Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

HIS SON’S FATHER? 197
advisor to the emperor. I focus in particular on Oration 2, a dialogue
on Homer as the teacher-poet of kings, the fi rst half of which stages a
dialogue between “Philip” and “Alexander,” who act, respectively, as
Nerva- and Trajan-fi gures.
However, because Dio himself has taken on a didactic role toward
the emperor, his writing is rather circumspect, and Alexander and
Philip cannot be taken as straightforward representations of the
emperor and his father. Dio is a master of creating personae—
including ones that stand for himself and his philosophical ideals—
through which he can articulate his various ethical positions from a
distance, 23 employing analogy rather than direct criticism, and tempering
criticism with praise so as to avoid insult. 24 As one of these
personae, Alexander’s moral content shifts from ideal or potentially
ideal king in Oration 2 to tyrant in Oration 4 (opposite Cynic hero
Diogenes/Dio), where he is perhaps meant to be seen as a “Domitian”
fi gure. The possibility that Alexander can stand for either Trajan or
Domitian suggests that Dio found him the best medium through
which to offer the emperor both positive and critical feedback. Trajan
was around this time promoting himself as the embodiment of classic
Roman military virtue ( virtus) and the ideology of civilizing rule
(humanitas); 25 for Dio, however, there is an imbalance between the
two qualities. Alexander is a man whose virtus may appear to go
beyond courage on the battlefi eld toward excessive militarism; 26 for
him to become an ideal ruler, this must be tempered with the gentler,
“Greeker,” aspects of imperial humanitas. 27 Or to put it in Dio’s
roughly equivalent Greek terms: andreia must be tempered by
philanthrōpia and paideia.
But, as the case may be, Philip plays his most signifi cant role in
Oration 2, and this is where Alexander enjoys his most shining
moment, incorporating the best of Greek culture and Roman-style
power. Philip, whose image is also variable in Dio’s corpus, 28 is here
presented as a devoted and concerned father who habitually defers to
Alexander’s precocious pontifi cations (in a dialogue that will eventually
turn into a monologue on the part of Alexander, who now becomes
a Dio-fi gure). For the most part, the subversion of father’s authority by
son is subtle rather than direct. Dio keeps the tone of their conversation
artfully light, despite the seriousness of the subject matter. The
general pattern up until section 49, the last we hear from Philip until
the very end (79), consists largely of Philip prodding Alexander with
brief questions and Alexander answering lengthily (and “correctly,”
from Dio’s point of view).
Dio begins by setting a scene that combines Alexander’s love of
poetry with his military/political aspirations—the best of his Greek