13

THE PHILHELLENISM OF ARCHELAUS

Eugene N. Borza

The reign of King Archelaus (413-399 B.C.) is a bright spot in late fifth-
century B.C. Macedonian history, an era otherwise marked by considerable
Argead instability and weakness. After the rule of Perdiccas II, whose per-
fidious reputation among modern scholars partly reflects contemporary hostile
Athenian propaganda, Archelaus’s assertive and rational achievements ap-
pear notable. He seems to have made a long-term peace with Athens based
upon mutual economic benefit, and, with the threat of Greek and Thracian
invasions much reduced, Archelaus turned to a wide-ranging program of
internal initiatives. I should here like to consider only one aspect of a very
complex royal policy, and that is Archelaus’s perception of his relationship
to the Greek city-states!.
Archelaus is often acknowledged as the creator of an impressive Mace-
donian center at Pella*. The enlargement of Pella was not only a political
and military innovation, but also a major cultural statement. The importa-
tion of Greek writers, artists and architects as continuing participants in
Macedonian court life gave the town a Hellenic cast unprecedented in Argead
history. It was not that there had been no Greek influence in the kingdom
prior to Archelaus; the Greeks who had lived in Macedon earlier, including
those who had been guests of Alexander I and Perdiccas II, had, true to form,

1. Some of the material presented in this paper has appeared as part of a more detailed
account of Archelaus’s reign in my In the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon
(Princeton 1990), chap. 7, a book which was published several months after the Fifth Inter-
national Congress on Ancient Macedonia, but which was written before this paper was
constructed. I should also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the Department
of History and the Research Office of the College of the Liberal Arts, Pennsylvania State
University, which made it possible for me to attend the Congress.
2. Although one must take into account the view of M. B. Hatzopoulos, “Strepsa:
A Reconsideration, or New Evidence on the Road System of Lower Macedonia”, Two
Studies in Ancient Macedonian Topography. Meletimata 3 (Athens 1987) 41-44, who suggests
that the movement of the capital from Aegae to Pella may have occurred somewhat later,
during the reign of Amyntas III.
238 Eugene N. Borza

brought their culture with them, and some of it may have rubbed off on the
Macedonians?. But Archelaus is the first Macedonian king for whom we have
evidence of a conscious and public adoption of some aspects of Greek culture.
The significance of this phenomenon has been much discussed in the modern
literature, but not without controversy. Some writers have suggested that
Archelaus intended that Macedon enter into the Greek world as a Greek
state. Hammond quite sensibly rejected this view, and pointed out that Mace-
don’s important position in the Balkan-Aegean world resulted not from its
adoption of aspects of Greek culture, but rather from the kingdom’s “essen-
tial difference [my italics] in political structure, social layering, and economic
development“.
But the question remains how “Greek” Archelaus and, by extension,
Macedon, really were. The external accessories of Greek culture were apparent
in Pella, and it hardly seems likely that Euripides, who was in residence there,
would have produced plays in Macedon that could not be understood by at
least an elite audience. Indeed, the presence of Euripides is a metaphor for
an admiration for the art and literature of Greece that marked the Macedo-
nian ruling groups. But, as Hammond shows, the significance of the Greek-
Macedonian cultural conjunction was that the Macedonians adapted and
exploited philhellenism for purposes that were uniquely Macedonian. For
example, Greek Pydna was refounded as a Macedonian city, the Greeks who
settled in the garrison at Demir Kapu were there to serve a Macedonian pur-
pose, the festivals established at Dion and Aegae were dedicated to Macedo-
nian expressions of worship, and the new Greek-appearing Pella pointed to
the continental, not Aegean, interests of Macedon®. Indeed, one could add
that the adoption of Greek adornments over the long run changed nothing
fundamental in Macedonian society, so that many Macedonian elite may
have talked like Greeks, dressed like Greeks and imitated, imported and
admired Greek art, but they lived and acted like Macedonians, a people whose
political and social system was alien to what most Greeks believed, wrote
about and practiced. It is thus not difficult to understand the implications
of Thrasymachus’s comment: “Shall we. being Greeks, be slaves to Archelaus,
a barbarian?"*.

3. N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia Il (Oxford 1979) 148-49. Both Alex-

ander I and Perdiccas IL had entertained the occasional Greek writer at court.
4. Ibid., pp. 149-50. with references to earlier work on the subject.
5. E.g., ibid., p. 150.
6. On Behalf of the Larisaeans, frag. 2 (Diels ed., Frag. Vorsokratiker, 6th ed.).
 The philhellenism of Archelaus 239

The promotion of the legend proporting to show that the Argeadae were
of Greek Argive descent is one of the most important examples of the extended
philhellenism. I have argued elsewhere that 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’. As far as we know, the
basic story remained unchanged until Euripides’s arrival in Macedon?. Euripi-
des’s play, Archelaus, honored his patron by inventing a mythical Archelaus
as a brave young man and descendant of Heracles who founded Aegae by
command of Apollo. The playwright may have also produced a Temenos or
Temenidae in which the progenitor Archelaus appears’. We can date the
revision of the foundation legend rather precisely, as Euripides arrived in
Macedonia in 408 and died there in 406190, It is likely that the play was inten-
ded to celebrate Archelaus’s Greek ancestry during a period in which both
Archelaus and Athens were willing to encourage peaceful ties with one another.
It is not possible to say where the play was produced. In Archelaus’s time
there was a festival at Dion (although the theatre that has been excavated
there was built somewhat later), and by the age of Philip II both a theatre
and a festival were situated at Aegae. But as yet we have recovered neither a
theatre nor evidence of a festival at Pella.
The propaganda about Argive origins is reflected also in Archelaus’s
coinage. With Archelaus’s recovery of the Bisaltic mines along the eastern

7. In “Athenians, Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian Royal House”,

Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool. Hesperia,
suppl. 19 (1982) 7-13, and, more recently, with some modification, Jn the Shadow of Olympus,
pp. 80-84 and 110-13.
8. Thucydides’s reference (2.100.2) to Archelaus’s eight predecessors reflects the origi-
nal king list that dates from the time of Alexander I.
9. See Annette Harder, Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos. Mnemosyne, suppl. 87
(Leiden 1985) 129-37 and 288-90, whose work is now essential for an understanding of the
problems associated with Euripides’s work in Macedon. Unlike Hatzopoulos (“Strepsa:
A Reconsideration”, p. 42), I do not hold that this link of the mythical Archelaus with Aegae
supports a connection between the real Archelaus and Aegae as his capital. Euripides pro-
bably created the association because Aegae, as the original capital, was suitable for a
founding myth.
10. Harder (p. 125) puts the production of Archelaus in 408/7. By one tradition Euripides
was torn apart at Pella by Archelaus’s hunting dogs, by another he met the same fate from
sheep dogs at Bormiscus (recounted in Steph. Byz. s.v. “Bormiskos”, and accepted without
comment by Hammond, Hist. of Mace. II 139), and by a third at Arethousa (also accepted
by Hammond, Hist. of Mace. 1 196 and II 160 and 162, wherein is also presented the testi-
monia for Euripides’s burial in Macedonia). For the poet-dying-by-violence theme as a
literary topos, see Mary Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (Baltimore 1981) 96-97.
240 Eugene N. Borza

frontier, the rather shoddy alloyed coinage of Perdiccas IT gives way to good
silver of weights designed to promote foreign trade, standards that would
remain in effect until the reign of Philip 1111. A number of obverse devices
support the legendary apparatus: for example, the increasing use of the head
of Heracles, the Temenid ancestor; the use of a young male head, perhaps
the mythical Archelaus or (later) Caranus; and the revival of the goat-head
motif, connecting Archelaus with the founding of Aegae. While the best silver
coinage was, as usual, reserved for foreign exchange—the object of its pro-
paganda value—the first Macedonian issues of bronze coinage appear under
Archelaus, suggesting an increasingly complex economic diversity requiring
the use of coinage for local circulation. Finally, all Macedonian regal coins
commencing with Archelaus’s issues bear the king’s name. The coins, there-
fore, provide evidence not only of Argead foundation legends, but also of
the increasing status and power of the monarchy itself.
At Dion Archelaus instituted a festival to Zeus, including “Olympian
games” and dramatic contests in honor of Zeus and the Muses!?. Archaeolo-
gists have yet to recover the site of the contests, but the excavation of this
large city and sanctuary is just in its early stages, having produced impressive
monuments from the Roman era, but only sporadic finds from earlier periods.
Nevertheless, the quality of the fourth-century epigraphical materials, bronzes,
sculpture and votive figures on display in the splendid museum at Dion,
together with the promise shown by Professor Pandermalis’s careful excava-
tions there, suggest that Dion may yet prove to be among the richest Macedo-

11. Colin Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coinage (London 1976) 119 and 144, and
nos. 505, 507-508: Hammond, Hist. of Mace. II 138; and M. B. Hatzopoulos and L. B.
Loukopoulos, eds., Philip of Macedon (Athens 1980) 28 (illustration of an Archelaus goat
stater). But it must be emphasized that the propaganda valve of Archelaus’s coinage, like
Derdiccas’s and Alexander's before him, is matched by its economic significance; see Borza,
In the Shadow of Olympus, p. 127.
12. Diod. 17.16.3-4 and Arr. 1.11.1. Arrian, perhaps mistakenly, puts the festival at
Aegae; here I follow A. B. Bosworth, “Errors in Arrian”, CQ n.s. (1976) 119-21, and A
Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander the Great I (Cambridge 1988) 97,
rather than Hammond, Hist. of Mace. 11 150-51, and M. B. Hatzopoulos, “The Oleveni
Inscription and the Dates of Philip Il’s Reign”, W. L. Adams and E. N. Borza, eds., Philip
II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage (Washington, D.C. 1982) 39-41. I do
not, however, regard the matter as closed. The literary testimonia for Dion's importance as
a religious sanctuary for Zeus is collected in Werner Baege, De Macedonium Sacris, Dis-
sertationes Philologicae Halenses 22 (1913) 10-12. An inscription (Tod 6Η, no. 158, 1. 9)
describing an alliance between Philip II and the Chalcidians (356 B.C.) stipulates that the
treaty shall be published in Dion at the sanctuary of Zeus, thereby testifying to the site's
importance in the time of Philip.
 The philhellenism of Archelaus 241

nian sites, probably a major center of religious activity for the period commen-
cing with the reign of Archelaus—a Macedonian Olympia.
Why Archelaus would wish to establish his own Olympian festival—or
“court«r-Olympics,” as one scholar has put it—? is an issue that gets to the
heart of Archelaus’s philhellenic policy. Perhaps he encouraged an Olympian
festival as part of his general program of philhellenic embellishments in Mace-
don, with a peculiarly Macedonian character, that is, a celebration honoring
Zeus at a place called “Dion”, located at the doorstep of the abode of the
gods. Yet one wonders why someone interested in establishing himself as a
Greck would risk antagonizing other Greeks by founding what might be per-
ceived as a competitor for the most famous panhellenic festival at Olympia.
Not unless, of course, Archelaus, as a Macedonian, was not permitted to
participate in the real Olympic Games, and was forced to initiate his own
celebration in which Macedonians might compete.
Now, it is problematic whether or not Archelaus intended his Olympian
‘festival to compete with the regular celebration at Olympia, for the games
at Dion may have been an outgrowth of an existing local festival, and there
are parallels among Hellenistic kings who founded local festivals for their
own sake, not as competitors for panhellenic events!*. We cannot know
Archelaus’s intent, but it strikes one as odd that—the matter of competition
with the Olympic Games aside—the king would either found or enlarge a
festival to Zeus (Zeus festivals were rare) that would clearly be held in low
esteem when compared with Olympia. Unless, of course, he needed an impor-
tant arena in which to engage in the agonistic activities that traditionally
characterized Greek culture. For it appears that Greeks remained unpersuaded
of the Greek descent of the Argeadae, and Archelaus was thereby prohibited
from competing at the Olympic festival. It seems that no Macedonian king
before Philip II participated in panhellenic games'®. That Philip was able to

13. For a stimulating analysis of Archelaus’s activity at Dion; see E. Badian, “Greeks
and Macedonians”, B. Barr-Sharrar and E. N. Borza, eds., Macedonia and Greece in Late
Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Studies in the History of Art 10 (Washington, D.C.
1982) 35.
14. I had argued in the oral presentation of this paper a view also presented in my In the
Shadow of Olympus (p. 174), that the Dion Olympics were intended to compete directly with
the panhellenic games at Olympia. But further thought, prompted by helpful comments
from the floor by Nicholas Hammond and Kostas Buraselis, has caused me to modify some-
what that earlier opinion, and I welcome the opportunity here both to present a revised ver-
sion and to thank my colleagues for their assistance.
15. Solinus 9.16 attests that Archelaus competed at Olympia and Delphi, winning the
four-horse chariot race, a source accepted by Hammond, Hist. of Mace. II 150, without com-
16
242 Eugene N. Borza

do so is testimony as much to his overwhelming political skills backed by for-

midable military power than to any acceptance by the Greeks of his Hellenic
ancestry.
It may thus be possible to reconstruct Archelaus’s policy of philhellenism
from this fragmentary evidence. That he wished a closer relationship with
the Greek world is certain. The sole surviving document from his reign is an
inscription that describes Archelaus supplying timber to Athens". This
evidence attests to the peaceful and profitable link developed with that city.
Whether his intervention in Thessaly late in his reign was an attempt to as-
sume an equal station in the councils of Greek powers, or whether it was pri-
marily a means of securing his southern frontier as a military necessity, is
a matter of interpretation. His coinage and the adornment of Pella testify
both to his acceptance and exploitation of philhellenism and to his self-pro-
claimed status as a strong monarch. The embellishment of the myth about
the Argive origins of the Macedonian royal family is perhaps the clearest
indication of Archelaus’s desire to establish his Greek credentials. That is not
to say that by Archelaus’s time the Argeadae did not believe the story—pro-
bably they did. But the Greeks did not.
Although Archelaus had been successful in luring some Greeks to con-
tribute to the Hellenic imagery at Pella, and while he skillfully maintained a
mutually beneficial diplomatic and economic relationship with Athens, he
continued to suffer a poor reputation among many late-fifth and early fourth-
century Athenians. As we have seen, Euripides and others had become
Archelaus’s clients in Macedon. Thucydides may have accepted a similar
invitation to enrich the Macedonian king’s court!”, but, according to Ari-
stotle (Rh. 1398a.24), Socrates had refused. Aristophanes (Frogs 85) mocked
one of those who had chosen to join the banqueting in Macedon, and a tradi-
tion related by Athenaeus (345D) tells of the poet Choerilus who wasted on
luxuries and food the large sums lavished on him by Archelaus.

ment. Badian (“Greeks and Macedonians”, pp. 35 and 46, n. 16) has called attention to
several extraordinary claims made by Solinus, and has argued persuasively for the rejection
of this evidence. On Alexander I's alleged participation in the Olympic Games as a reflec-
tion of Alexander's own propaganda, see Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, pp. 111-112.
16. IG 15. 117 (Meiggs and Lewis, GH/, πο. 91), supported by Andoc. 2.11 and Ar.
Lysist. 421-23; see also E. N. Borza, “Timber and Politics in the Ancient World: Macedon
and the Greeks”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 131 (1987) 32-52, and
Michael B. Walbank, Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century B.C. (Toronto and Sarasota
1978), no. 90.
17. Following Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, “Die Thukydideslegende”, Hermes
12 (1877) 353-56.
 The philhellenism of Archelaus 243

That is, Archelaus’s patronage may have become a philosophical and

literary issue in Athens: the foreign king who had murdered his way to the
throne and was attempting to redeem some civility by bribing notable Greeks
to adorn his city and court. Probably there were those in Athens who were
jealous of the opportunities for personal advancement offered to some of
their contemporaries, but there was also a genuine underlying disgust at what
Archelaus seemed to represent. The moralists in Athens had a field day,
portraying Archelaus as the ideally bad man, as contrasted with the ideally
good Socrates who had refused to become a client at the Macedonian court™.
And it cannot have gone unnoticed among those seeking sophistic parallels
that Socrates and Archelaus died in the same year, 399.
To emphasize the contrast between Socrates and those tied to Macedon,
the moralist Antisthenes roundly condemned the sophist Gorgias (who was
the antithesis of Socrates) for having tutored the prominent Thessalian clan,
the Aleuadae, at that time friends of Archelaus!®. Perhaps the popular tradi-
tions that relate how Euripides was torn apart by Archelaus’s dogs (as opposed
to anonymous Macedonian canines) is an extension of the hostile tradition.
One comes to appreciate even more Plato’s withering account of Archelaus’s
accession to the throne when seen against the backdrop of such rhetorical
enmity®°. Whether Archelaus was troubled by his evil reputation among some
Athenians, or was even aware of it, is a matter best left to speculation. But it
is clear—his notoriety not withstanding—that Archelaus was able to create
a veneer of Greek culture by purchasing the services of some notable Athe-
nians.
If the contemporary attitudes of Greeks mean anything—as measured, for
example, by Thrasymachus’s comment, the prohibition of Macedonian parti-
cipation in panhellenic competition and the attacks on those associated with
Archelaus—many Greeks were not persuaded of Archelaus’s Greek origins
and may not have welcomed his attempts to introduce Hellenism into his court
through the patronage of Greek artists, thinkers and writers. What the Greek
refusal meant to Archelaus is uncertain. One is tempted to speculate that
Archelaus’s intervention in Thessaly was intended to demonstrate that the
Greek rejection of Macedon’s Hellenism was irrelevant before the power
of Macedonian arms. If true, Archelaus anticipated Philip II in this regard.
Hammond has rightly argued there is no evidence to suggest that

18. See E. R. Dodds, Plato. Gorgias: A Revised Text and Commentary (Oxford 1979) 241.
19. Athen. 2200; H. T. Wade-Gery, “Kritias and Herodes”, CQ 39 (1945) 25, n. 4.
20. Gorgias 471a-c, with Dodds’s commentary (above).
244 Eugene N. Borza

Archelaus intended that Macedon enter the larger world as a Greek power.
One might add that all the symbols—the coinage, the importation of Greek
culture, the Macedonian Olympic festival, the overtures to Athens, and the
stories of the Argead’s Hellenic ancestry—are the signs not of one who
exists in a fawning servitude before Greek culture, but of one who is indepen-
dent, and does not wish to be rejected as yet another barbarian. It was not
recognition as a Hellene that Archelaus wanted, but respect. Greek culture
was perceived in the West as a standard by which civilized people measured
their accomplishments. The adoption of that culture was one means of
achieving respect, and if that failed there always remained the use of force.

Department of History
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
U.S.A,