The Tragedy of Philotas

The Tragedy of Philotas written by Samuel Daniel, was first performed before the king, James the I in 1605. By that year, the author had been appointed licenser of plays for the Children of the Queen's Revels as he was very close to queen Anne of Denmark. The performance, however, proved to be detrimental for the reputation of Daniel, since the play was believed to be “an allegorical representation of the downfall of the Earl of Essex” (Cadman, 366); and its author had to appear before the Privy Council to defend himself. Daniel was then acquitted of all charges and in 1605 the tragedy was published in a collection of his works, Certain Small Poems. As Cadman claims, “an alternative subtext” can also be read in the events portrayed by Daniel which might have addressed “anxieties surrounding the accession of James I and the potentially corrupting effect of the acquisition of this new realm” (366).

  The play tells the story of Philotas, a Macedonian general of Alexander the Great, who was accused of being part of a conspiracy against Alezander. The play explores themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the complexities of power, providing a nuanced portrayal of political intrigue. Philotas is accused of plotting against the king, and much of the drama revolves around the question of his guilt and the motivations behind his actions. The play also explores the broader political tensions within Alexander's court, highlighting the precarious nature of power and the dangers of unchecked ambition.

  Among the authors who influenced his writing, whom Daniel himself quotes in his play, are Quintus Curtius Rufus, with De gestis Alexandri Magni, Regis Macedonum, and Plutarch with The Life of Alexander. Interestingly enough, the life of Alexander is paired, in Plutarch’s Lives, with The Life of Julius Caesar, which was influential for Daniel’s The Tragedy of Cleopatra (1594).

  In the first act of Philotas, Philotas engages in a dialogue with Callisthenes, discussing advice given by his father, Parmenio. Parmenio urges Philotas to "make [himself] less Philotas than [he] is" (1.1), warning him against his tendencies toward "vainglory and prodigality" (Argument), which could jeopardize his standing with Alexander. However, Philotas resists this counsel, expressing a desire to "sail by the compass of [his] mind" (1.1), suggesting his reluctance to heed advice and his preference for following his own ambitions. Philotas’ conversation is then interrupted twice: first by a messenger, who summons him to the king, and later by his friend Ceballinus. Ceballinus informs Philotas of a plot to assassinate Alexander, devised by Dymnus, in which Ceballinus' brother, Nichomachus, had unwittingly been entangled. Philotas promises to tell the king about Ceballinus’ “strane report” (1.1).

  In 1.2 Antigona, a former concubine of Darius, the Persian King, and, as it will be made clear in the scene, Philotas’ lover, talks to Thais, a courtesan. They talk about Philotas’ love for Antigona, who, to demonstrate the depth of his feelings, makes Thais privy to something he once told her:

“Parmenio without Alexander much hath wrought,

Without Parmenio, Alexander hath done nought.

But let him use his fortune whilst he may,

Times have their change, we must not still be led.

And sweet Antigona thou mayst one day

Yet, bless the hour t’ have know’n Philotas’ bed”  (1.2)

Thais, who secretly loves Philotas and is jealous of the attentions he dedicates to the Persian Antigona, while ignoring her, decides to report this claim to Craterus, one of Alexander’s counsellors, in order to avenge her wounded pride.

               The Chorus, who introduces itself as “the Chorus of the vulgar”, closes the first act, and, as “spectators”, they witness and comment the “play” of “great man” (1.2). The chorus places itself in the position of somebody “capable of truth” enabling them to judge the actions of the powerful. Their observations highlight some of the main themes of the play, such as the fluctuations in a person's reputation when politics is involved:

We see who well a meaner part became,                                                

Fail in a greater and disgrace the same.

We see some worthy of advancement deem’d,

Save when they have it, some again have got

Good reputation, and been well esteem’d

In place of greatness, which before were not. (1.2)

The Chorus also comments on the fact that Philotas’ excessive credulity and indulgence in his passions make him the prey of the deceitful reports of his adversaries who will make him “worse than he is”. The Chorus empathises with Philotas and foresees his destiny, by  which “unless his humours prove more staid,/ We soon shall see his utter ruining” (1.2).

               In 2.1, Alexander discusses his doubts about Philotas with his counselors Ephaestion and Craterus. These doubts arose from the general’s alleged claim that "he pitied those who under him should live, / Who held himself the son of Jupiter," referring to Alexander. The king is concerned that Philotas may be aiming for his throne and condemns the man's pride, which he infers from Philotas’ bold demeanor and the words reportedly attributed to him. Hephaestion, a friend of Philotas, advises the king to "withdraw / Those beams of favour, which do daze his wits," as a way to temper Philotas' pride. Craterus, on the other hand, suggests Alexander "work to repress a spirit so mutinous" and reports what Thais told him. Craterus also proposes using Antigona as a spy to observe Philotas, which Alexander agrees to.

               In 2.2, when Ceballinus asks Philotas if he has reported his words to the king, Philotas replies negatively. He acknowledges that he may be falling out of Alexander’s favor due to the king’s behavior towards him. However, he refuses to lower himself to the tricks of other courtiers to please the king, believing that his honesty will be enough to regain Alexander's favor:

[…]and what my plain

And open actions cannot fairly get,

Baseness and smoothing them, shall never gain.

And yet, I know, my presence and access

Clears all these mists which they have rais’d before,

Though, with my back, straight turns that happiness,

And they again blow up as much or more. (2.2)

In 2.3 Antigona consents to collaborate with Craterus out of fear for what may happen to her if she does not comply with his requests. The chorus, following Antigona and Craterus' dialogue, condemns pride and excessive ambition, emphasizing the power of fate to restore order: “There wrong is paid with wrong, and he that thrust/Down others, comes himself to have that lot.”

               The third act opens with an encounter between Alexander and Ceballinus who has already informed Metron, another of the king's counselors, about the conspiracy. As a result, Alexander discovers the existence of the plot but also realizes that Philotas, who had first learned of it, did not inform him for three days. Dymnus, the alleged instigator of the conspiracy, is brought before Alexander, but he has already stabbed himself offstage and dies before revealing anything about the plot. Meanwhile, Philotas arrives and explains that he did not inform Alexander of Ceballinus' account because he believed it to be unfounded and feared it might cast some of Alexander’s friends in a bad light, thus making him appear as a slanderer and a false accuser. He further explains that he wanted to find more proof of the actual plot before talking to Alexander. Alexander promptly forgives Philotas. However, after the general leaves, the king begins to air his doubts about the man with his counselors Craterus and Perdiccas. Initially, Alexander seems confident in Philotas’ good intentions, as he declares: “Sure, for my part, he hath dissolv’d the knot / Of my suspicion, with so clear a hand, / As that I think in this (whatever plot / Of mischief it may be) he hath no hand.” However, his counselors’ responses begin to sow doubt in the king’s mind. Craterus suggests that Philotas only acted that way to save his own life and might still be conspiring against the king, possibly with the help of his father, Parmenio. Perdiccas questions Philotas’ actions, implying that his proximity to the king should have made him report the plot immediately. He emphasizes that it is strange Philotas "Should not in three days’ space have found the king / At leisure t’ hear three words of that import; / Whilst he himself, in idle lavishing, / Did thousands spend t’ advance his own report?” Craterus then once again questions Philotas’ good faith, to the point that, by the end of the dialogue, the king’s disposition has completely changed. He decides to continue hosting the court and Philotas at a banquet, so that “it may seem, we weigh this practice light, / However heavy, here, within it lies.” The words of the counselors highlight the main theme of the play: ambition, which is wrongly attributed to Philotas. In the eyes of Alexander and many at court, this perceived ambition serves as the driving force behind the general’s actions and ultimately costs him his life.

               In 3.2, Antigona and Thais meet, and while Antigona discusses her betrayal of Philotas and her feelings of love, Thais reflects on the possibilities this might open for the Persian girl. Thais emphasizes that she and Antigona are merely pawns in a larger game played by more powerful figures. Through metaphors related to theater and machinery, she underscores the importance of the actions of minor characters in maintaining the equilibrium of the whole.

THAIS

And ’t is the scene on this worlds stage we play,

Whose revolution we with men convert,

And are to act our parts as well as they,

Though commonly the weakest, yet a-part.

For this great motion of a state we see

Doth turn on many wheels, and some, though small,

Do yet the greater move, who in degree

Stir those who likewise turn the great’st of all,

For though we are not wise, we see the wise

By us are made, or make us parties still

In actions of the greatest qualities

That they can manage, be they good or ill.

Thais also suggests that Antigona might benefit from Philotas’ defeat and become Alexander’s concubine. While Antigona speaks of love, Thais brings everything back to power.

In 3.3, Alexander’s counselors—Craterus, Clitus, and Hephaestion—convene. Craterus attempts to convince the others that the plot against Alexander might still be ongoing and ultimately argues that Philotas should be tortured to compel him to confess his involvement in the conspiracy. The counselors’ aim is to put Philotas in a difficult position, to prove him guilty, or, if he is innocent, to make him say something against Alexander in order to "undo him" (3.3).

  Following this scene, the chorus comments on the behavior of Alexander’s counselors, accusing them of "clothing their private hate / In those fair colors of the public good." The chorus denounces that the aim of Craterus and the others is to destroy Philotas out of envy, not because he poses a genuine threat to the state. They use the pretext of the public good to justify their actions, as "these great men" often do. The chorus also reflects on how easily suspicion spreads, feeding on itself and potentially tarnishing the truth.

Finally, the chorus, which never mentions specific characters but speaks in general terms, muses about the "fate of those that are / By nature or their fortunes eminent," anticipating what will happen to Philotas in the following scenes. It notes that exceptional individuals often "Do work their own or others’ discontent, / Or else are deemed fit to be suppressed." Their exceptional nature sets them apart from the masses and may engender jealousy in others or disturb the equilibrium of the state:

Since states have ever had far more unrest

By spirits of worth than men of meaner skill;

And find that those do always better prove

Wh’ are equal to employment, not above.

Philotas is such a figure, and he is destined to be ill-faithed.

               The dialogue between Sostratus and Attaras in 4.1 shows the sudden change in situation: “Is it to be believed / That great Philotas, whom we all beheld / In grace last night, should be arraigned today.” Attaras, surprised by his friend’s comment, who had only witnessed the convivial banquet of the previous night, recounts what happened after Alexander and Philotas had parted happily. Attaras explains that Craterus and some other lords had entreated the king to reconsider his decision and to try Philotas as the man who “had plotted the destruction of them all.” The counsellors had convinced Alexander of his immediate danger and that Philotas had to be taken prisoner. Attaras was the one tasked with arresting Philotas in his tent.

  In 4.2, Philotas is brought before Alexander to be judged. Alexander first addresses the soldiers, revealing the details of the conspiracy and listing the names of the conspirators as reported by Nichomacus to Metron. At this stage, Philotas' name is not mentioned, as he had never been included among the original conspirators. Nichomacus recounts the plot, explaining that three days after Dymnus revealed his plan to him, Dymnus and several other conspirators intended to kill Alexander in his chamber. Nichomacus names those conspirators identified by Dymnus: Loceus, Demetrius, Archelopis, Nicanor, Amintas, Luculeus, Droceus, and Aphebetus.

Metron, having heard the story from Ceballinus—who learned it from his brother, one of the conspirators—initially reported the matter to Philotas. However, when Philotas remained silent and inactive, Metron then took the matter directly to Alexander. Although the king seemed to pardon Philotas at first, since he had no direct involvement in the conspiracy, his omertà (code of silence) later appeared to Alexander as evidence of guilt. The king interpreted Philotas' silence as a sign of complicity, stating, “silence shows deceit, / And tells he was content it should be done, / Which, though he were no party, makes him one.”

To further convince the army of Philotas' guilt, Alexander produces a letter from Parmenio, Philotas' father:

My sons, first, have a special care unto yourselves,

Then unto those which do depend on you:      

So shall you do what you intend to do.

Alexander interprets Parmenio's cryptic words as clear approval of Philotas' involvement in the conspiracy. According to the king, the absence of Philotas’ name from the list of the conspirators is not proof of his innocence but of his “power” since the other conspirators “account too great to be supprest,/And rather will accuse themselves than him:/For that whilst he shall live, there’s hope for them.” Alexander speaks of the love and privileges he had bestowed on Philotas and of how the general had mocked him, proving to be vain and ambitious. Alexander also emphasizes the gravity of Philotas' betrayal: "I would to God my blood had rather been / Poured out, the offering of an enemy, / Than practiced to be slyed by one of mine, / That one of mine should have this infamy." When a swift punishment for Philotas is suggested, Alexander appears to be trying to restore justice by granting him a trial. However, after a brief exchange with Philotas, the king exits, leaving him to address the army and his counselors, yet essentially showing that the decision on his fate has already been made. Philotas declares:

My condemnation is gone out before

My innocence and my just defence,

And takes up all your hearts, and leaves no door

For mine excuse to have an entrance,

He acknowledges that only Alexander can either condemn or free him. However, he decides to plead his case before Alexander’s counselors, invoking justice. The counselors, already convinced of Philotas’ guilt, misinterpret his innocent words as further evidence of his treachery. Hephaestion, for instance, declares, Philotas’ “treasons are too manifestly known, / To mask in other livery than their own.” Craterus is even more certain, asserting, “Think not that we are set to charge you here / With bare suspicions, but with open fact, / And with a treason that appears as clear / As is the sun and known to be your act.” Craterus falsely claims that there are testimonies against Philotas, which is not true. In response, Philotas demands to see these witnesses, confident that no one can testify against him because he is innocent.

Let them be here produc’d unto my face,

That can avouch m’ a party in this case.

My lords and fellow soldiers, if of those

Whom Dymnus nominated, any one

Out of his tortures will a word disclose

To show I was a party, I have done.

Think not so great a number ever will

Philotas, Craterus, and Canus discuss Philotas’ guilt and while the others call him a traitor, he replies displaying his knowledge of the law:

I am no traitor, but suspected one

For not believing a conspiracy,

And mere suspect, by law, condemneth none:

They are approved facts for which men die.

Philotas declares that he was reluctant to rush into reporting the plot because he recalled a similar situation in which his father had reported something and was mistaken; he did not want to make the same error. Additionally, he questions Alexander—who has already left—seeking to understand what prompted the king's change of heart, especially since he had pardoned him the night before. This suggests that the counselors must have influenced Alexander’s decision. In response, Craterus launches a series of accusations against Philotas:

You foster malcontent, you entertain

All humours, you all factions must embrace,

You vaunt your own exploits, and you disdain

The king’s proceedings, and his stile disgrace;

You promise mountains, and you draw men on

With hopes of greater good than hath been seen;

You bragg’d of late, that something would be done

Whereby your concubine should be a queen.

And now we see the thing that should be done;

Philotas responds to all the accusations, asserting that his prodigality was intended to help others and that his actions, though misunderstood, were genuinely good and not driven by ambition. He acknowledges that while his intentions were noble, they sometimes led to negative outcomes. Philotas explains that he had sometimes criticized the king, but only to offer him his most open counsel, consistently aiming to speak the truth. His speech illustrates how even the most genuine acts can be misinterpreted when politics and rhetoric distort reality. He also reflects on the passionate nature of soldiers, which can lead to exaggeration. He asserts that he has spoken not only about the king but also with him, admitting that he may have overstated things on occasion. In this moment, Philotas addresses both the counsellors and the soldiers, attempting to elicit their empathy:

Sick in their tent, stopping their wounds that bleed,

Or haut and jolly after conquest got,

They shall out of their heat use words unkind;

Their deeds deserve, to have them rather thought

The passion of the season, than their mind:

For soldiers’ joy, or wrath, is measureless,

Rapt with an instant motion, and we blame,

We hate, we praise, we pity in excess,

According as our present passions flame.

Sometimes to pass the ocean we would fain

Philotas also underlines that he did not need to plot with others to kill the King because he had every mean to do so since he had full access, even armed, to the king’s chambers. Philotas asserts that he is not merely seeking to preserve his life, but rather to safeguard his honour, which he deems more significant than survival itself. Aware of his impending execution, he implores his executioner to spare his reputation. Alexander's counsellors persistently urge Philotas to admit his guilt, a request he steadfastly refuses. When Alexander re-enters, he reiterates Philotas’ guilt and promptly dismisses the court.

  The opening scene of the fifth act features a dialogue between the Persian and Greek choruses. The Persian chorus observes, after witnessing the narrative of Philotas, that the Greeks are not so different from themselves, stating, “Those whom you call your kings are but the same / As are our sovereign tyrants of the East.” They contend that the sole distinction between the two sets of sovereigns lies in the fact that Greek kings cloak their true intentions behind the law to enact their own will. This perspective aligns with the situation of Philotas; the Persian chorus accuses Alexander, asserting that “the offender, not the offense, is punished there.” They claim that Alexander's motives are not to address Philotas’ alleged treason, but rather to eliminate someone he finds inconvenient, using the law as a facade to present himself as a just ruler before the people and the army.

Conversely, the Greeks accuse the king of pride and of neglecting his subjects in his relentless pursuit of conquest:

He hath forgot himself and us, and rates

His state above mankind, and ours at nought.

This hath thy pomp, oh feeble Asia, Wrought!

Thy base adornings hath transform’d the king

Into that shape of pride, as he is brought

Out of his wits, out of acknowledging

From whence the glory of his greatness springs,

And that it was our swords that wrought these things.

The Greek soldiers assert that the king has overlooked the fact that his victories have been achieved through their efforts, questioning when his ambition will cease. Simultaneously, they ponder on Philotas’ fate:

And what mutinies

Will put him from his comforts, and will mock

His hopes, and never suffer him to have

That which he hath of all which Fortune gave?

And from Philotas’ blood (oh worthy man!)

Whose body now rent on the torture lies,

Will flow that vein of fresh conspiracies,

As overflow him will, do what he can,

For cruelty doth not imbetter[1] men

But them more wary makes than they have been.

In Act 5, Scene 2, Polidamas discusses the disturbing effects of Philotas’ condemnation on the populace and the soldiers, many of whom held Philotas in high regard due to his previous good deeds. The trial, coupled with the baseless accusations and the ambiguous behavior of Alexander, alongside Philotas’ exemplary conduct, has rendered the people uncertain about which side to support. A sense of fear has begun to creep in among Philotas’ former allies, who now fear being wrongly accused of conspiracy.

Polidamas specifically engages Sostratus in conversation about the king’s decision to execute Parmenio—Philotas’ father, a distinguished Persian general, well-respected by many. Polidamas reveals that he has been tasked with carrying out Parmenio's execution; he asserts that he has no choice but to perform this deed and accepts the loss of his honour that accompanies the wrongful killing of a friend, preferring this fate to the alternative of his own death and the deaths of his loved ones.

  After Polidamas outlines the method by which he will kill Parmenio, the Persian chorus asserts that Alexander’s transformation into a tyrant, akin to those of the Persian tradition, is now complete, a sentiment echoed by the Greek chorus. Subsequently, the Nuncius conveys to the chorus the tragic fate of Philotas, detailing the tortures he endured and his valiant demeanour in the face of such torment. The chorus then articulates the notion of an honourable death for those who are righteous:

CHORUS

… they who dare to fight

Against corrupted stones, shou’d die upright,

Such hearts kings may dissolve, but not defeat.

A great man where he falls he should lie great,

Whose ruin, like the sacred carcases

The Nuncius explains that Philotas, seeing that death was approaching, and after having been repeatedly tortured, has decided to give a false confession, to speed up his death. After Philotas’ confession, all other people accused by Dymnus have been condemned to die. The chorus reflects on the prolongation of the punishment beyond its intended scope, persisting even after the initially accused—Philotas—has met his demise. They emphasize that such an extended punishment can only foster fear and dissatisfaction among the subjects. Ultimately, the chorus denounces ambition in all its forms.

[1] Embetter.

Cadman, Daniel, 2011. "‘Th'accession of these mighty States’: Daniel's Philotas and the union of crowns”. Renaissance Studies, 26.3, 365-84.

Claudian, On Stilicho's Consulship (A.D. 400) | Loeb Classical Library, loebclassics.com, available at https://www.loebclassics.com/view/claudian_claudianus-stilichos_consulship_ad_400/1922/pb_LCL136.39.xml?result=7&rskey=Qxmh7X

Daniel, Samuel, 1949. The Tragedy of Philotas, ed. Laurence Michel, Yale: Yale University Press.

Gazzard, Hugh, 2000. “Those Graue Presentments of Antiquitie’ Samuel Daniel's Philotas And The Earl Of Essex”, The Review of English Studies, 51.203, 423-50.

Shore, Al. 2010. Shakespeare, Daniel, and the Politics of Power. New York: Routledge.

The edition of the Ttagedy of Philotas (USTC No. 3002170) is contained in the 1605 collection titled Certaine small poems lately printed: with the tragedie of Philotas. Written by Samuel Daniel. This edition is in octavo and consists of 224 pages.

The frontispiece of the book reads: 

CERTAIN SMALL POEMS LATELY PRINTED. With the Tragedy of Philotas.

Written by Samuel Daniel.

Carmen amat, quisquis carmine digna gerit.[1]

AT LONDON, Printed by G. Eld for Simon Waterson.

1605.

While the frontispiece of the tragedy reads:

THE TRAGEDY OF PHILOTAS

By Samuel Daniel.

AT LONDON Printed by G. Eld for Simon Waterson and Edward Blount.

1605.

Signatures in this edition go from A to H, and start again at A with The Tragedy of Philotas. Another edition of the play was published in 1607, this edition of the tragedy is the same as the 1605 except for some spelling variants.

[1] Claudian, De Consulato Stilichionis, Book 3, l.6: “he loves song whose exploits deserve the meed of song”.