During the next fifteen years the wisdom of the great historians was proved right. Herodotus' old belief in 'pride before a fall' was promptly confirmed by Sparta's eclipse, as was Thucydides' shrewd perception that in inter-state relations, 'justice' is the plea of the weak when they lack the power to enforce their own interest. Despite the King's Peace of 386, the Spartans condoned gratuitous raids on Thebes and Athens. They also went northwards, by request, on an expedition to restore the endangered king of the Macedonians. Each move would return to haunt them. In 379 the Thebans threw out the garrison which the Spartans had imposed on them and turned democratic and fiercely anti-Spartan instead. By spring 377 the weakened Athenians were pleading justice and inviting Greek allies to join a new anti-Spartan 'Confederacy' which would avoid the perceived grievances of the Athenians' years of 'Empire'. The 'Confederacy' was a great success, and within two years more than seventy allies had joined it. As for the Macedonian king, his rule was restored, thanks to Sparta, but forty years later, first King Philip of Macedon, then Alexander the Great would be explicitly anti-Spartan; their diplomacy and campaigning would isolate Sparta even more in Greece. With hindsight, the Spartans ought to have ignored the Macedonians' pleas.

No city-state in Greece wanted war for war's sake, and the Spartans' dominance caused their own downfall. A raid on the Piraeus had outraged Athens in the 370s and Spartan troops continued, too, to challenge a hostile Thebes, who was expanding meanwhile within her own confederacy of neighbours. In 371 the turning point came. After trying to stop the Thebans' local expansion yet again, the Spartans lost a cardinal land battle at Leuctra against a deeply packed Theban line. Their king was caught with his cavalry in front of his infantry, condemning the Spartans to their worst ever defeat. People said later that the G.o.ds and omens had been against Sparta and that the battle had been fought near a site where Spartan soldiers had raped young virgin sisters in the legendary past.2 If so, the rape victims took a fine revenge. If so, the rape victims took a fine revenge.

The consequences were pursued immediately by citizens in the southern Greek communities which Sparta had terrorized for centuries. In winter 370 the able Theban general Epaminondas was invited across the Isthmus and was able to realize the long-held dream of Sparta's enemies by invading the Spartan homeland itself. Two great goods came out of Sparta's defeat. The Messenians, their Greek neighbours, could at last regroup themselves as a free Greek community, a status which they had been denied for some three hundred and fifty years. Their days of serfdom, or helotage, were over and to emphasize it they built stupendous defensive walls, a.s.sets which Spartans had always detested. The Arcadians, meanwhile, resolved on the building of a new 'Great City' (Megalopolis) into which the surrounding villages were forcibly merged. There were local protesters, but the 'Great City' became the centre of another long-held dream, an 'Arcadian League'. The Arcadians had been seeking one for at least a hundred and fifty years. The separate towns of Arcadia were all to join it, although local rivalries and factions beset its foundation. The League was to have a big a.s.sembly (the 'Myriad', probably including all male Arcadian citizens); Arcadian oligarchs, so long supported by Sparta, were most unhappy with it. For six years the League was a democratic force, maintaining a big army (the 'Select') from its member-cities' funds. After 370 Spartan power was severely damaged by it, to the greater freedom and justice of most of her long-suffering Greek neighbours.

Fittingly, Epaminondas was commemorated in the Arcadia which he had helped to free. It was there that his tomb was admired by the Emperor Hadrian on his tour through southern Greece. Near Mantinea, Hadrian saw a pillar engraved with a serpent and learned that it honoured Epaminondas' n.o.ble family: he was descended from the legendary sons of the dragon's teeth with which Thebes' mythical founder, Cadmus, was supposed to have sown the city's fields. No doubt the boy-loving Hadrian also appreciated the nearby tomb: it commemorated Epaminondas' boy-lover. Perhaps he also discovered that Epaminondas' victories had been helped by a famous h.o.m.oerotic unit, the Thebans' 'Sacred Band' of 300 infantrymen who were bound together by h.o.m.oerotic pairing. The merits of 'gays in the army' had been discussed by Greeks at least since the time of Socrates.3 They had also been exemplified individually in the Spartans' own ranks. But the Sacred Band made s.e.x between males a necessity. They had also been exemplified individually in the Spartans' own ranks. But the Sacred Band made s.e.x between males a necessity.

What Hadrian did not understand was that the Thebans and Epaminondas were not the ideal champions whom Greek freedom and justice might have hoped for. The Thebans were not allowed by other Greeks to forget that their ancestors had cravenly taken the Persian side in the invasion of 480 BC BC. On their own doorstep, they had recently destroyed one Greek city (Plataea, in 373) and then damaged three more, all within her Confederacy. They were hardly more palatable to the Athenians than the old enemy, the Spartans, and they had the disadvantage of being much nearer to the Athenian frontier. After much hesitation, the Athenians set aside old prejudice, allied themselves with Sparta in 369 BC BC and used this alliance as a counter-weight to the Thebans throughout the 360s. Their rivalry was played out in the north (including Macedon, a source of ship-timber), the Aegean (where a Theban fleet tried to support oligarchic opposition to Athens) and in southern Greece. In 362 a big battle at Mantinea saw Epaminondas' death and no clear-cut winner, leaving 'confusion and indecision' in Greek affairs. and used this alliance as a counter-weight to the Thebans throughout the 360s. Their rivalry was played out in the north (including Macedon, a source of ship-timber), the Aegean (where a Theban fleet tried to support oligarchic opposition to Athens) and in southern Greece. In 362 a big battle at Mantinea saw Epaminondas' death and no clear-cut winner, leaving 'confusion and indecision' in Greek affairs.4 These decades may seem a melancholy failure, in which Greeks could not unite despite their awareness of their shared G.o.ds, their shared language and a common ethnicity. Yet there were valid obstacles to unity, and the urge for peace was not gone. Repeatedly, settlements of Greek affairs were attempted, at first with the backing of the Persian king. The king, Artaxerxes II, had his own reasons for wanting peace: he needed Greeks to be free to serve him as mercenaries in his attempts to reconquer rebellious Egypt. When the king's proposals became too partisan, there were attempts at forming a 'Common Peace' among Greeks without him. There was also a continuing faith in arbitration as a solution to Greek communities' long-standing disputes. However, valuable territory was often at issue in these conflicts, as was the greater freedom (for male citizens) of a democratic life. For democracy shared financial burdens more equitably between citizens: it meant that all male citizens were consulted before being committed to a war. Under an oligarchy the laws might be said to be 'equal' for all citizens, but under a democracy, they were more likely to be equitably applied. When the Spartans' oligarchic stranglehold broke up in southern Greece, democracy was realized in Arcadia, offered in Achaea and feared once again in Corinth. There was no question of it being discredited or in retreat in the fourth century. Political theorists did discuss the merits of a 'mixed' const.i.tution, as if elements of an aristocracy, an oligarchy and a democracy could somehow be blended into the best of all three. These theories were quite impractical (a state is either completely democratic, or not at all) and made no mark on real life. True democracy still aroused the strongest political pa.s.sions among actual citizen-bodies. In Argos in the 370s, existing democrats indulged in a fearful act of 'Clubbing' during which they attacked the rich in the city and left 1,200 citizens dead in civil conflict. Nearly a hundred and fifty years after Cleisthenes had proposed democracy in order to avoid renewed faction-fighting, democracy was being propelled by open conflict between cla.s.ses. For in this period there was a real cla.s.s-struggle within the citizen-bodies. It was not a struggle between citizens and slaves. It was one between poor citizens and the rich. Poorer citizens used democracy against the rich, but a real desire for justice impelled these fights, not just greed or simple revenge.

Among such mayhem, respect for the G.o.ds might seem to be on the wane. In the fourth century Greek sculptors took the bold step of representing G.o.ddesses as topless or naked females; oaths were broken bewilderingly on the inter-state stage. After so much theatre about the mythical past, were the myths really so believable? But in fact, the traditional G.o.ds were still a.s.sumed to be as active in the fray as ever. They received vows and sacrifices before battle, and afterwards they still took a share of the spoils. Far and wide they still gave oracles, even though the Delphic shrine of Apollo had been ruined by fire and earthquake in 373 BC BC. There was not a growing disbelief; there was flexibility, as ever, in manoeuvring human actions and decisions within their divine framework. As ever, omens from the G.o.ds were variously interpreted and although the festival-seasons were often a time of truce, it was nothing new when they were exploited by Greek generals. A temple's treasures were supposed to be sacrosanct, but nonetheless they could be 'borrowed' on loan to finance a war, just as Periclean Athens had 'borrowed' from the G.o.ddess Athena to finance the great war. None of this casuistry was a new G.o.dlessness: rather, it presupposed that the old divine framework was still valid. So far from becoming pretty legends, the myths and the distant heroes continued to be advanced as compelling diplomatic claims and as sound reasons for alliances between Greek states.

To an outside eye, what changed most from the 370s on was the apparent eclipsing of a single polis polis, or community, as the focus of political life. For, on the surface, these decades appear to be an era of Leagues and Confederacies, something which Hadrian would have understood, as he later promoted Leagues again in Greece. Before and after Leuctra the Spartans relied on the support of their 'Peloponnesian alliance' whose members were mostly ruled by convenient oligarchies. From 377 onwards the Athenians led their large new Confederacy of allies against Sparta. In the 370s the Thebans managed to dominate the votes on the inner council of the long-proven Boeotian Confederacy; in the 360s they perhaps imitated the Athenians and began a new 'League' for their allies outside Boeotia. The Spartans' decline in the 360s led to the new League in Arcadia and also to other confederacies in Achaea and Aetolia; the longer-standing Leagues in Thessaly and even in Epirus in north-west Greece become visible or more prominent in our evidence. Together, these Leagues refute the temptation to see this era as a proof of the menace of little warring Greek city-states. As genuine confederacies, most of these alliances were made up of a central decision-making body and separate decision-making communities. In Arcadia, the a.s.sembly of the 'Myriad' met in its special building (the 'Thersilion') and chose magistrates from the member-communities who, initially, paid the costs of the League's 'Select' military force. Athenians, by contrast, discussed or voted on proposals which were pa.s.sed to their existing city-a.s.sembly by a separate 'parliament', made up of delegates from their allies. The representative councils of these confederacies were all rather different from the democratic practice of one vote, one adult male in a single city-a.s.sembly.

Nonetheless, they were not superstates which marked the end of the polis polis as a political unit. Like the Athenian a.s.sembly, the a.s.semblies of the Arcadian or Boeotian member-cities continued to meet and take decisions too. They continued to fear internal faction or the attack of a fellow confederate member, not least one by the ever-aggressive Thebans. The same mainstays of Greek political life continued vigorously: civic oaths and civic magistracies, debates about new citizens and debates about financial contributions to be paid by individuals. In 363, after only six years of existence, the unity of the Arcadian League fractured on the decision of some of its magistrates to pay the League army by 'borrowing' funds from Olympia, rather than by exacting payments from the member-states. as a political unit. Like the Athenian a.s.sembly, the a.s.semblies of the Arcadian or Boeotian member-cities continued to meet and take decisions too. They continued to fear internal faction or the attack of a fellow confederate member, not least one by the ever-aggressive Thebans. The same mainstays of Greek political life continued vigorously: civic oaths and civic magistracies, debates about new citizens and debates about financial contributions to be paid by individuals. In 363, after only six years of existence, the unity of the Arcadian League fractured on the decision of some of its magistrates to pay the League army by 'borrowing' funds from Olympia, rather than by exacting payments from the member-states.

Through the ancients' own narrative histories, we continue to know this era for the names of famous individuals, Epaminondas the Theban or Jason the Thessalian (active there until 370 BC BC) or Agesilaus the Spartan king. But it is quite wrong to see these men as signs of a new age of individualism. Each of them held office in their home communities and remained locally accountable to them. 'Community' was not breaking down before a drift into superstates or a new era of great men. The struggle, at bottom, was still about freedom and justice and their interpretation, without an Athens rich enough to support the majority view or a Sparta strong enough to suppress it in her own interest.

17.

Women and Children When a woman's womb moves up towards her head and suffocation occurs there, her head becomes heavy... One symptom is that the woman says that the veins in her nose and beneath her eyes are hurting her and she becomes sleepy and when this condition is improved, she foams at the mouth.You should wash her all over with hot water and if she does not improve, with cold... Rub her head with the scent of roses and use sweet-scented fumigations beneath her v.a.g.i.n.a, but foully scented ones at her nose. She should eat cabbage and drink cabbage-juice.

Hippocratic doctor, Diseases of Women Diseases of Women 2.126 2.126 (fourth century BC) When a husband and wife are at odds with one another, they are much more likely to be reconciled for the sake of their children than to detest the children they have had together because of the wrongs they have done to one another.

Demosthenes, speech against Boeotus, 39.23 (348 BC) Women and children were not exempted from the wars in the fourth-century Greek world. When their city was taken by siege, their fate was to be killed or sold into slavery. There was no mercy during an invasion for non-combatants, either. In 364 BC BC the Thebans simply enslaved and sold all the women and children whom they captured in little Orchomenus. We can well see why city-states would try to send off their women and children (and livestock) to a place of safety during war: in 431 the Thebans simply enslaved and sold all the women and children whom they captured in little Orchomenus. We can well see why city-states would try to send off their women and children (and livestock) to a place of safety during war: in 431 BC BC, the Plataeans evacuated their women, children and non-combatants to Athens before the siege which is so vividly described by Thucydides.

Spartans apart, a love of children and an affectionate family life were prominent, in my view, in Greek city-states. Extreme modern theories that parental calculation prevailed and that there was a reluctance to invest love in children who were so likely to die young are refuted by the images, texts and dramas of our best sources, those from fifth- and fourth-century Athens. Representations of a child and a parent are shown (admittedly, rarely) on painted Attic pottery from the late fifth century BC BC onwards. There is a loving poignancy to many of the Attic grave-reliefs and the inscriptions for children who have died young. It is hard to miss the force of the painting on a white-figured Athenian oil flask, to be set at the tomb, which shows pathos and parental love in its scene of a young child in the boat of the waiting ferryman of the underworld, the child holding out its hands to a fondly gazing mother on the far bank. onwards. There is a loving poignancy to many of the Attic grave-reliefs and the inscriptions for children who have died young. It is hard to miss the force of the painting on a white-figured Athenian oil flask, to be set at the tomb, which shows pathos and parental love in its scene of a young child in the boat of the waiting ferryman of the underworld, the child holding out its hands to a fondly gazing mother on the far bank.1 There are images of a mother looking on at a young baby wriggling happily in its high chair or of a child crawling towards its mother, watched (in my view, with pleasure) by a man, surely its father, as it sets off on its course. These scenes, and others, imply a public who enjoyed children. They were not only mothers: fathers are represented too, never better than in the character-sketches of the wry philosopher Theophrastus of Athens, who describes how the 'obsequious man' is a man who plays excessively with other people's children, while the 'talkative man' is so endlessly talkative that his children, even, will call to him to come at bedtime and talk to them so that they will fall asleep. Of course individuals varied, as nowadays. When Aristophanes represents Dicaeopolis, his cussed rustic of an Athenian, taking a s.e.xual interest in his own daughter, he is meaning that we should laugh at the man's ghastliness. Publicly, too, fathers were expected to be much more than unloving absentees. The orator Aeschines could attack the orator Demosthenes before an Athenian jury for his supposed callousness about his daughter's death: 'the man who hates children,' he goes on, 'the bad father, would never be a trustworthy leader of the people.' There are images of a mother looking on at a young baby wriggling happily in its high chair or of a child crawling towards its mother, watched (in my view, with pleasure) by a man, surely its father, as it sets off on its course. These scenes, and others, imply a public who enjoyed children. They were not only mothers: fathers are represented too, never better than in the character-sketches of the wry philosopher Theophrastus of Athens, who describes how the 'obsequious man' is a man who plays excessively with other people's children, while the 'talkative man' is so endlessly talkative that his children, even, will call to him to come at bedtime and talk to them so that they will fall asleep. Of course individuals varied, as nowadays. When Aristophanes represents Dicaeopolis, his cussed rustic of an Athenian, taking a s.e.xual interest in his own daughter, he is meaning that we should laugh at the man's ghastliness. Publicly, too, fathers were expected to be much more than unloving absentees. The orator Aeschines could attack the orator Demosthenes before an Athenian jury for his supposed callousness about his daughter's death: 'the man who hates children,' he goes on, 'the bad father, would never be a trustworthy leader of the people.'2There were a.s.sumptions, here, which an orator could exploit.

In Athenian citizen-households, the father decided if a new-born child was to live: he would run round the hearth carrying it on the fifth day of its life, in a ceremony called the Amphidromia. On the tenth day the child would usually be named. Aristotle remarks that parents waited for ten days because so many children died meanwhile. Modern estimates of the average losses tend to be high, as high as half of all babies born. Nonetheless, in some Greek states (but not all), exposure of unwanted children was freely practised. The exposed ones might sometimes be picked up by others and brought up as slaves, and so cast-offs tended to be exposed in public places, as if hoping to be 'found': girls were more frequently exposed than boys.

Like other social transitions, the stages of an Athenian child's life can be attached to Athenian festivals. In their third year, children attended a day of February's Anthesteria festival. They had their first taste of wine, and we still have some of the drinking-mugs, with children shown on them, which marked the occasion. For citizen-born boys, the focus then became the autumn festival of the phratries, or 'brotherhoods', which would enrol them in due course as citizens. Fathers would take them along to be introduced to members (and to show that they were legitimate, not sons by a slave-girl). There would be a sacrifice, called the 'lesser', when the boy was perhaps only five or six, and then one for the cutting of his hair, when the boy was eighteen and old enough to be a full citizen. Contacts with the phratry were therefore spread out across the boy's years of change in childhood.

b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, obviously, were known to pose problems, of which children born to two citizens out of wedlock were the least. If the mother was married to somebody else, she would probably pa.s.s off such a child as her husband's; if not, she would abort it. In a slave-society, however, masters or their sons were also quite likely to father a child on a slave-girl; if the child was not aborted, it would be left to follow its mother's status and be a slave. The complications were greater if a citizen-male fathered a child on a metic or non-citizen foreigner. If the mother was a prost.i.tute, she would be expected to abort it (it would ruin her future livelihood). Otherwise, the child would surely become a metic too. For b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, with one citizen-parent, were not members of a phratry nor were they eligible for Athenian citizenship. They are said, however, to have had a particular 'gym' for their exercise, connected with the shrine of Heracles at Cynosarges outside the city-gate. Comic poets made fun of this site and have probably complicated our evidence for it. Heracles was a 'b.a.s.t.a.r.d', too, fathered by Zeus on a mortal mother.3 Whether b.a.s.t.a.r.ds or not, girls were not presented to phratries: they would never be full citizens. A few of them, however, could look forward to a role as a servant of the G.o.ds. Here, the most prestigious were the arrhephoroi arrhephoroi, up to four citizen-born girls between the ages of seven and eleven who lived on the Acropolis, served the civic G.o.ddess Athena and probably helped to weave her great ceremonial robe. Ritually, the girls played at ball and then went to and fro with mysterious baskets on their heads to a shrine of Aphrodite in the garden below, approached by a tunnel. This rite was only for a very few, whereas all young girls of citizen-birth (probably) engaged for a while in a splendid rite of transition known as the arkteia arkteia. Between the ages of five and ten, they would play at being 'bears', possibly to symbolize their wild immature nature, which was to be tamed in due course by men and marriage. Little cups, dedicated to Artemis, give us an impression of this ritual: the young girls are shown running naked, while a bear is sketched too. A main centre of the rite was Artemis' temple at Brauron in east Attica, the site which has left us the visual evidence, although the details are so uncertain.

Four or five years after playing at 'bears' Athenian girls would be married. Girls were not formally educated in schools (in the cla.s.sical period, at least) and any reading which they picked up would be learned in a household, from mothers (perhaps) or, in richer households, from literate slaves: girls might go to each other's houses for the sake of it. Boys, however, would be educated, usually beginning at seven and going on at least to fourteen; their teaching included writing, reading (including the reading of poets) and music and athletics. The city-state did not provide teachers, but small fee-paying schools were probably a familiar feature throughout Attica. Richer families maintained slave-tutors too. In due course, young men would marry, but marriage for men tends to be recommended at quite a late age, between twenty-five and thirty. Until then, young men could satisfy their hormones by using slave-prost.i.tutes, who charged all sorts of prices (a woman bending over is implied, in a comic scene, to be the cheapest position, whereas a 'woman on top' was the most expensive4). They could try slave-girls in their father's households, or a more permanent slave-courtesan (or a share in one); they also had one another. On painted pottery the dominant image of male s.e.x is still s.e.x between an older man and a young, scarcely p.u.b.ertal boy. The implication is that boys would first submit to male s.e.x, but then grow up and do it to others. But male s.e.x between boys of the same age was surely also frequent.

For Athenian citizen-women, who married young, life in a well-off household was sheltered and protected. The 'polis-males' had their 'men's room' for their drinking-parties; women had their 'women's quarters' where they spent much time with the children and female slaves. Certainly, nothing had relaxed for Athenian women in the fourth century. They were still under the guardianship of their nearest male relative (their important kyrios kyrios) throughout their lives; their marriages and remarriages were governed by strict rules of family inheritance, while their economic dealings were limited to contracts up to the simple value of a bushel of barley. In my view (and that of some arguable ancient sources), they could attend the theatre-festivals, but they were never actresses playing the female parts.

However, women in Attica were a broad and varied category. There were not just the many widowed and remarried women: divorce was possible, both for the male and female partner. There was also the majority of citizen-wives, the poor who had to work. Inside their houses, respectable Athenian women would engage in spinning wool or supervise the wet-nurse to whom many of them handed their babies. They would often wear a veil, a thin one, to judge from the many Greek words for such a covering, although the veil could be pulled up or to one side. In the lower cla.s.ses, however, women worked outside, came out onto the streets and were not confined.

Beside the citizens, too, there was the world of the hetaira hetaira, or courtesan. It is not one to be romanticized, as hetairai hetairai were usually slaves. From around 340 were usually slaves. From around 340 BC BC we have our single most vivid insight into its undergrowth, a speech delivered to an Athenian jury against the activities and family of a former pract.i.tioner, Neaera. It shows us how men might buy shares in a we have our single most vivid insight into its undergrowth, a speech delivered to an Athenian jury against the activities and family of a former pract.i.tioner, Neaera. It shows us how men might buy shares in a hetaira hetaira and use her by turns ( and use her by turns (hetairai were mostly slaves); similar contracts were also struck for young rent-boys. We should enjoy, but discount, the speech's more disreputable stories, especially the one about group s.e.x at a dinner-party in a temple-sanctuary in south-east Attica. The more important items of the context are that the Athenian speaker names Neaera openly (a good Athenian wife was always the 'wife of...', in speech) and that this extremely twisted and manipulated case was being brought against a woman who was well over fifty years old and bore no resemblance to the unbridled 'tart' of its innuendoes. It was all a male prosecutor's attempt to humiliate a political male rival who was a.s.sociated with her. were mostly slaves); similar contracts were also struck for young rent-boys. We should enjoy, but discount, the speech's more disreputable stories, especially the one about group s.e.x at a dinner-party in a temple-sanctuary in south-east Attica. The more important items of the context are that the Athenian speaker names Neaera openly (a good Athenian wife was always the 'wife of...', in speech) and that this extremely twisted and manipulated case was being brought against a woman who was well over fifty years old and bore no resemblance to the unbridled 'tart' of its innuendoes. It was all a male prosecutor's attempt to humiliate a political male rival who was a.s.sociated with her.

Even in fourth-century Athens, we have no first-hand surviving evidence of conversations between husband and wife. Like children, wives were certainly loved by Athenian husbands, and the more scandalous demi-monde demi-monde which is evoked against Neaera must not be taken as the norm. Other sources tell us how it was bad form to frequent 'courtesans' when married, let alone to keep one in the matrimonial home. What we do not know is the tone of malefemale relations in Athenian households: were upper-cla.s.s wives really so submissive as idealizing male texts imply? which is evoked against Neaera must not be taken as the norm. Other sources tell us how it was bad form to frequent 'courtesans' when married, let alone to keep one in the matrimonial home. What we do not know is the tone of malefemale relations in Athenian households: were upper-cla.s.s wives really so submissive as idealizing male texts imply?

There is also the problem of how typical these women were of other Greek city-states, except for the contrarian Spartans. At Locris, in south Italy, women were said to have held real power and to have pa.s.sed inheritances down the female line (in my view, this ancient 'mirage' is most unlikely). In the mid-third century BC BC a traveller in Greece describes how women at Thebes were veiled, so much so that only their eyes were visible: we even have examples of this attire, in a few of the terracotta figurines of women, known as 'Tanagras', some of which were found at Thebes. a traveller in Greece describes how women at Thebes were veiled, so much so that only their eyes were visible: we even have examples of this attire, in a few of the terracotta figurines of women, known as 'Tanagras', some of which were found at Thebes.5 Had a similar style been imposed on women by the male 'Boeotian pigs' (the Athenians' name for them) already in the fourth century Had a similar style been imposed on women by the male 'Boeotian pigs' (the Athenians' name for them) already in the fourth century BC BC? The Athenians' strict insistence on a citizen's birth from two citizen-born parents was very important for their sense of cohesion and civic ident.i.ty, but it, too, was not the norm in most other Greek city-states. Up in the north of Greece, there are mothers who look even less 'Athenian'. In the Molossian kingdom in Epirus, two fourth-century decrees actually bestow citizenship on a woman: perhaps as a monarchy, the state had different criteria.6 In its neighbour, the Macedonian kingdom, the relations of wives, husbands and children had a much more dramatic character. In its neighbour, the Macedonian kingdom, the relations of wives, husbands and children had a much more dramatic character.

The Macedonian kings were polygamous and, as we shall see, their history would be coloured for centuries by the consequences. In the 390s the ruling king, Amyntas III, took a second wife, Eurydice. She was alleged, at least, to have attempted to kill her husband and to have cohabited with her own daughter's husband. She was also credited with killing two of her three sons.7 These extreme stories do at least point to the potential tensions in a polygamous royal family, whether all, part or none of them is justified. But her third son, certainly, lived in the world in which they circulated. He was Philip, the future king of Macedon and father of Alexander. Family tensions were as much a part of his formation as of his son's, and they were carried to most un-Athenian lengths, matched only on the Athenians' tragic stage. These extreme stories do at least point to the potential tensions in a polygamous royal family, whether all, part or none of them is justified. But her third son, certainly, lived in the world in which they circulated. He was Philip, the future king of Macedon and father of Alexander. Family tensions were as much a part of his formation as of his son's, and they were carried to most un-Athenian lengths, matched only on the Athenians' tragic stage.

18.

Philip of Macedon Philip despised those who were of an orderly character and took care of their own property, but he praised and honoured those who were extravagant and spent their lives in playing dice and drinking... Were not some of them shaven and smooth-skinned even when they were adult men, while others dared to mount one another and have s.e.x even though they had beards? They used to take around two or three male prost.i.tutes each, and themselves give the same services to others. Justly, then, would someone suppose them to be 'courtesans' not 'court-Companions'...

Theopompus F225 B (Jacoby), after his time at Philip's Pella Down to the 350s there were many changes in inter-state relations in Greece, but no great surprise emerged from an unforeseen corner. Within twenty years, however, the freedom of the Greeks would have a new master, a king of Macedon, who ruled beyond Mount Olympus in the north of Greece. The unexpected dominance of Macedon would far exceed that of Periclean Athens and would persist for more than a hundred and seventy years.

Its beginnings were most inauspicious. Its founder, Philip, entered the stage aged twenty or so as the regent for an even younger prince. His elder brother had been killed in battle (not, as rumour said, by his mother) and his kingdom was being overrun by barbarians from the north-west. Greek city-states to the south had seen it all before: murders in the Macedonian royal family, a disputed succession to the throne, oaths sworn and broken by hara.s.sed kings. There had been brief flashes of power, but during more than two centuries not a single king of Macedon had died peacefully in old age. Nonetheless, after more than twenty years in power, the new Macedonian leader, King Philip, could now marshal a highly trained army, including many Thessalians and other Greeks, and win a decisive victory over the major Greek city-states, including Athens. By 338 BC BC his power extended from the river Danube to southern Greece. He then imposed a highly restrictive peace on his Greek 'allies'. He even began an invasion of the Persian Empire. His making of a new Macedon was antiquity's most rapid and remarkable feat of power-building. his power extended from the river Danube to southern Greece. He then imposed a highly restrictive peace on his Greek 'allies'. He even began an invasion of the Persian Empire. His making of a new Macedon was antiquity's most rapid and remarkable feat of power-building.

In the fourth century BC BC Macedon centred on a lowland palace and capital, Pella, but it was a patchwork of little kingdoms whose own ruling houses had at times followed their own line. Hostile Greeks to the south had sometimes called its kings 'barbarian' and the 'Macedonian speech' of its ordinary people was very difficult for many southern Greeks to understand. The 'Macedonians' did sometimes distinguish themselves, even in official lists, from 'h.e.l.lenes'. Macedon centred on a lowland palace and capital, Pella, but it was a patchwork of little kingdoms whose own ruling houses had at times followed their own line. Hostile Greeks to the south had sometimes called its kings 'barbarian' and the 'Macedonian speech' of its ordinary people was very difficult for many southern Greeks to understand. The 'Macedonians' did sometimes distinguish themselves, even in official lists, from 'h.e.l.lenes'.1 However, the royal house claimed descent from Argos and traced back their arrival to However, the royal house claimed descent from Argos and traced back their arrival to c. c. 650 650 BC BC, as if they had fled north from the coming age of tyrants and hoplite warfare in Greece. That claim is rather dubious, but in c. c. 500 500 BC BC their king Alexander I had been allowed, after careful screening, to compete in the Olympic Games, which were confined to Greeks only. What, then, was the truth? Were Macedonians Greeks? their king Alexander I had been allowed, after careful screening, to compete in the Olympic Games, which were confined to Greeks only. What, then, was the truth? Were Macedonians Greeks?

In the past thirty years, ever more evidence has been found of Macedonians' patronage of fine Greek arts and crafts. Texts had already told us how their fifth-century kings had settled Greek exiles in their kingdom. They also patronized great Greek poets like Pindar and Euripides and hired the great painters of the day: we can now add the master-sculptor, Callimachus, to the list after recent archaeological finds. Certainly, the Macedonian kings and courtiers wished to be seen as Greeks. Patronage does not make a patron into a Greek, but there has also been renewed study of Macedonian personal names, the month-names in the Macedonian calendar, and some of the odd words preserved from 'Macedonian dialect'. A growing number of personal inscriptions have been found in fourth-century contexts; they begin to allow us to connect the 'Macedonian dialect' to the Greek which was current in north-western Greece. One of the earliest Greek inscriptions in Macedon, recently found, is a curse written for or by a woman at Pella who invokes the G.o.ds against that perpetual human phenomenon, a man who had proved to be a love-rat.2 The 'perceived common ancestor' of the kingdom was the legendary Makedon whom Greek genealogy accepted as a son of the Greek G.o.d Zeus. At their original capital and dynastic centre, Aigai (modern Vergina), the kings even held local Olympics, a festival in honour of Zeus. Near their kingdom's southern border at Dion they held a musical and cultural festival for the Muses.3 Within the kingdoms, even the kings had sometimes intermarried with non-Greek 'barbarians': Philip's own mother is said, perhaps rightly, to have been one. But the dominant culture and language of the kings and their n.o.bles was certainly Greek. Within the kingdoms, even the kings had sometimes intermarried with non-Greek 'barbarians': Philip's own mother is said, perhaps rightly, to have been one. But the dominant culture and language of the kings and their n.o.bles was certainly Greek.

Philip's own upbringing had a double element. As a young man he was sent as a hostage to Thebes, the dominant military power in Greek affairs. A leading Theban general is said to have been his male lover. Yet Philip also spent time as a hostage in barbarian Illyria. He himself favoured Greek artists, actors and orators, although his mother is said to have learned to read and write only in middle age; we have recently found Greek inscriptions, beautifully carved in her name, at the Macedonians' dynastic centre, Aigai. But Philip also kept company with barbarian kings and allies, people who responded to extravagant shows of prowess and generosity. In this company, it was customary to reward a barbarian ally who cut off an enemy's head in battle with the gift of a gold cup: 'heads for cups' had never been the cla.s.sical Greek way.4 Some of Macedon's own traditions were also decidedly primitive. In the past, a man could not wear a belt unless he had killed an enemy in battle. In Philip's day, he could not recline at dinner until he had killed a wild boar while out hunting. Like previous kings, but unlike contemporary Greeks, Philip was polygamous. Within three years, he had four 'wives' in his palace and ended up with seven, three of whom were non-Greek barbarians. One of them, Cynnane, was famous as a warrior on the battlefield and taught martial arts to her courageous daughter. Philip played one wife off against another, much as, publicly, he played off the major Greek powers. His final infatuation, the young Macedonian Cleopatra (also called Eurydice), split the royal family and arguably cost Philip his life. The sensational finds of painted tombs in the royal burial ground at Aigai include a double royal tomb, almost certainly Philip's, in which, if so, the cremated remains of Philip and Cleopatra were laid to rest. Greek outsiders, including the historian Theopompus, a contemporary visitor, told lurid stories of revenge about this burial ground: in the recently found tombs, we now have the basis of fact from which these unchecked rumours developed. Some of Macedon's own traditions were also decidedly primitive. In the past, a man could not wear a belt unless he had killed an enemy in battle. In Philip's day, he could not recline at dinner until he had killed a wild boar while out hunting. Like previous kings, but unlike contemporary Greeks, Philip was polygamous. Within three years, he had four 'wives' in his palace and ended up with seven, three of whom were non-Greek barbarians. One of them, Cynnane, was famous as a warrior on the battlefield and taught martial arts to her courageous daughter. Philip played one wife off against another, much as, publicly, he played off the major Greek powers. His final infatuation, the young Macedonian Cleopatra (also called Eurydice), split the royal family and arguably cost Philip his life. The sensational finds of painted tombs in the royal burial ground at Aigai include a double royal tomb, almost certainly Philip's, in which, if so, the cremated remains of Philip and Cleopatra were laid to rest. Greek outsiders, including the historian Theopompus, a contemporary visitor, told lurid stories of revenge about this burial ground: in the recently found tombs, we now have the basis of fact from which these unchecked rumours developed.

The self-image of the kings and their subjects was Greek, and as Philip's power grew, amba.s.sadors from all over Greece were to be found at his court, Pella. The Athenian delegates to him are the best witnesses to his style. By 346 BC BC Philip had already lost an eye during a siege, one of the many wounds, including broken collarbones, which his strong physique survived in twenty years. Yet his Athenian visitors remarked on his handsome looks, his excellent memory, his hospitality and his talent at his drinking-sessions. Philip had an educated charm, combined with great bravery in battle and an impulsive generosity. They were apt gifts for a court-life which retained its wilder side. It was probably in Macedon that the poet Euripides had written his dramatic masterpiece, the Philip had already lost an eye during a siege, one of the many wounds, including broken collarbones, which his strong physique survived in twenty years. Yet his Athenian visitors remarked on his handsome looks, his excellent memory, his hospitality and his talent at his drinking-sessions. Philip had an educated charm, combined with great bravery in battle and an impulsive generosity. They were apt gifts for a court-life which retained its wilder side. It was probably in Macedon that the poet Euripides had written his dramatic masterpiece, the Bacchae Bacchae, on the G.o.d Dionysus. At court, the staging of this tragedy must have had a raw resonance, not least because Philip's main wife, Olympias, was said to handle live snakes (we now have evidence of local women worshipping Dionysus, attested by a strip of gold, inscribed with Greek and newly found in Macedonia).5 At dinner, Philip was also said to toast his guests with wine in great drinking-horns, which were probably modelled on the horns of oxen from the European steppes. There were also tales of women dancing on the table, whips and unsavoury Greek exiles urging on the evening's revelry. At dinner, Philip was also said to toast his guests with wine in great drinking-horns, which were probably modelled on the horns of oxen from the European steppes. There were also tales of women dancing on the table, whips and unsavoury Greek exiles urging on the evening's revelry.

Publicly, Philip was favoured by the difficulties of his elderly neigh-bours. The ageing barbarian kings around him opted for peace with him and then bequeathed divided kingdoms to their weakened heirs: Philip could conquer these heirs one by one. First in Thessaly, then in central Greece, Philip was also invited south to take sides in the political divisions of Greek communities. In his first three years he followed the traditional ambitions of previous Macedonian kings, as befitted a young prince who was ruling as a regent among hardened older n.o.bles. Then, in one magnificent year (356 BC BC), he became father to a son (Alexander), routed a coalition of barbarian enemies and captured a nearby Greek city-state (Potidaea). He also won a prestigious victory with his racehorse at the Olympic Games, and signalled his own status by striking silver coins showing himself with a hand upraised, on horseback. He even founded a new town, named after himself, the famous Philippi beside the river Nestus to which he had advanced Macedon's eastern frontier.

Further conflicts in Greece then brought him into central Greece and to the symbolic 'rescue' of the threatened Delphic oracle. Here, Philip profited by invitations from Greeks with wars of their own. After a rebuff in nearby Euboea in 357 BC BC the Thebans had started a gratuitous war against the local Phocians who were long-standing friends of Athens. When the Phocians resisted and borrowed treasure from Delphi, the Thebans labelled them 'temple-robbers' and gained Thessaly, an old enemy of Phocis, as an ally in a war on 'sacrilege'. Having started the war the Thebans could not finish it. They ended by inviting their former hostage, King Philip, to come south and help them out. The request was to prove disastrous for Greek freedom. In spring 352 the Thebans had started a gratuitous war against the local Phocians who were long-standing friends of Athens. When the Phocians resisted and borrowed treasure from Delphi, the Thebans labelled them 'temple-robbers' and gained Thessaly, an old enemy of Phocis, as an ally in a war on 'sacrilege'. Having started the war the Thebans could not finish it. They ended by inviting their former hostage, King Philip, to come south and help them out. The request was to prove disastrous for Greek freedom. In spring 352 BC BC Philip's victories in central Greece won him immense support from Thessaly's traditionalists who even appointed him 'ruler' of their League: Thessaly's revenues were at his disposal, and the greatest gain was her cavalry, which numbered thousands. Fighting in their diamond-shaped formations, Thessalian cavalrymen would loyally follow Philip and his son Alexander, until Alexander dismissed them in 329 Philip's victories in central Greece won him immense support from Thessaly's traditionalists who even appointed him 'ruler' of their League: Thessaly's revenues were at his disposal, and the greatest gain was her cavalry, which numbered thousands. Fighting in their diamond-shaped formations, Thessalian cavalrymen would loyally follow Philip and his son Alexander, until Alexander dismissed them in 329 BC BC at the faraway river Oxus in central Asia. at the faraway river Oxus in central Asia.

Backed by Thessaly, Philip won a 'Sacred War' against Phocis' 'sacrilege', as if he was fighting on behalf of Apollo: Phocis' captive mercenaries were drowned in the sea, to mark them out as polluting enemies. In 346 Philip then swore a peace and alliance with the Athenians, while promising them vague 'benefits': realists in the city were not deceived. This peace should not be understood as Philip's intended base for a permanent settlement with the Greek city-states. Rather, it would contain affairs in Greece for him while he engaged on ma.s.sive campaigns into barbarian Illyria (perhaps as far as modern Dubrovnik) and then into Thrace (modern Bulgaria), right up to the river Danube. Meanwhile, before the Greek city-states, his envoys continued to profess his willingness to heed their grievances; professions of 'friendship' and 'benefits' were cla.s.sic weapons in Philip's diplomatic armoury. At the same time, from summer 343 to 341 approaches from discontented factions in Greek cities were rewarded with money, arms and even mercenaries. All the while Philip encouraged the notion that in southern Greece, he would curb the feared and hated Spartans. Sparta's neighbours, therefore, hesitated to join any opposition to him, because they feared a Spartan revival even more than this untried Macedonian 'ally'.

After major campaigns in Thrace on his eastern borders from 342 onwards, Philip was brought back into central Greece by local political quarrelling in 339/8. Alarmingly, his previous ally, the Thebans, had finally broken their alignment and turned to the Athenians; since 346 Philip's cautious retention of several forts near Thermopylae had helped to disillusion Theban opinion and in 340 his attack on a Theban ally, Byzantium, had hardened opinion against him. All along, a ThebanAthenian alliance was the outcome which Philip had feared. However, at the battle of Chaeronea, in August 338, he won his most famous victory, 'fatal to liberty', over the combined Theban and Athenian troops.

The diplomacy and conflicts of these years 348338 have an enduring fascination and their consequences were a turning point for Greek civic life and its setting, Greek freedom. After his victory in 338 Philip ostentatiously respected Athens (the city still had the impregnable Long Walls) but was much harsher to Thebes. War was then declared on the Persian Empire which had been Philip's long-term aim at least since the late 350s. Supposedly, this war was to 'punish the Persian wrongs of 480', especially the burning of Athens' temples, and to 'free' the Greek cities in Asia. In 338/7, Philip imposed a peace and alliance, offering 'freedom', on his Greek allies prior to going east, although many of them were reluctant, or sceptical, about his true aims.

For his Asian campaign, Philip's publicity cleverly recalled the history of the great Panh.e.l.lenic years from 478 to 465; he formed a second 'h.e.l.lenic Alliance' which was based, like its predecessor, at Corinth. This time, Sparta was excluded, much to the glee of her enemies in southern Greece. In their eyes, Philip's supervised 'freedom' was far preferable to the risk of a Spartan resurgence. From an Athenian viewpoint, this sort of local calculation was close to treachery. For Philip's h.e.l.lenic Alliance was far harsher than the one in the 470s which Athens had led by sea and Sparta by land. In the member-cities, changes to the political system and the radical menaces of a redistribution of land and an abolition of debts were strictly prohibited. A council of deputies was to arbitrate disputes between member-states, thus enshrining in a sworn treaty the old Greek practice of public arbitration. But there were also to be people 'appointed for the common safety', a carefully vague euphemism for Philip's own men: probably, they were his generals and the army which he left in Greece.6 Rebel states, meanwhile, were to be punished at the Macedonian leader's own whim. Rebel states, meanwhile, were to be punished at the Macedonian leader's own whim.

Throughout, Philip's remarkable successes in Greece had owed much to bluff and promises, artfully dressed up as diplomacy. He addressed letters repeatedly to the Athenians which were full of vague promises, misleading self-justification and, eventually, tendentious history. Never before had one Greek state communicated so much to another by unsolicited communiques. Behind the fine words, Philip increasingly had the greater manpower; he had widened Macedon's frontiers, and so he drew on the resources of a newly united kingdom whose military numbers were so much greater than that of the Athenians. He also multiplied the kingdom's horsepower by settling Macedonians, his future cavalrymen, on lush new pastures in the wetlands which he conquered on his eastern border. He even improved the strength of his warhorses by bringing new breeding-stock back to his kingdom's stables. By the end of his reign his cavalry (charging with long lances) numbered more than 5,000, more than five times greater than the numbers which are attested at its beginning. On his north-western and eastern borders, Philip also annexed accessible mines of gold and silver. Archaeologically, finds in Macedon are conspicuous even before Philip's reign for their quant.i.ty of gold objects, a luxury which far exceeds the gold found elsewhere in Greece. The new mines intensified this splendour and transformed the kingdom's economic base. Their effects were soon seen in Philip's superb coinage, as for the first time, gold pieces circulated from a Greek monarch. They proved to be one of Philip's lasting memorials: they lived on in second-hand copies among European barbarians and continued to be used long after his death as far west as Gaul.

Philip's other memorials were his new towns and his changes to the social and military order of the Macedonians. Various 'towns of Philip' were founded on the kingdom's borders, the forerunners of his son's Alexandrias. A cl.u.s.ter of them lay on river-sites in modern Bulgaria where Plovdiv still commemorates Philip's name. The new towns strengthened his frontiers and conquests, while new units, based on a new social order, bound his newly balanced army closer to the king. A large unit of 3,000 'Royal Shield-bearers', Philip's invention, linked a trained unit of 'Royal Foot Companions' to the enlarged Companion Cavalry who rode on the wings of the flexible army-line. These new t.i.tles of distinction honoured recruits in the royal service and although their units were still led by their local n.o.bles, they were now trained and merged into a single royal force. The Foot Companions' symbol was the long pike, or sarissa sarissa, which was made from cornel wood and weighted with a b.u.t.t-spike; held by two hands, it extended to a length of more than sixteen feet. Philip had plainly thought hard about military tactics and so he devised a new model army which was an unusually varied and balanced unity.

Remarkably, Philip bound this new army to himself as king without surrendering any of the monarchy's powers. Neighbouring kings, by contrast, had become restricted by fixed councils and magistrates; Philip remained an autocrat who was swept along by his success and his ability to make gifts and to bestow grants of conquered land on his soldiers. A Macedonian king had to be a man of prowess and achievement. His people were solidly loyal to monarchy (it lasted far longer than Athens' democracy), but at any time his n.o.bles might well prefer another king for the job. Behind the charm and the diplomacy, Philip had to be a great warrior and a great hunter, a generous giver and a great drinker. These sides to a man were what formed a Macedonian leader and what the court admired. So Philip fought personally in the front line and after battle would lead a tireless pursuit on horseback against the enemy's fugitive leaders. His other known skills can even be ill.u.s.trated now by archaeology. On the double royal tomb at Vergina, a superb fresco shows scenes of hunting in which he, his young Royal Pages and (surely) Alexander attack a lion (lions still lived in and near his Macedon). Even the hunting-dogs are shown with terrifying jaws. Deer, bears and boar are all represented as the Macedonians' prey, face to face. The superb ceremonial shield and couch in Philip's tomb-chamber were also decorated with vigorous scenes of hunting on horseback. The grave-goods included a gold arrow-case of a type known in barbarian Scythia: it was a gift to Philip, no doubt, like the gifts he himself liked to give. An array of silver drinking-cups and big jugs and containers, often beautifully decorated, attest the prominence of bold drinking in the parties, on couches, in Philip's palace rooms.

Philip gained loyalty by excelling at all these arts. Within Macedon, he had advisers, especially his Companion n.o.bles, but there was no formal 'const.i.tution': within the kingdom, it was still he as king who dispensed personal justice, in answer to appeals and pet.i.tions. This pattern of personal justice would become prominent in the next three centuries under succeeding monarchies; then it would be practised for more than five centuries by subsequent Roman emperors. But it became conspicuous for the first time in Greece with King Philip. The Emperor Hadrian perhaps heard the story which is reported about an old woman who approached him on his travels: she was pet.i.tioning for justice, only to be told by Hadrian 'don't bother me'. 'And don't you be king, then,' she retorted, whereupon Hadrian did bother to hear her case.7 What Hadrian would not know was that this story had been told of several previous rulers who were also dispensing personal justice. Aptly, the earliest of whom it was told was Philip, king of Macedon. What Hadrian would not know was that this story had been told of several previous rulers who were also dispensing personal justice. Aptly, the earliest of whom it was told was Philip, king of Macedon.

19.

The Two Philosophers Plato used to call Aristotle 'the foal'. What did he mean by that name? Plainly, it was known that foals kick their mothers when they have had enough milk.

Aelian (c. AD 210), AD 210), Varia Historia Varia Historia 4.9 4.9 Aristotle accuses the old philosophers who thought that philosophy had been perfected by their own efforts and says that they were either very stupid or very vain, but that he himself could see that, as great advances had been made in such a few years, philosophy would be completely finished in a short while.Cicero, Tusculan Disputations Tusculan Disputations 3.28.69 3.28.69 Philip was to be one of the two great founders in the cla.s.sical world (the other being OctavianAugustus), but his career coincided with the two who were certainly its greatest thinkers: Plato and his pupil, Aristotle. Plato ended by teaching at Athens in the surrounds of a hero-shrine, the Academy (the origin of our word, 'academic'); those who heard him do not seem to have paid or usually to have heard him behind closed doors. Aristotle taught in the surrounds of a shrine once favoured by Socrates, the Lyceum. His followers became known as the Peripatetics (from the Greek word for a colonnaded walk). Both schools persisted for another eight hundred years and their founders' thought then revived again in Europe. In my Oxford college, Aristotle's thinking has been taught and studied continuously for more than 625 years.

Both of them a.s.sociated with the most powerful Greek dynasts of their age. Plato visited Sicily to lecture and converse with two successive tyrants at Syracuse, both called Dionysius, father and son. A book of his teaching was then published, purportedly by the younger Dionysius, which Plato's followers promptly disowned. After studying with Plato in Athens, Aristotle lived for a while at the court of a dynast, Hermeias, in north-west Asia Minor, who had created a circle of 'philosophic' companions and was eulogized by his visitor in an extravagant hymn. He then travelled to Macedon where his father had been a doctor at court. In 343/2 BC BC he had been chosen to teach Philip's son, Alexander, the world's most wide-ranging mind teaching the world's greatest conqueror-to-be. When Alexander became king Aristotle returned to teach in Athens for another thirteen years. he had been chosen to teach Philip's son, Alexander, the world's most wide-ranging mind teaching the world's greatest conqueror-to-be. When Alexander became king Aristotle returned to teach in Athens for another thirteen years.

Plato was the older philosopher, born in 427 BC BC and living until he was nearly eighty in 348 and living until he was nearly eighty in 348 BC BC. He was also the greater writer, in my view the greatest prose-writer in all world literature. He was born into the Athenian upper cla.s.s and was not too young for those of his same background who hoped, indeed plotted, that democracy would one day go away. He was a star pupil of Socrates, whose questioning about ethical terms, the possibility of knowledge and self-knowledge powerfully influenced the younger Plato's early dialogues. Socrates' execution and the experience of majority voting ('mob-rule') did not win Plato over to be a democrat. A democracy, he later wrote, is a 'charming, anarchic and many-sided const.i.tution' which bestows a 'sort of equality on the equal and the unequal alike': Plato detested it.1 It was not only in politics that he went against the current of his fellow citizens. His philosophy was founded on a radical contrast between the worlds of appearance (real to us) and 'reality', knowable only to a philosopher who has prepared and trained for more than fifteen years. Plato and his pupils did perhaps engage in cla.s.sifications of the natural world (the best evidence is only a comedy, sending them up) but they were not really empiricists. What they were most encouraged to admire were the newish sciences of mathematics and astronomy (although Plato himself made no lasting contributions to either of them, as opposed to their appreciation). Plato argued that the soul is separate from the human body, that it enters the body with knowledge from a previous existence which we can then 'recall', that there are punishments, and a renewed existence, for souls after bodily death. Famously, he proposed the existence of 'Forms', culminating in an enigmatic 'Form of the Good', on which he taught but never published a coherent account. These Forms are thought of as the ideal types which are the essence of the objects (beds, dogs, even horses) and qualities (justice, goodness, wisdom) in the world which we wrongly call 'real'. Like universals to particulars, they represent the goodness or 'dog-ness' which is instantiated in our world.

Plato also returned repeatedly to questions of knowledge, belief and explanation. What is it to 'know' something? Does it presuppose knowledge of its definition? What is the difference between knowledge and a belief which is true? What is the moral value of self-knowledge and is it really knowledge if it is not of an object beyond the subject? Is virtue like one of the crafts which expert craftsmen know how to follow? These and other questions, greatly refined, underlie some of the writings which philosophers continue to find the most challenging in all his thought, culminating in his late masterpieces, the Theaetetus Theaetetus and the and the Sophist Sophist. Even the difficult theory of Forms was to come under Plato's own criticism, especially in his remarkable Parmenides Parmenides where he criticizes it as leading to an infinite regress and propounds his celebrated 'third-man' argument. In the earlier dialogues, especially, Plato hides his own exposition behind his deliberately chosen dialogue form. Keen young opponents are shown arguing with Plato's version of Socrates who confounds them, sometimes with arguments which strike us as very feeble. On one view, Plato is deliberately exercising his dialogue's readers by making them engage with arguments whose own validity he is not personally endorsing. This process helps us to tone up our minds, preparing us for future progress. Certainly, Plato does not present his speakers' views as his own. The use of the dialogue form and the long evolution of his writings across some forty years make it wrong to turn their ideas into one system and call it 'Platonic'. In antiquity later readers did so, claiming that they were not adding anything new. Their neo-Platonism was radically untrue to much that Plato had discussed. where he criticizes it as leading to an infinite regress and propounds his celebrated 'third-man' argument. In the earlier dialogues, especially, Plato hides his own exposition behind his deliberately chosen dialogue form. Keen young opponents are shown arguing with Plato's version of Socrates who confounds them, sometimes with arguments which strike us as very feeble. On one view, Plato is deliberately exercising his dialogue's readers by making them engage with arguments