Alexandros Velaoras
Abstract
Euripides’ Archelaus was probably written for Macedonian king Archelaus (413–399 BC) during Euripides’ stay in Macedonia in the last years of his life and publicly performed at Dium in 408/407 BC. The dramatisation of mythical Archelaus’ adventures and the foundation of Aegae is usually assumed to have been meant to consolidate the historic Archelaus’ heroic ancestry and descent from Heracles; to confirm the Argive origins and, by extension, the Hellenicity of Archelaus and the Macedonian royal house; and thus – and above all – to legitimate Archelaus’ accession to the throne. Yet, the Hellenicity of the Argeads had similarly been confirmed by Herodotus (5.22 and 8.139), writing around 431–425 BC, and it was not disputed by Thucydides (2.99.3), still writing at the time of Archelaus’ death. In my contribution to this volume, I argue that Archelaus commissioned the tragedy bearing his name to dispel the doubts surrounding his own legitimacy as a king and as a son of Perdiccas II but also to face contemporary challenges to the Greekness of the Macedonian royal line. I wish to prove that tragedy as a genre was a more appropriate vehicle for the fulfilment of Archelaus’ political aims than historiography because of the very conditions of performance and reception of each genre in late fifth-century Macedonia, which I am trying to reconstruct based on literary and archaeological evidence.
From the Theatre of Dionysus to the Court of Archelaus
Sometime soon after the performance of Orestes in 408 BC, for reasons which are impossible to ascertain, Euripides reportedly left Athens and went to Macedonia never to return. According to his ancient biographer, while at the court of Macedonian king Archelaus (413–399 BC), he wrote a tragedy bearing his host’s name in order to please him (χαριζόμενος αὐτῷ, T ii a1).1 It had been an established practice among the Argead kings to invite intellectuals from Athens and the rest of the Greek world and host them at their court.2 So Archelaus spared no expense to have his palace spectacularly decorated by Zeuxis of Ephesus. He also hosted the famous Corinthian sculptor and architect Callimachus, the epic poet Choerilus of Samos, the tragic poet Agathon, the citharode and dithyrambic poet Timotheus of Miletus and possibly the historian Thucydides. The anecdotal tradition reports that even Socrates was invited but declined Archelaus’ invitation.3
The residence of such renowned intellectuals at the Macedonian court was inscribed within the king’s policy of “conscious and public adoption of some aspects of Greek culture … for purposes that were uniquely Macedonian.”4 Below I will discuss these purposes with reference to Euripides’ tragedy Archelaus. This commissioned tragedy is assumed to have been meant to consolidate the historic Archelaus’ heroic ancestry and descent from Heracles; to confirm the Argive origins and by extension the Hellenicity of Archelaus and the Macedonian royal house; and thus – and above all – to legitimate Archelaus’ accession to the throne.5 Herodotus’ Histories, which contain the earliest written record of Macedonian foundation myths, had been completed by the end of the fifth century and they also substantiated both the Herculean descent of the Argeads and their Hellenicity, neither of which was challenged by Thucydides, still writing at the time of Archelaus’ reign.6 The question I will try to answer is why tragedy as a genre was a more appropriate vehicle for the fulfilment of Archelaus’ political aims than historiography. For this, based mostly – and inevitably – on Athenian or Athenocentric sources, I will try to reconstruct the conditions of performance and reception of each genre in Macedonia.7
Something to Do with the King
Euripides’ tragedy Archelaus probably performed publicly in Macedonia in 408/407 BC, dramatised mythical Archelaus’ adventures in Thrace, which ended with Apollo’s oracle for the foundation of Aegae.8 Tragic Archelaus, son of Temenus, is very likely to have been, at least in part, a Euripidean invention as he is not attested in other authors previously.9 The thirty-seven extant fragments by themselves do not permit a reconstruction of the plot; this is only possible with Hyginus’ Fabula 219.10 According to Hyginus, Temenus’ son Archelaus was banished from Argos by his brothers and went to Thrace, to the court of king Cisseus. Cisseus promised to give him his kingdom and his daughter in marriage if Archelaus helped him fend off his neighbours’ attacks. Having successfully accomplished the task, Archelaus sought from the king the rewards promised. However, the king was persuaded by his friends to betray his pledge and decided to kill Archelaus by deceit. One of the king’s servants disclosed the king’s secret plans to Archelaus, who was thus able to kill Cisseus by throwing him into the pit of burning coals which had been prepared for himself. Finally, instructed by an oracle of Apollo, Archelaus fled Thrace and, led by a goat, he arrived in Macedonia, where he founded the city of Aegae.11
The reconstructions of the plot consulted follow Hyginus closely. Many fragments are fitted into his story fairly easily but many others are of a gnomic nature and therefore their location – if attempted at all – is admitted to be “purely hypothetical.”12 However, the play’s major themes can be deduced from Hyginus’ fabula and the extant fragments.13
As mentioned earlier, Archelaus does not refer to Euripides’ contemporary Macedonian king but to his invented mythical namesake, Heracles’ great-grandson, whose genealogy (fr. 228 and 228a) ultimately links him with Danaus. The crisis referred to in two fragments most probably belonging to the parodos of the play (fr. 229 and 230)14 serves as the ideal background for young Archelaus to display his valour and thus prove his heroic descent and live up to his reputation (fr. 231–232, 242). Harder thinks that the noble ancestry of Archelaus could have been “a kind of Leitmotiv in the play.”15 It is often contrasted with wealth and it is found superior to it. To be sure, as an exile, Archelaus was by necessity poor.16 However, his good birth, his courage and the effort he was expected to put into the war against Cisseus’ neighbours (fr. 233, 236–240 and 243–244) were guarantees of success.17
Another series of virtues and vices must have been brought up, first, in the plotting scene between Cisseus and his friends, in which Cisseus was persuaded to betray his pledge,18 and, then, in the subsequent confrontation between Cisseus and Archelaus. In these (agon?) scenes, the themes of tyranny (and its relation to wealth), reciprocity, (in)justice and (im)piety could have been the focus of the debates. Finally, the theme of wandering must also have been prominent in the play, with Archelaus’ status changing from insider to outsider several times. Originally an Argive (insider), he was expelled by his brothers and became an exile (outsider) until he arrived in Thrace and became Cisseus’ xenos (insider). Then, after murdering Cisseus and following Apollo’s oracle, he became a fugitive (outsider) and, led by a goat, he founded Aegae, thus becoming the insider par excellence.
If we are to believe Plato, historical Archelaus was a tyrant and an ‘ideally bad man’. An illegitimate son of Perdiccas II, born to a slave mother, Archelaus gained the throne – on which he could have no rightful claim – by triple murder.19 This story became proverbial in antiquity but its veracity has often been doubted.20 I suggest that Euripides’ Archelaus could be an argument in favour of Plato’s account. In fact, this commissioned tragedy is likely to have been responding to contemporary accusations made against king Archelaus both in Macedonia and in Athens.
A fragment from Thrasymachus’ oration On behalf of the Larissaeans, in which Archelaus is accused of being a barbarian wishing to subjugate the Greeks,21 and the explicit and repeated references to the Macedonian kings’ Argive roots by Herodotus and Thucydides suggest that Archelaus did not only have to dispel the doubts surrounding his own legitimacy as a king and as a son of Perdiccas II. He also had to face contemporary challenges to the Greekness of the Macedonian kings, hence his own, too. Starting with the long genealogy in the prologue of Archelaus and continuing with the overall positive depiction of the protagonist, Euripides could have sought, first, to reaffirm the royal house’s Argive origin and descent from Heracles and by extension from Zeus;22 second, to prove the Hellenic origin of the Macedonian kings; and, third, to legitimate Archelaus as the rightful king, superior both by descent and in merit to all other domestic rivals.
It was important for Archelaus to have the legitimacy of his rule recognised by the Macedonian elite, at whom the play is believed to have been aimed primarily, in order that challenges to the throne were prevented or suppressed. I suggest that it was equally important for Archelaus to be recognised as their rightful king by the Macedonian populace too, so that likely attempts at overthrowing him would not find popular support.23 Besides, the preservation of internal peace and order was a sine qua non for the implementation of Archelaus’ extensive reforms in Macedonia, some of which actually constituted Thucydides’ object of praise.24 But Archelaus, whose reign coincided with the decline of the Greek powers involved in the Peloponnesian war, was also interested in stabilising his relationship to Athens, for which it was important that the Macedonians were respected by the Greeks south of Mount Olympus and ceased to be regarded as barbarians.25
Euripides (no less than Archelaus) seems to have been well aware that, as Jonathan Hall puts it, “a genealogy might [among else] seek to elevate the claims to status and authority of one particular family over ethnically related peers.”26 He thus exploits “the elasticity of genealogies,” which “not only enabled Greeks to attribute ‘Greek’ heroic genealogies to others but also allowed non-Greeks to adopt them”27 – even to revise them.28 The Macedonian rulers, “as active creators and as symbolic figures of Macedonian identity,”29 wished to show that they belonged with the civilised world of the Greeks and not with the barbarians. So, Archelaus sought to strengthen the Macedonians’ bid for civilisation with cultural credentials.30
Edith Hall has famously argued that after the Persian Wars there came into being, mainly among the Athenians, a subjective, that is an ideological, definition of Hellenicity, which rested on the polarity between Greeks and barbarians through the ascription to each group of opposing qualities.31 For Jonathan Hall, ethnicity is also a discursive construction with an important performative component. What the Macedonians said about themselves was as important as what they did.32 The philhellenism of the Argeads and in particular Archelaus’ cultural politics were thus meant as eloquent declarations of ethnic identity, aimed simultaneously at the rival tribes in Macedonia and the Greeks south of Mount Olympus.33
ἀπὸ τούτου δὴ τοῦ Περδίκκεω Ἀλέξανδρος ὧδε ἐγένετο: Herodotus and the Argive Descent of the Macedonian Royal House
As already mentioned, the Hellenic heritage of the Macedonian royal house had been confirmed – more than once – by Herodotus, writing around 431–425 BC, and it was not disputed by Thucydides, who was still writing at the time of Archelaus’ death.34 In the first book of his Histories (1.56.3) and again in the eighth (8.43), Herodotus traces the formation of the Dorians to a fusion of Macedonians with other tribes, which was regarded in itself as important evidence of the Greekness of the Macedonians. In the fifth book (5.22), he narrates Alexander I’s successful attempt to participate in the Olympic games after his Argive, hence Hellenic, origin was recognised by the Hellanodikai.35
In Book 8, Herodotus returns – as promised in 5.22 – to the issue of Alexander’s descent, stating that (Hdt. 8.137.1)
Τοῦ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου τούτου ἕβδομος γενέτωρ Περδίκκης ἐστὶ ὁ κτησάμενος τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν τυραννίδα τρόπῳ τοιῷδε.
Alexander was a seventh-generation descendant of Perdiccas, who had gained the kingdom of Macedonia in the following way.
and goes on to relate the Macedonian foundation myth. According to this folklore story, Perdiccas and his two brothers, all three Temenus’ sons, were banished from Argos and went to Lebaea in Macedonia. There they worked for the king as labourers – Perdiccas tending the sheep and goats. The daily miraculous growth in size of Perdiccas’ loaves of bread, which were made by the king’s wife, was regarded by the king as an omen. So, the king asked the three brothers to leave his land but refused to pay them their wages when asked. Instead he offered them a spot on the floor lit by the sunlight coming in through the smoke-hole, at which Perdiccas replied (Hdt. 8.137.5): Δεκόμεθα, ὦ βασιλεῦ, τὰ διδοῖς (‘My lord, we accept your gift’). Then,
περιγράφει τῇ μαχαίρῃ ἐς τὸ ἔδαφος τοῦ οἴκου τὸν ἥλιον, περιγράψας δέ, ἐς τὸν κόλπον τρὶς ἀρυσάμενος τοῦ ἡλίου, ἀπαλλάσσετο αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ μετ’ ἐκείνου.
He traced the circle of sunlight on the floor of the house with a knife that he happened to have on him, scooped the sunlight three times into his lap, and then left with his brothers.
Pursued by the king’s horsemen, the three brothers fled to another part of Macedonia and settled at the foot of Mount Bermium, from where ‘[they] expanded … until they had conquered the rest of Macedonia too’ (‘ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ ὁρμώμενοι ὡς ταύτην ἔσχον, κατεστρέφοντο καὶ τὴν ἄλλην Μακεδονίην’, Hdt. 8.138.3). This narrative concludes with the line of descent from Perdiccas to Alexander (8.139):
ἀπὸ τούτου δὴ τοῦ Περδίκκεω Ἀλέξανδρος ὧδε ἐγένετο· Ἀμύντεω παῖς ἦν Ἀλέξανδρος, Ἀμύντης δὲ Ἀλκέτεω· Ἀλκέτεω δὲ πατὴρ ἦν Ἀέροπος, τοῦ δὲ Φίλιππος, Φιλίππου δὲ Ἀργαῖος, τοῦ δὲ Περδίκκης ὁ κτησάμενος τὴν ἀρχήν.
The line of descent from this Perdiccas to Alexander was as follows: Alexander was the son of Amyntas, Amyntas of Alcetes, Alcetes of Aëropus, Aëropus of Philippus, and Philippus of Argaeus, whose father was Perdiccas, who gained the kingdom of Macedonia.
It has recently been remarked that by Euripides’ time “the Argead founding myth [had undergone] (at least three) changes of genre: probably starting as a popular story transmitted by means of oral tradition, it was recorded by Herodotus in his Histories and then presented on stage in Euripides’ tragedy.”36 In fact, there are considerable similarities between Herodotus’ and Euripides’ versions of the Macedonian founding myth: the Herculean descent of the mythical ancestors, their exile from Argos, their poverty, their dependence on a king, the king’s refusal to give them what he owes them (wages or promised reward), his attempt to do away with them, their flight to Macedonia and their eventual establishment there. Both versions also include a group of the king’s friends (amici) or advisers (πάρεδροι), goats and supernatural elements (the miraculous growth of bread and Apollo’s oracle).37 That means that if Herodotus’ and Euripides’ versions ever reached Macedonian ears, they might not have sounded altogether unfamiliar.
The Medium Is the Message: Herodotus’ Histories, Euripides’ Archelaus and Their Audiences
It is generally accepted that Herodotus went on lecture tours and delivered public readings of excerpts of his Histories – its sheer volume would not allow its public reading in its entirety – or that his public lectures later formed the basis of his written work.38 Herodotus visited Macedonia during Alexander I’s reign, c. 460 BC.39 The biographical tradition even reports that he had spent time with Hellanicus at the court of Amyntas.40 Although such anecdotal information is usually not true, it suggests that a lecture by Herodotus or a public reading of a draft of some part of his Histories in the court of Alexander I in Macedonia is not inconceivable.
On the other hand, it has been objected by those who do not regard the Histories as a compilation of orally delivered lectures41 – rightly, to my mind – that its internal qualities are clear indications of a work, firstly, conceived as a whole (even if its unity is undermined at times)42 and, secondly, meant to be put down in writing, even if only for a limited readership (mostly but not exclusively Athenian),43 who had grown fond of lengthy works of prose. Despite the relatively high literacy levels assumed for fifth-century Athens and the persistence of the oral culture alongside the written one, I think that Stewart Flory is right when arguing that “there is no convincing evidence to show that the work was even widely known in the late fifth century” – neither in Athens nor in the rest of the Greek world, Macedonia included.44
As far as Macedonia is concerned, there is evidence of, and a few fragments from, a rich historical, ethnographical and geographical prose literature with a Macedonian focus, but none dates prior to Philip.45 The relatively late appearance of Macedonian historians is not surprising. For one, it is with Philip II and even more so with Alexander the Great that Macedonia begins to play a leading role in world history and there appears the wish to have it recorded. That is also indicative, however, of the place of prose in Macedonian everyday and intellectual life of classical times. Despite our ignorance about literacy in Macedonia (in a way comparable to literacy in Athens), I will venture the conclusion that fifth-century Macedonians – especially the populace, who, according to William Harris, must have been illiterate on the whole46 – were not prose readers (or prose listeners). So, if there was no ‘market’ or need (cultural, social, political or other) for prose writing in Macedonia in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, why should there be any, Macedonian or imported?47
I will now turn to the original performance of Euripides’ Archelaus. The performance of songs and speeches from the stage was not an uncommon feature of aristocratic symposia in Athens. The Macedonian symposium may have been notorious for the excessive consumption of unmixed wine but, like its Athenian counterpart, it also hosted such intellectual members as Agathon and Euripides and it featured sophisticated entertainments (especially from Philip II’s time).48 Even so, I agree with Eric Csapo, who remarks that “Archelaus’ primary interest in dramatic poets was … probably not in the adornment of his private table, but the establishment of an effective line of communication between himself and his subjects.”49 And there could be no better venue for that than a big public festival organised in Macedonia and open to all Greeks.
Three cities in Macedonia have been suggested as the likely venue for the original performance of Archelaus: Pella, Aegae and Dium.50 The strongest argument in favour of Pella is that Archelaus made it the new capital of his kingdom. I imagine that it would have made a great impact if king Archelaus’ foundation of classical Pella were compared to mythical Archelaus’ foundation of Aegae – the historical king would have been elevated to the status of a mythical founding figure of the Macedonian royal house, to say the least. However, it is rather unlikely that the capital had been transferred by the time of Euripides’ death. Moreover, during Archelaus’ reign there seems to have been neither theatre nor a festival at Pella.51
For Aegae and Dium, there is more evidence to consider. First, the closing scenes of the play anticipate the founding of Aegae, which remained an important ritual centre even after the transfer of the capital. Moreover, in 1982, a theatre was discovered in Aegae, near the palace. The theatre is dated to the second half of the fourth century,52 but, as Sourvinou-Inwood correctly remarks, before this (semi-)permanent construction, in Archelaus’ time, an entirely wooden theatre could have been used – timber was abundant in Macedonia. Besides, Arrian records a religious and artistic festival (τὰ Ὀλύμπια), instituted in Aegae by Archelaus. That could be an appropriate context for the performance of Euripides’ play. Even so, however, Sourvinou-Inwood’s suggestion is unsupported by archaeological findings so far and Bosworth considers Arrian’s “Aegae” to be an error for “Dium” – and he must be right.53
There is sufficient and, to my mind, convincing evidence that the Ὀλύμπια festival founded by Archelaus was held at Dium in Pieria, below Mount Olympus, in October – either periodically or occasionally.54 It was a national Macedonian festival dedicated to Zeus and the Muses and it was open to a greater Greek public. It ran for nine days – one for each Muse – probably on the pattern of the games in Olympia. It included not only athletic but also musical and dramatic competitions.55 So, my contention is that the ‘Olympia’ at Dium was where Euripides originally presented his tragedy both to the king and his circle of companions (and rivals) and to the people of Macedonia, who flocked to honour Zeus and the Muses and attend the performance by the famous Athenian playwright.
A stadium and a theatre have been discovered in Dium in close proximity to each other. The stadium dates from classical times and it could sit an estimated 15,000 spectators. The excavated theatre dates from the Hellenistic age, but a row of seats in the koilon has been dated to Archelaus’ time. That means, Manuela Mari concludes, that both theatre and stadium had existed and been in use since at least the beginning of the fourth century – if not the fifth.56 She also argues, cogently to my mind, that king Archelaus based his own ‘Olympia’ on pre-existing religious festivals of a smaller scale held at Dium, also dedicated to Zeus and the Muses, which he unified and reorganised, inserting his own innovations, especially as regards the dramatic contest. His ambition seems to have been to create a solemn festival, like the ones at Olympia and Delphi, which would bring the Hellenes and the Macedonians together at regular intervals and thus further consolidate their shared ethnic identity. The ‘Olympia’ at Dium could be seen as a two-way bridge, to borrow Mari’s metaphor, which could familiarise the Greeks South of Mount Olympus with the Macedonian Other and their cultic traditions and at the same time consolidate the mutual relations between Macedonia and the rest of the Greek world, especially Athens.
It is plausible to assume that Archelaus, who was acquainted with the crème de la crème of the cultural and intellectual life of fifth-century Athens, was also familiar with Herodotus’ (and possibly Thucydides’) work. However, it appears that he deemed tragedy qua myth more appropriate for the accomplishment of his political purposes than historiography. Historiography as a genre was new in comparison with poetry and Archelaus’ targeted audience(s) was / were on the whole unfamiliar with it. Euripides’ tragedy Archelaus, however, because of the conditions and the context of its performance, namely in the framework of a solemn religious festival, attended by a large, socially varied audience from Macedonia and other parts of Greece, was more likely to be worth the commission.
Bibliography
Adam-Veleni, P. 2010. Θέατρο και θέαμα στην αρχαία Μακεδονία. Θεσσαλονίκη. a, b
Adam-Veleni, P. (ed.) 2012. Αρχαία θέατρα της Μακεδονίας. Αθήνα. →
Adams, W.L. 2003. Other People’s Games: The Olympics, Macedonia and Greek Athletics. Journal of Sport History 30: 205–217. →
Adams, W.L. 2014. Sport, Spectacle and Society in Ancient Macedonia. In A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, eds. Christensen, P. and Kyle, D.G., 332–345. Malden, MA. a, b
Albanidis, E., Athanasiou, A., Schoinas, K., and Mouratidis, I. 2008. Οι αθλητικοί αγώνες της Αρχαίας Μακεδονίας. Μακεδονικά 37: 1–20. →
Asheri, D. 2007. General Introduction. In A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV, eds. Murrey, O., Moreno, A., and Brosius, M., 1–56. Oxford. a, b, c
Asirvatham, S.R. 2008. The Roots of Macedonian Ambiguity in Classical Athenian Literature. In Macedonian Legacies: Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza, eds. Howe, T. and Reames, J., 235–255. Claremont, CA. →
Austin, C. (ed.) 1968. Nova fragmenta euripidea in papyris reperta. Berlin. →
Badian, E. 1982. Greeks and Macedonians. Studies in the History of Art 10: 33–51. →
Bakker, E.J. 2006. The Syntax of Historiē: How Herodotus Writes. In The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, eds. Dewald, C. and Marincola, J., 92–102. Cambridge. →
Bakker, E.J., de Jong, I.J.F., and van Wees, H. (eds.) 2002. Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Leiden.
Borza, E.N. 1982. Athenians, Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian Royal House. In Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool (Hesperia Supplements 19), 7–13. →
Borza, E.N. 1990. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton. a, b, c, d, e
Borza, E.N. 1993. The Philhellenism of Archelaus. In Ancient Macedonia V: Papers Read at the Fifth International Symposium, Held in Thessaloniki, October 10–15, 1989, ed. Institute for Balkan Studies, vol. 1, 237–244. Thessaloniki. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Bosworth, A.B. 1976. Errors in Arrian. CQ 26: 117–139. →
Bosworth, A.B. 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. 1: Commentary on Books I-III. Oxford. →
Bremer, J.M. 1991. Poets and Their Patrons. In Hofmann and Harder (1991) 39–60. a, b
Carney, E.D. 2015. King and Court in Ancient Macedonia: Rivalry, Treason and Conspiracy. Swansea. a, b, c
Carter, D.M. (ed.) 2011. Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics. Oxford.
Cropp, M. and Fick, G. 1985. Resolutions and Chronology in Euripides: Τhe Fragmentary Tragedies. London. →
Csapo, E. 2010. Actors and Icons of the Ancient Theater. Malden, MA. a, b, c
Di Gregorio, L. 1987. L’ ‘Archelao’ di Euripide nei suoi rapporti con il ‘Temeno’ e i ‘Temenidi’. CCC 8: 279–318. →
Di Gregorio, L. 1988. L’ ‘Archelao’ di Euripide: Tentativo di ricostruzione. Aevum 62: 16–49. →
Dodds, E.R. (ed.) 1959. Plato: Gorgias. Oxford (repr. 2002). →
Dover, K. (ed.) 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs. Oxford. →
Drougou (Δρούγου), S. 2017. Το θέατρο στο βασίλειο της Αρχαίας Μακεδονίας. Logeion 7: 86–107. →
Drougou (Δρούγου), S. and Kallini (Καλλίνη), C. 2014–2015. Βεργίνα. Το θέατρο των Αιγών. Νέες παρατηρήσεις και ευρήματα από την παλιά ανασκαφή. AD 69–70: 491–542. →
Duncan, A. 2011. Nothing to Do with Athens: Tragedians at the Courts of Tyrants. In Carter (2011) 69–84. →
Engels, J. 2010. Macedonians and Greeks. In Roisman and Worthington (2010) 81–98. a, b
Errington, R.M. 1978. The Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchy. Chiron 8: 77–133. →
Errington, R.M. 1990. A History of Macedonia. Berkeley. a, b, c
Flory, S. 1980. Who Read Herodotus’ Histories? AJPh 101: 12–28. a, b
Fornara, C. 1971. Evidence for the Date of Herodotus’ Publication. JHS 91: 25–34. →
Geyer, F. 1930. Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II. Munich. →
Gibert, J. (ed.) 2004. Archelaus. In Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays, vol. 2, eds. Collard, C., Cropp, M. J., and Gibert J., 330–362. Oxford. a, b, c, d, e, f
Girard, P. 1904. La trilogie chez Euripide. REG 17: 149–195. →
Goosens, R. 1962. Euripide et Athènes. Brussels. →
Greenwalt, W.S. 1984. The Introduction of Caranus into the Argead King List. GRBS 26: 43–49.
Greenwalt, W.S. 1994. The Production of Coinage from Archelaus to Perdiccas III and the Evolution of Argead Macedonia. In Ventures into Greek History: Second Australian Symposium on Ancient Macedonian Studies Held at the University of Melbourne in July 1991, Dedicated to Professor Nicholas Hammond, ed. Worthington, I., 105–134. Oxford. →
Greenwalt, W.S. 1999. Why Pella? Historia 48: 158–183. →
Greenwalt, W.S. 2003. Archelaus the Philhellene. AncW 34: 131–153. →
Gruen, E.S. 2011. Rethinking the Other in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ. →
Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy. Oxford. a, b
Hall, J.M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge. a, b
Hall, J.M. 2001. Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Identity. In Malkin (2001a) 159–186. a, b
Hall, J.M. 2002. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago. a, b, c
Hall, J.M. 2015. Ancient Greek Ethnicities: Towards a Reassessment. BICS 58: 15–29. →
Hammond, N.G.L. 1994. Literary Evidence for Macedonian Speech. Historia 43: 131–142. →
Hammond, N.G.L. and Griffith, G.T.. 1979. A History of Macedonia, 550–336 BC, vol. 2. Oxford (repr. Amsterdam 1997). a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Hanink, J. 2008. Literary Politics and the Euripidean Vita. PCPS 54: 115–135. →
Harder, A. 1979. A New Identification in P. Oxy. 2455? ZPE 35: 7–14. →
Harder, A. (ed.) 1985. Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos. Leiden. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Harris, W.V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA. a, b
Hatzopoulos, M. 2003. Herodotos (8.137–8), the Manumissions from Leukopetra, and the Topography of the Middle Haliakmon Valley. In Herodotus and His World: Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, eds. Derow, P. and Parker, R., 203–218. Oxford. a, b
Hofmann, H. and Harder, A. (eds.) 1991. Fragmenta Dramatica: Beiträge zur Interpretation der griechischen Tragikerfragmente und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte. Göttingen.
Hornblower, S. 1991–2008. A Commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols. Oxford (vol. 1 repr. 2003; vol. 2 repr. 2009). a, b
Huys, M. 1997. Euripides and the ‘Tales from Euripides’: Sources of the Fabulae of Ps.-Hyginus? APF 43: 11–30. →
Jacoby, F. 1913. Herodotos. In Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. Kroll, W. (Supplement Vol. 2), 205–520. Stuttgart. a, b
Johnson, W.A. 1994. Oral Performance and the Composition of Herodotus’ Histories. GRBS 35: 229–254. a, b
Jouan, F. and van Looy, H. (eds.) 1998–2003. Euripide: Tragédies, vol. 8: Fragments. Paris. a, b, c, d, e, f
Kannicht, R. (ed.) 2004. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, vol. 5: Euripides. Göttingen. a, b, c
Karadedos, G. 2005. A Modern Theater in the Service of the Theatrical Agon in Dion, in the Sacred City of Macedonia. In Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 19: 381–390. →
Karadedos, G. 2012. Το ελληνιστικό θέατρο του Δίου. In Adam-Veleni (2012) 73–89. →
Katsouris, A.G. 2005. Euripides’ Archelaos: A Reconsideration. In Euripide e i Papiri: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Florence, 10–11 June 2004), eds. Bastianini, G. and Casanova, A., 205–226. Florence. a, b, c
King, C.J. 2018. Ancient Macedonia. London. →
Koulakiotis, E. 2017. The Hellenic Impact on Ancient Macedonia: Conceptualizing Origin and Authority. In Müller, Howe, Bowden, Rollinger, and Pal (2017) 199–213. →
Kovacs, D. 1994a. Euripidea. Leiden. →
Kovacs, D. (ed.) 1994b. Euripides: Cyclops, Alcestis, Medea. Cambridge, MA (repr. with changes and corrections 2001). →
Lamari, A.A. 2017. Reperforming Greek Tragedy: Theater, Politics, and Cultural Mobility in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC. Berlin. →
Lefkowitz, M.R. 20122. The Lives of Greek Poets. Baltimore. →
Lesky, A. 19723. Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen. Göttingen. →
Malkin, I. (ed.) 2001a. Ancient Perceptions of Ethnicity. Cambridge, MA.
Malkin, I. 2001b. Introduction. In Malkin (2001a) 1–28. →
Mallios (Μάλλιος), G. 2014. Cui bono; Ο πρώτος βασιλιάς των Μακεδόνων Κάρανος και οι σκοπιμότητες που επέβαλαν τις αλλαγές στον δυναστικό μύθο της ίδρυσης του μακεδονικού κράτους. In Η Έδεσσα και η περιοχή της. Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός. Πρακτικά Γ΄ Πανελληνίου Επιστημονικού Συνεδρίου (11–12 Δεκεμβρίου 2010). Έδεσσα. →
Mari, M. 1998. Le Olimpie macedoni di Dion tra Archelao e l’ età romana. RFIC 126: 137–169. a, b, c
Mari, M. 2002. Al di là dell’ Olimpo: Macedoni e grandi santuari della Grecia dall’ età arcaica al primo ellenismo. Athens. a, b
Mari, M. 2011. Archaic and Early Classical Macedonia. In Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC – 300 AD, ed. Fox, R.J.L., 79–92. Leiden. →
Matthiessen, K. 2002. Die Tragödien des Euripides. Munich. →
Moloney, E.P. 2014. Philippus in acie tutior quam in theatro fuit (Curtius 9.6.25). The Macedonian Kings and Greek Theatre. In Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, eds. Csapo, E., Goette, H.R., Green, J.R., and Wilson, P.J., 231–248. Berlin. a, b, c
Moloney, E.P. 2015. Neither Agamemnon nor Thersites, Achilles nor Margites. The Heraclid Kings of Ancient Macedon. Antichthon 49: 1–24. a, b
Moloney, E.P. in preparation. The Macedonian Kings and Greek Theatre.
Müller, S. 2017. The Symbolic Capital of the Argeads. In Müller, Howe, Bowden, Rollinger and Pal (2017) 183–198. a, b
Müller, S., Howe, T., Bowden, H., Rollinger, R., and Pal, S.. (eds.) 2017. The History of the Argeads: New Perspectives. Wiesbaden.
Munn, M. 2000. The School of History: Athens in the Age of Socrates. Berkeley. →
Pownall, F. 2017. The Role of Greek Literature at the Argead Court. In Müller, Howe, Bowden, Rollinger and Pal (2017) 215–229. a, b, c, d, e
Revermann, M. 1999–2000. Euripides, Tragedy and Macedon. ICS 24–25: 451–467. →
Rösler, W. 2002. The Histories and Writing. In Bakker, de Jong and Wees (2002) 79–94. →
Roisman, J. 2010. Classical Macedonia to Perdiccas III. In Roisman and Worthington (2010) 145–165. →
Roisman, J. and Worthington, I. (eds.) 2010. A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden, MA.
Sansone, D. 1985. The Date of Herodotus’ Publication. ICS 10: 1–9. →
Sawada, N. 2010. Social Customs and Institutions: Aspects of Macedonian Elite Society. In Roisman and Worthington (2010) 392–408. a, b
Scullion, S. 2003. Euripides and Macedon, or the Silence of the Frogs. CQ 53: 389–400. →
Scullion, S. 2006. The Opening of Euripides’ Archelaus. In Dionysalexandros: Essays on Aeschylus and his Fellow Tragedians in Honour of Alexander F. Garvie, eds. Cairns, D. and Liapis, V., 185–200. Swansea. a, b
Seaford, R. 2011. Response to Wilson, Carter and Duncan. In Carter (2011) 85–91. →
Slings, S.R. 2002. Oral Strategies in the Language of Herodotus. In Bakker, de Jong and Wees (2002) 53–77. →
Snell, B. (ed.) 1986. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, vol. 1: Didascaliae tragicae; Catalogi tragicorum et tragoediarum; Testimonia et fragmenta tragicorum minorum. Göttingen. →
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2003. Tragedy and Athenian Religion. Lanham, MD. →
Stewart, E. 2017. Greek Tragedy on the Move: The Birth of a Panhellenic Art Form, c. 500–300 BC. Oxford. a, b, c
Stewart, E. 2021. Tragedy and Tyranny: Euripides, Archelaus of Macedon and Popular Patronage. DHA Supplément 21: 81–101.
Stoessl, F. 1957–1959. Prologos. In Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. Ziegler, K., vol. 23, 632–641 and 2312–2440. Stuttgart. →
Storchi, P. 2018. Ipotesi di riconoscimento dei teatri di Pella e della colonia pellensis mediante immagini telerilevate. Annuario Della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e Delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 96: 74–87. →
Taplin, O. 1999. Spreading the Word through Performance. In Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, eds. Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R., 33–57. Cambridge. →
Thomas, R. 2009. Writing, Reading, Public and Private ‘Literacies’: Functional Literacy and Democratic Literacy in Greece. In Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, eds. Johnson, W.A. and Parker, H.N., 13–45. Oxford. →
Vlassopoulos, K. 2013. Greeks and Barbarians. Cambridge. →
Vlassopoulos, K. 2015. Ethnicity and Greek History: Re-examining Our Assumptions. BICS 58: 1–13. →
Waterfield, R. (transl.) 1998. Herodotus. The Histories. Oxford. →
Webster, T.B.L. 1967. The Tragedies of Euripides. London. a, b
Xanthakis-Karamanos (Ξανθάκη-Καραμάνου), G. 1993. Ο Αρχέλαος του Ευριπίδη. Μια μακεδονική τραγωδία. Παρνασσός 35: 510–533 (repr. in Xanthakis-Karamanos [2004] 21–46). a, b, c, d, e
Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. 2004. Dramatica: Studies in Classical and Post-classical Dramatic Poetry. Athens. →
Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. 2012. The Archelaus of Euripides: Reconstructions and Motifs. In Greek Drama IV: Texts, Contexts, Performance, eds. Rosenbloom, D. and Davidson, J., 108–126. Oxford. a, b, c, d, e
Zielinski, T. 1925. Tragodumenon libri tres. Krakow. →
Notes
1
“as a favour to him” (transl. by Kovacs [1994a]). Cf. also T ii a2. There is still controversy over Euripides’ stay in Macedonia and the place of the original performance of Archelaus – the latter issue only made more complicated by the attribution by the Scholiast of lines 1206–1208 from the famous lekythion scene in Aristophanes’ Frogs (= Eur. fr. 846) to the prologue of Archelaus (Kannicht [2004] 885 ad fr. 846; see Dover [1993] ad loc.). In this article, I follow the communis opinio, according to which Archelaus commissioned a tragedy which was performed in front of a Macedonian audience during Euripides’ stay at his court; see Lamari (2017) 45–48; Stewart (2017) 126–138 and cf. Lefkowitz (2012) 88–103; Matthiessen (2002) 256; Scullion (2003); Gibert (2004) 337; Hanink (2008), esp. 116–117. I also refrain from entering into the discussion of the problem of the ‘two prologues’ (on which see Stoessl [1957–1959] 2339–2340; Xanthakis-Karamanos [1993] 31 and [2012] 112–113; Scullion [2006] 185–191). The sources for Euripides’ life are assembled in Kannicht (2004); see also Kovacs (1994b) 1–22. The reference text of Euripidean testimonia (T) and fragmenta (fr.) is Kannicht (2004). Testimonia to and fragmenta of Archelaus are cited without mention of title.
2
See Pownall (2017).
3
See Carney (2015) 193 and Pownall (2017) for the relevant testimonia. On poets and their patrons in Archaic and Classical Greece see Bremer (1991), esp. 42–44 on Euripides.
4
Borza (1990) 171–177 and (1993) calls this practice ‘philhellenism’. However, the term is problematic insofar as it suggests that the Macedonians were not Hellenes, a highly controversial issue in antiquity. On the political motives behind Archelaus’ overall ‘philhellenism’ see Greenwalt (2003) and infra.
5
See, for instance, Hall (1989) 180; Xanthakis-Karamanos (1993) and (2012); Pownall (2017) 220–221.
6
With the exception of two genealogies for the Macedonians’ eponymous ancestor (Macedon or Macednos), given in ps.-Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women (fr. 7 Merkelbach-West) and by Hellanicus (FGrH 4 F 74). Macedon’s implicit exclusion from Hellen’s family line may reflect archaic Greek uncertainty about the Macedonians’ Hellenicity, perhaps triggered by Amyntas’ subjection to Persia (Asirvatham [2008] 237). On the contested ethnic identity of the Macedonians since classical times, see Hall (2001). Hall’s incisive and perceptive discussions of ethnicity and Hellenicity (Hall [1997], [2002] and [2015]) are valuable for a profound understanding of the concept but should be read with Vlassopoulos (2015).
7
On theatre and, in particular, tragedy in Macedonia see Adam-Veleni (2010) and (2012); Moloney (2014); Stewart (2017) and (2021). Moloney’s The Macedonian Kings and Greek Theatre (in preparation) is also looked forward to. Duncan (2011) and Seaford’s (2011) response to it are also valuable insofar as they discuss the ideological implications of the exportation of tragedy from a democratic to a non-democratic context with reference to Archelaus.
8
Where exactly in Macedonia Archelaus was originally performed is a matter of speculation which I discuss below.
9
Lesky (1972) 472; Jouan and Van Looy (1998–2003) 1.277–278. In fact, Archelaus is also attested in two testimonia to Euripides’ Temenidae (performed between 422 and 406 BC) and Temenus (whose date of performance is impossible to determine) (Temenidae / Temenus T i.15 and iv.12; on the dates of performance, see Cropp and Fick [1985] 91). Both testimonia were initially considered parts of hypotheses to Archelaus but Harder (1979) and (1985) 288–290 has shown that they most probably belong to hypotheses to either Temenidae or Temenus. This means that “Archelaus can no longer be considered to have appeared in or been especially invented for Archelaos only.” Besides, she remarks, the extant foundation myths of Macedonia contain “a number of elements that recur in the Archelaus and may well have been used by Euripides” ([1985] 289 and 132 – author’s emphasis). Following Zielinski, Webster assumed a ‘Macedonian’ trilogy consisting of Temenidae, Temenus and Archelaus – a hypothesis recently revived by Scullion (Zielinski [1925] 236; Webster [1967] 252–253; Scullion [2006] 191–197). Cf. also Di Gregorio (1987) and Katsouris (2005) 206–208. Harder (1985) 127–129 and Stewart (2017) 135–138 reject the idea – cogently in my opinion; cf. Gibert (2004) 337.
10
But consider the reservations expressed by Huys (1997), esp. 28–29. In her authoritative commentary, Annette Harder discusses the location of each fragment in the play (Harder [1985] passim). Reconstructions of the plot have been attempted by Webster (1967) 255–257; Di Gregorio (1988); Xanthakis-Karamanos (1993) (= Xanthakis-Karamanos [2004] 21–46); Jouan and Van Looy (1998–2003) 1.282–286; Gibert (2004) 330–333; Katsouris (2005); and Xanthakis-Karamanos (2012) (I am citing only the ones consulted).
11
The foundation myth of Aegae by Archelaus bears strong similarities to that of Thebes by Cadmus (see Apollod. 3.4.1).
12
Harder (1985) 217 ad fr. 236 = 8A and passim; Xanthakis-Karamanos (1993) 522; Jouan and Van Looy (1998–2003) 1.287; Xanthakis-Karamanos (2012) 115.
13
Cf. Jouan and Van Looy (1998–2003) 1.287–288 and Gibert (2004) 331.
14
Harder (1985) 206 and 209 ad loc.; Jouan and Van Looy (1998–2003) 1.284; Gibert (2004) 353–354 ad loc. (among others).
15
Harder (1985) 212 ad fr. 231 = 5A.
16
On the poverty and other misfortunes of fugitives and exiles, cf. Eur. Heracl. passim and Phoen. 388–406.
17
Cf. Hyg. 219: uno proelio fugavit (‘he routed in one battle’ – my translation).
18
Harder (1985) assigns to this scene (with varying certainty) fr. 246, 249–251 and 254–255. A discussion contrasting tyranny with the law (to which she assigns fr. 235, 248, 250 and 252) could also constitute part of the same scene.
19
Pl. Theages 124d; Alc. II 141d; Grg. 471a4-c6 (with Dodds [1959] ad loc.); Aristid. Or. 45.55 and 46.120 (with Schol.); Ael. VH 12.43.3–4. On Archelaus’ slave mother and his illegitimacy, see Hammond and Griffith (1979) 154–155 and 155 n. 1. On Archelaus’ reign, beside the classic references, namely Hammond and Griffith (1979) 137–141; Borza (1990) 161–179; Errington (1990) 24–27, see also the more recent Roisman (2010) 154–158; Mari (2011) 91–92; King (2018) 41–43.
20
Geyer (1930) 84–85; Hammond and Griffith (1979) 135–136; Borza (1990) 161–162; Sawada (2010) 394; Mueller (2017) 190–191.
21
Ἀρχελάῳ δουλεύσομεν Ἕλληνες ὄντες βαρβάρῳ; (“Shall we, Greeks, become slaves to Archelaus, a barbarian?” – my translation [85 B 2 DK]; this sentence is based on Eur. Telephus fr. 719: Ἕλληνες ὄντες βαρβάροις δουλεύσομεν;).
22
On the appropriation of Heracles by the Argead kings as a fundamental part of their self-representation, see Moloney (2015). In ps.-Hesiod Macedon is son of Zeus, too. Hall (2001) 169 and 178 n. 89 remarks that “filiation from Zeus in itself provided no qualification for Greek descent” – the Trojan Sarpedon was the son of Zeus. It does prove, however, according to Hammond (1994) 134, that the Macedonians spoke Greek. On objections to treating language as a defining criterion of ethnicity, see Hall (1997) chapter 5. Coins intended mainly for international trade also bore images of Zeus, of a lion-helmeted Heracles or of a goat (Hammond and Griffith [1979] 138; Borza [1990] 173; Greenwalt [1994] 112–114; Carney [2015] 62 with n. 3).
23
Borza (1993) 240–241; Moloney (2014) 239–240 and (2015) 61–62. Cf. also Bremer (1991) 44 and Pownall (2017) 220–221.
24
On the importance to Macedonian kings of popular support (especially in cases of contested succession), see Errington (1978) 103–105; Thucydides’ praise (2.100.2), the only positive comment on Archelaus of which I am aware, concerns his achievements exclusively, not his character.
25
Borza (1993) 241. The Macedonians prior to Philip II are presented by Arrian as a barely-civilised people (Anab. 7.9.2). Thucydides also seems to consider the Macedonian people barbarian or semi-barbarian (4.124.1 with Hornblower [1991–2008] ad loc.), even if he does not challenge the Argive descent of the royal family (2.99.3 and 5.80.2).
26
Hall (2002) 26; Koulakiotis (2017) 202.
27
Malkin (2001b) 10.
28
The introduction of Archelaus as a son of Temenus and the replacement of Perdiccas as the founder of Aegae, which inaugurated the revision of the Macedonian royal line, was followed soon after the beginning of the fourth century by the similar introduction of Caranus (Diod. Sic. 7.15–17; Theopompus FGrH 115 F 393), on which see Hammond and Griffith (1979) 5–14; Greenwalt (1985) and Mallios (2014).
29
Engels (2010) 91.
30
Similarly put by Revermann (1999/2000) 454: “to dispel the stigma of cultural inferiority”; and Pownall (2017) 215: “to win the respect of the Greeks as an equally civilized power.”
31
Hall (1989). For a non-structuralist approach to ethnicity and otherness, see Gruen (2011) and Vlassopoulos (2013).
32
Hall (2002) 15.
33
Hammond’s claim that “what made Macedon strong in relation to its constantly strong neighbours and the sometimes ambitious Greek powers was not its likeness to the Greeks but its essential difference in political structure, social layering, and economic development” (Hammond and Griffith [1979] 149) and Borza’s (1993) 238 remark that “the adoption of Greek adornments over the long run changed nothing fundamental in Macedonian society” do not contradict the Macedonian kings’ keen interest in being classified among the civilised peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean by displaying the affinity between the former and the latter.
34
Hdt. 5.22, 8.139, 9.45.2 (αὐτός [sc. Ἀλέξανδρος] τε γὰρ Ἕλλην γένος εἰμὶ τὠρχαῖον (‘My family background makes me a Greek myself’) – I cite Waterfield’s (1998) translation of Herodotus’ Histories). The case for a lower date for Herodotus (sometime between 425 and 415 BC) is made by Fornara (1971) and Munn (2000) 43 and 363 n. 78 (for a brief account of the debate). A compromising suggestion is made by Sansone (1985). Th. 2.99.3: οἱ πρόγονοι αὐτοῦ [sc. Περδίκκου], Τημενίδαι τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὄντες ἐξ Ἄργους (‘his ancestors the Temenidai, who originally came from Argos’); 5.80.2: ἦν δὲ καὶ αὐτός [sc. Περδίκκας] τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐξ Ἄργους (‘for he himself was of ancient Argive descent’) (transl. by Hornblower). But cf. Hornblower (1991–2008) 2.391–3 ad 4.124.1, who suggests that for Thucydides “the Macedonians were intermediate between Greeks and (utter) barbarians and that Th[ucydides] did not operate with an undifferentiated concept ‘barbarian’” (quotation from p. 392).
35
Alexander’s participation in the Olympic Games is doubted: his name does not appear on the victor lists nor is there any other, independent confirmation; see Borza (1982) 10–11 with n. 12 and (1990) 110–113. Borza (1993) 241 argues that it actually seems unlikely that any Macedonian king competed in the Olympic festival prior to Philip II – but cf. Adams (2014) 334–335.
36
Hatzopoulos (2003) 218; Gibert (2004) 334–335; Müller (2017) 189. According to Borza (1993) 239, on the other hand, “the tale of the Argive origin of Macedonian kings cannot be traced beyond Herodotus, who seems to have learned it from its probable inventor, Alexander I.”
37
On the oracles in Archelaus, see Mari (2002) 60–66 (esp. 65–66).
38
Jacoby (1913) 242; Flory (1980); Asheri (2007) 12–13. The accounts of Herodotus’ lectures are scrutinised and rejected as untrustworthy by Johnson (1994) 240–245.
39
Jacoby (1913) 250 thinks that such phrases as “Αἰγύπτιοι, Ἀθηναῖοι etc. λέγουσι” suggest that Herodotus actually visited the places whose local traditions he reports. So, he is confident – and so is Hatzopoulos (2003) 213 – that Herodotus’ accounts of Macedonian history (5.17–21, 8.121 and 8.136–139) were heard during his travels in Macedonia, straight from Alexander’s mouth.
40
Suidae lexicon, s.v. Ἑλλάνικος.
41
For instance, Johnson (1994).
42
See Bakker (2006); contra Asheri (2007) 12–13.
43
Asheri (2007) 2 (Attic, Ionian, Delian, S. Italian).
44
Flory (1980) 13. Cf. Rösler (2002) and Slings (2002).
45
Engels (2010) 85.
46
Harris (1989) 13.
47
The recently discovered lead curse tablet from Pella suggests that literacy might not have been the privilege of the male Macedonian elite; see Harris (1989) 108. Even so, Rosalind Thomas (2009) correctly distinguishes among different types of literacy, which are defined by the uses writing is put to: being able to write and / or read a curse tablet is very different from being able to write and / or read a historical treatise.
48
Cf. Hdt. 5.18–21; Ael. VH 13.4. On Macedonian court symposia see Csapo (2010) 172 and Sawada (2010) 393–399 with the suggested bibliography on p. 408.
49
Csapo (2010) 172 and Stewart (2021) 96–98. Errington (1990) 219 remarks that “what distinguished the Macedonian monarchy from others was that the king behaved in a way that kept him in close contact with his people.”
50
Austin (1968); Lowicka (1975) 264 (cited in Harder [1985] 126); Snell (1986) 17 (Pella); Xanthakis-Karamanos (1993) 512 and (2012) 109; Taplin (1999) 42; Sourvinou-Inwood (2003) 41–42; Csapo (2010) 99 (Aegae); Girard (1904) 160; Goossens (1962) 672 n. 22; Harder (1985) 127; Jouan and Van Looy (1998–2003) 1.281; Mari (2002) 61; Katsouris (2005) 209; Carney (2015) 193 (Dium).
51
On the date of the move of the capital to Pella, see Hammond and Griffith (1979) 6 and Greenwalt (1999). It is recorded by Plutarch (Mor. 1096b4–8) that in Alexander III’s time there was a theatre in Pella, no traces of which – or of any other (earlier or later) – have been discovered yet. Archaeologists agree that it must have lain on the slope between the palace and the agora; see Drougou (2017) 98–99, but also Storchi (2018), who, based on aerial photographs, suggests that the theatre might have been located on the East of the palace.
52
Drougou and Kallini (2014/2015) 507–508.
53
Arr. Anab. 1.11.1. The discussion on Arrian’s ‘error’ and the existence or not of two distinct ‘Olympia’ is summarised by Manuela Mari (1998) 139–143; see esp. Bosworth (1976) 119–121 and (1980) 97 ad loc.
54
See Diod. Sic. 17.16.3–4. Badian (1982) 35 calls the festival ‘counter-Olympics’ and Borza (1993) 174 calls Dium “a Macedonian Olympia.” On sport and spectacle inside Macedonia, see Adams (2014).
55
Errington (1990) 26 and 223; Borza (1993) 173–174; Mari (1998); Adams (2003) 209–210; Albanidis, Athanasiou, Schoinas and Mouratidis (2008) 5–9; Adam-Veleni (2010) 71; Moloney (2014) 241–242 with n. 49.
56
Karadedos (2005) 381–382 and (2012) 74; Mari (1998) 160.