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

198 RECEPTION OF FATHER AND SON
and proto-Roman self. “It is said that once upon a time” ( legetai pote),
the youthful Alexander had a conversation with his father about
Homer in a very manly and lofty manner ( mala andrei ōs kai megalophronōs),
a conversation which was practically also about kingship
(schedon ti . . . peri basileias) ( Or. 2.1). Philip wants to know why his
son ignores all poets besides Homer; Alexander answers that Homer
is suitable for kings and those who wish to rule the world. By
emphasizing the military aspects of the most admired of Hellenic
poets, the answer attaches the Alexander-fi gure to Trajan through
cultural philhellenism and military expansionism. Alexander’s
rationale for appreciating Homer above all other poets also refl ects
Roman Stoic ideals of kingship, which are more fully embodied by
Heracles/Trajan in Oration 1, where we witness him being led to perfection
with the help of Hermes/Dio. 29
As the conversation progresses, Philip frequently reacts to
Alexander in terms of affection or delight—for example, 8: panu . . .
ēgasthē (he admired him greatly); 13 and 17: gelasas (laughing). At
the end, he is “delighted” by his son (79: hēstheis). Alexander’s
reactions to his father, on the other hand, are more muted, and in one
instance slightly intimidating: in 16 he smiles quietly ( hēsuchēi
meidiasas) at his father after a slightly heated exchange; in 29, he
glares menacingly at him like a lion: gorgon emblepsas h ōsper le ōn.
The lion image is particularly interesting: while on one level it clearly
associates Alexander with the courage of his ancestral Heracles,
within the context of the Orations (and even beyond Dio) it can denote
a certain unruliness in Alexander’s character that Dio would reasonably
want Trajan to avoid. 30
There is a moment when Alexander connects his ambitions to his
father’s (15). Philip asks his son whether he would like to have been
an Agamemnon or Achilles, to which Alexander replies that he wants
to go far beyond these, for Philip is no less worthy than Peleus,
Macedonia no less powerful than Phthia, Mt. Olympus no less famous
than Pelion, and his education by Aristotle no less than Achilles’ by
Phoenix. In making this extended comparison between himself and
Achilles he highlights Philip’s support role in his own glory—and it
is at this point that Philip momentarily asserts his parental authority.
When Alexander declares that, unlike Achilles, he could never submit
to the authority of a mortal king, Philip, “getting almost angry”
(mikrou paroxuntheis), exclaims: “But you are ruled by me as king
(all’ hup’ emou ge basileu ēi)!” Alexander’s quick response is that he
listens to Philip as a “father” and not as a “king” (16–18). This seems
to soothe his father’s ego, but does not negate the force of the young
prince’s initial comment on who his true authority is: god. By having