 1998, 10-11.
. See now also Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, “Greek Perceptions of Ethnicity and the Ethnicity of the Macedonians”, Identintità e prassi storica nel Mediterraneo greco, Milano 2002, 190-92.
. L. Robert, “ Villes de Carie et d’Ionie dans la liste des théarodoques de Delphes ”, BCH 70 (1946) 515-16 (= OMS 336-37).
. IG V 1, 94-95; cf. Perlman, City 177-79; Ep. Cat. E. 1.
. Pseudo-Skylax 66.
. U. Kahrstedt, “Städte in Makedonien”, Hermes 81 (1953) 91-111.
. The relevant information in the literary sources (Thuc. 1.137.1 and Diod. 11.12.3) has been confirmed by recent epigraphic and other archaeological discoveries. Cf. M. Bessios, «Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ βόρειο νεκροταφεῖο τῆς Πύδνας», Τὸ ἀρχαιολογκὸ ἔργο στὴ Μακεδονία καὶ Θράκη. 3, 1989, Thessalonike 1992, 155-63; J. B. Cuberna – D. Jordan, “Curse Tablets from Pydna”, (forthcoming).
. Cf. Hatzopoulos, Institutions I 473.
. From Argos we have a fragmentary list (P. Charneux, “ Liste argienne de Théarodoques ”, BCH 90  156-88; Perlman, City 100-104, Ep. Cat. A. 1) dating from c. 334-325/4 and preserving the names of the theorodokoi from north-western Greece, the Peloponnese, and western Asia Minor and the Aegean islands, and a fragmentary list preserving the amounts of contributions from Thessaly and Macedonia, probably related to the expenses of the sacred envoys, and dating from the end of the fourth century (IG IV 617; cf. Perlman, City 127-29).
. S. G. Miller, “The Theorodokoi of the Nemean Games”, Hesperia 57 (1988) 147-63; Perlman, City 236-39, Ep. Cat. N. 1. The fragmentary catalogue probably dates from c. 321-317 (Hatzopoulos, Institutions 474, n. 7) and preserves the names of the theorodokoi of Cyprus, Akarnania, the Ionian Islands, Macedonia, the Hellespont, Kyme, Eretria and Chios.
. Cf. Hatzopoulos, Institutions I 472-86.
. See the new monograph by Manuela Mari, (Olimpo 29-66). Imaginative scenarios about Archelaos’ and the other Macedonian kings’ exclusion from the panhellenic shrines and the creation of counter-Olympics at Dion (cf. Badian “Greeks” 35; Borza, “Archelaos” 129) not only are explicitly contradicted by the unique available literary source (Solinus 9.16), but are also implicitly refuted by epigraphic evidence such as the Epidauros list and the inscribed tripod from the great tomb of Vergina (M. Andronikos, Vergina: The Royal Tombs, Athens 1984, 165-66; see now Mari, Olimpo 35-36). From Epirus too, in the first half of the sixth century, the Molossian Alkon had been present at the Olympic Games along with other young Greek nobles (Herod. 6.127.4; cf. Cabanes, Les Illyriens 24; Malkin, “Ambiguities” 201.
. Aesch. 2.32; cf. Badian, “Greeks” 37 with n. 28; N. G. L. Hammond, “Literary Evidence for Macedonian Speech”, Historia 43 (1994) 134-35 (= Collected Studies IV 80-81).
. P. Marchetti, “ A propos des comptes de Delphes sous les archontats de Théon (324/3) et de Laphis (327/6) ”, BCH 101 (1977) 14, n. 37; N. G. L. Hammond, “Some Passages in Arrian Concerning Alexander”, CQ 30 (1980) 462-63; id., “Were Makedones Enrolled in the Amphictyonic Council in 346?”, Electronic Antiquity I/3 (1993). See now F. Lefèvre, L’Amphictionie pyléodelphique: histoire et institutions, Paris 1998, 94-101; Mari, Olimpo 71, n. 4.
. Dem., 19. 327.
. Hall, “Ethnicities” 173, n. 8.
. Cf. though Badian, “Greeks” 39-40 and 49, n. 50, who is much more cautious in his discussion of that particular passage.
. Borza, “Greeks” 125.
. Borza, “Greeks” 136, n. 2.
. M. B. Hatzopoulos, “Prefazione” in Mari, Olimpo 9-10.
. M. B. Hatzopoulos, “The Boundaries of Hellenism in Epirus during Antiquity”, in M. B. Sakellariou (ed.), Epirus, Athens 1997, 140-42.
. Hatzopoulos, Institutions I 473, n. 4.
. M. B. Hatzopoulos, Epirus, Macedonia, Cyprus and Other Controverted Cases of Greek Identity («ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ»; forthcoming); cf. P. J. Stylianou, The Age of the Kingdoms. A Political History of Cyprus in the Archaic and Classical Periods («Μελέται καὶ Ὑπομνήματα» ΙΙ; Nicosia 1989) 492 -510 .
. Cf. G. Hill, History of Cyprus, vol. I, Cambridge 1949, 93-94.
. Cf. O. Masson, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques, Paris 19832, 46-47.
. For instance, not to the Arcadians.
. Thuc. 3.94.5.
. Hesych. s.v. βαρβαρόφωνοι.
. Ath., Deipn. 12.516a.
. Cf. Perlman, City 115-16.
. The word “ethnicity”, as already mentioned, is practically untranslatable in languages such as Greek, German or French, except as a calque from Engish. Its success in the latter language, and in particular in American English, is probably due to the shift in meaning of the term “nation” in a country without a long national tradition, which, instead of the people, came to be used for the “state”, causing the need for the creation of a new term. For a Greek the existence of an ἔθνος or for a German the existence of a “nation” is clearly independant from that of a state apparatus.
. “Nearchos is mentioned among the notables, but Arrian (rather than Nearchos himself, Ind.18.4) classifies him among the Macedonians” (Borza, “Greeks” 137-38, n. 14).
. “While probably of Cretan origin...” (Borza, “Greeks” 138, n. 14, my italics). It is not a question of probability but of certainty based on both literary and epigraphical evidence (cf. H.Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage I-II, Munich 1926, 269, no 544).
. Cf. Badian, “Greeks” 39-40 and 49, n. 48-50.
. N. G. L. Hammond – G. T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. II, Oxford 1979, 381.
. E. Badian, “Alexander and the Greeks of Asia”, Ancient Societies and Institutions. Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg, Oxford 1966, 37-96.
 M. B. Sakellariou, “The Inhabitants”, in M. B. Sakellariou (ed.), Macedonia, Athens 1983, 52; cf. Hall, “Ethnicities” 173, n. 8.
. Herod. 144.2.
. Given the obvious opportunism of the passage, it is vain to delve into the exact meaning of the term, which in Greek has meanings as varied as the word φῦλον, from which it is composed. In any case, it is noteworthy that it can be used to denote not necessarily another “race” or “nation”, but just another Greek population (cf. Thuc. 1.141, aptly adduced by Daskalakis, Hellenism 274, n. 56.).
. Isocr., Phil 107-108: ὁ δὲ τὸν μὲν τόπον τὸν ἑλληνικὸν ὅλως εἴασε, τὴν δ' ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ βασιλείαν κατασχεῖν ἐπεθύμησεν˙ ἠπίστατο γὰρ τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας οὐκ εἰθισμένους ὑπομένειν τὰς μοναρχίας˙ τοὺς δ'ἄλλους οὐ δυναμένους, ἄνευ τῆς τοιαύτης δυναστείας διοικεῖν τὸν βίον τὸν σφέτερον αὐτῶν ... μόνος γὰρ τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οὐχ ὁμοφύλου γένους ἀξιώσας ἄρχειν, μόνος καὶ διαφυγεῖν τοὺς κινδύνους τοὺς περὶ τὰς μοναρχίας γιγνομένους.
Cf. Daskalakis, Hellenism 249-56.
. Cf. Ephor. FGrHist 70 frg 143; Pseudo-Skylax 33; 65; 66; Dion. Calliph. 24 and 31-36.
. Nearly a century and a half later a Macedonian King, in a sarcastic repartee (Pol. 18.5. 7-9: "ποίας δὲ κελεύετέ με" φησὶν "ἐκχωρεῖν Ἑλλάδος καὶ πῶς ἀφορίζετε ταύτην; αὐτῶν γὰρ Αἰτωλῶν οὺκ εἰσὶν Ἕλληνες οἱ πλείους˙ τὸ γὰρ τῶν Ἀγραῶν ἔθνος καὶ τὸ τῶν Ἀποδωτῶν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν Ἀμφιλόχων, οὺκ ἔστιν Ἑλλάς ἢ τούτων μὲν παραχωρεῖτέ μοι;") exploited the same ambiguity in order to stress the absurdity of the proposed exclusion of Macedonia from Greece. Cf. le commentaire de P. Cabanes, “ Cité et ethnos dans la Grèce ancienne ”, Mélanges P. Lévêque II, Paris 1989,75: « Suivre cette voie qui conduit à l'exclusion de la Grèce d'une très grande région de la Grèce septentrionale, c'est aussi écarter de l'hellénisme aussi bien l'Olympe cher aux dieux du panthéon des Hellènes que le sanctuaire de Dodone, déjà visité au temps de l'Iliade, et le pays des morts arrosé par l'Archéron et le Cocyte réunis à proximité du Nekromanteion d'Ephyre de Thesprotie, où Ulysse vient à la rencontre du devin Tiresias, selon le récit de l'Odyssée ».
. Which proved to be a mistake, for it enabled anti-Macedonian politicians to construe a Hellenic identity from which Macedonia was excluded.
. See in particular, F. Geyer, Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II, Munich and Berlin 1930, 32: „Nicht anders steht es mit dem Hinweis darauf, dass die Makedonen sich namentlich in der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen und der Diadochen als ein Volk für sich gefühlt hätten: Dieses Gefühl war lediglich ein Ausfluss nationalen Stolzes auf die unerhörten Leistungen, die ihnen die östliche Welt zu Füssen gelegt hatte, eine Wirkung des stolzen Bewussteins, auch den Griechen militärisch und politisch unendlich überlegen zu sein. Ganz ähnlich haben sich die Preussen zur Zeit Friedrichs des Grossen allen anderen Deutschen gegenüber als ein besonderes Volk gefühlt, haben sich mit Stolz als Preussen und nicht als Deutschen bekannt.”