pothos.org

I read in an online article that Phillip had aristotle teach alexander at Mieza because he did not want the philospher in his court. I also read Aristotle was the son of Philips fathers court physician. Are these facts accurate? Thanks

To the best of our knowledge Bob, that's a fact Jack.Paralus

Philip had the school at Mieza built especially for the schooling of Alexander (by Aristotle) and if you ever visited there you would understand why it was a perfect place. And yes, Aristotle's father was court physician at Pella but before Philip took the throne.

Hi Paralus,Are you agreeing only that Aristotle was the son of PhilipGÇÖs court physician, or also that Philip did not WANT Aristotle at his court? If the latter, is there any source to support this? My take on it is that Philip desired Alexander and his friends to be educated away from the hustle and bustle of court - and possibly away from OlympiasGÇÖ influence as well, although I hope IGÇÖm not further wronging her by this thought. I canGÇÖt imagine any reason why Philip wouldnGÇÖt have wanted Aristotle in his court.Best regards,Amyntoros

G'day Amyntoros.Certainly agreeing with the first and mostly with the second. Mostly because I feel the decision to place Aristotle away from Pella GÇô whilst agreeing re Olympias GÇô probably had more to do with mollifying the sensibilities of the court nobles. Those sensitivities relating to the appearance of a "court philosopher" being appointed to "civilise" them in the sense that Philip's predecessor Perdiccas III did.Ernst Badian, in a piece written back in 1980 ( http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/vi ... 5bd57b02f9 ) observes the following"It is only with Perdiccas III that we for the first time find a demonstrably genuine attachment to an aspect of Greek culture: in this instance, philosophy. We are told extravagant tales of his expecting his nobles to share those interests, and of his excluding from his company (and that may mean from the very title of hetairoi) any that did not conform.(31) At any rate, he had links with the Academy and appointed what appears to have been a court philosopher from that school, Euphraeus of Oreos. The stories we have about him and his influence are overlaid with later amplification, and the fats in any case do not matter here.(32) But as has been rightly observed, the demonstrably false and tendentious account of his death as due to the nobles revenge may be taken as attesting their hatred for him and his influence.(33)GǪ"GǪApart from all else, the invitation was a political masterstroke. As was brilliantly recognized by Werner Jaeger, it secured for Philip an alliance (secret for the time being, of course) with the philosopher-tyrant Hermias of Atarneus, Aristotle's patron and relative by marriage, who could provide both a bridgehead and connections with other potentially disloyal subjects of the king.(3) It also resumed, after a necessary interruption, the Macedonian king's connection with the Academy; but this time cautiously." Continued below...

Hi Paralus,Hmmm, interesting - thanks for this. I lean a little more to the middle than Badian and donGÇÖt always agree with him, but he does raise some intriguing issues here. My very first thought in response is that Alexander obviously had no such reservations, in fact Callisthenes was condemned by the Macedonians (figuratively) for NOT attending court functions such as the symposium. The difference in his companionsGÇÖ attitude to court philosophers could simply be part of the old fogies/young guns competitiveness. I shall have to ponder this further.Best regards,Amyntoros

I don't think that's far from the truth Amyntoros. As Badian says, Alexander was to become the fomenter or the example of Greek/Macedonian integration: look at his appointments.The logical end step in a deliberately pursued policy of "Hellenisation" under successive Macedonian monarchs (until rudely interrupted by Archelaus' assassination in 399) and integration under Philip.It would appear that I am rather singularly alone in my view of the good professor (E Badian) on this site. I do not think he is anywhere near as "bad" as some would have him. It's been mentioned (another thread) that he has an "agenda". That GÇô to me GÇô would be the pursuit of historical understanding. I don't think his image is helped by the rabid websites that cherry-pick his life's work to push THEIR agendas.
For instance, eighteen discrete, single lines quoted out of context from some 9,000 words will make it, naturally, appear as if an "agenda" is being run. But, he is far from the David Irving of ancient Greek History that some would seem to think!Paralus.

I just realised this didn't all fit! The rest:"The Greeks who mattered would obviously be impressed, but the Macedonian barons need fear no repetition of the Euphracus episode. For one thing, Aristotle was the son of a man who had been court physician to Philip's father. This not only ensured personal loyalty: it meant that he knew the Macedonian court and (we might say) he would know his place. Moreover, it was at once made clear that he was not coming as a court philosopher. He was installed with the young prince in a rustic retreat at a safe distance from the court and the capital. It is to be presumed that Aristotle was as happy to be a Mieza as the courtiers were to see him settled there."
Paralus.

Hi Parlus,I donGÇÖt think Badian is all that GÇ£badGÇ¥ nor do I insist that there is an agenda behind everything he writes. He does, however, operate frequently under controlling assumptions and this can, and does, color his work. Now, if someone leans consistently and too far in one direction, then sometimes all it takes is a little push to topple them over. This doesnGÇÖt negate his work which should always be considered carefully and never dismissed out of hand, in my humble opinion. It simply needs to be examined carefully, as does the writing of all historians GÇô historiography at play!. :-)In this instance Badian says that GÇ£it was at once made clear that he was not coming as a court philosopher.GÇ¥ Well, that goes without saying, doesnGÇÖt it? It is never disputed that Aristotle was hired to tutor the young prince, and the fact that Mieza was GÇ£at a safe distance from the court and the capitalGÇ¥ doesnGÇÖt convince me that Philip deliberately meant to keep Aristotle away from the court. ItGÇÖs extrapolation based upon events at the court of the previous king. Badian says that the GÇ£facts do not matterGÇ¥ in relation to that prior event, but perhaps they do? It doesnGÇÖt necessarily follow that *all* Greek philosophers were to be subsequently considered persona non grata at the Macedonian court. I think itGÇÖs amply demonstrated that Philip was not a man to be easily influenced, and I see no reason for the Macedonian elite to fear any negative effect due to AristotleGÇÖs presence.I particularly love the ending of the quote you supplied: GÇ£It is to be presumed that Aristotle was as happy to be a Mieza as the courtiers were to see him settled there." I must praise BadianGÇÖs ability to express himself - with such a flourish of an ending itGÇÖs easy not to recognize that this is his presumption, based only on the GÇ£factsGÇ¥ as Badian has laid them out. I think I shall stay with my theory, that Aristotle was installed at Mieza to ensure that AlexanderGÇÖs education was not affected by any of the goings-on at court. I have been, by the way, unknowingly quoting from Winthrop Lindsay AdamsGÇÖ book. I was looking through it this morning for a reference to the royal pages and came upon this:GÇ£By this point, Demosthenes of Athens had been taunting Philip in his speeches, calling him a barbarian with rude habits. Aristotle was to teach all of them {the pages} and remove any future stigma Demosthenes might cast on Macedonia and her court. Secondarily, the school was es

(Continued)" . . . Secondarily, the school was established to get the students out of Pella and away from court, and more directly, to get Alexander away from OlympiasGÇÖ influence.GÇ¥Oh, one final and slightly unrelated remark. What on earth does Badian mean by GÇ£It is only with Perdiccas III that we for the first time find a demonstrably genuine attachment to an aspect of Greek culture: in this instance, philosophy.GÇ¥? So heGÇÖs saying that the Macedonians had no GÇ£genuineGÇ¥ attachment to the works of the Greek poets and playwrights assembled at the court of Archelaus? It isnGÇÖt demonstrated that they valued Euripides? GÇô the man who was made a Macedonian and was buried in the royal cemetery? Hmmm, I might just have given Badian a tiny push . . . :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

G'day AmyntorosI think by that he means an attachment outside of the King? Not sure, we'd need to ask the man. The Perdiccas III episode he writes up as an excercise similar to your take on the pages: the civilising of the nobility - or the Hellenising. He sees that as the more pervasive?As to my remarks re Badian, they were not actually in reference to how you may see him, more how others in the forum seem to. Just a bit of conversational rambling.Paralus

Oh, I did understand that your comments regarding Badian weren't directed at me in particular. I just thought I'd throw in my take on the man for good measure. Reading the beginning of my post again, it does appear as if I've gone on the defensive which was not my intention. Sorry 'bout that. Sometimes it is very difficult to express myself without dotting every line with a smiley face. :-)See what I mean?

Indeed :-)Paralus