Phoenix 1955 Greek Tyranny

8/11/2019 Phoenix 1955 Greek Tyranny

1/19

Classical Association of Canada

Greek TyrannyAuthor(s): Mary WhiteSource: Phoenix, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring, 1955), pp. 1-18Published by: Classical Association of CanadaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085948

Accessed: 30/11/2008 02:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cac.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Classical Association of Canadais collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085948?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cachttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cachttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1085948?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/19

GREEK

TYRANNY

MARY

WHITE

THE

word

tyranny

in

Greek

history

does

not denote

one

simple,

un-

changing

institution,

nor

should

it be

assumed that it

means a

form

of

government

essentially

similar in

all

the

cases to which it is

applied.

I

shall discuss

here1

only

the earliest

tyrannies

in

the Greek

world-the

tyrannies

of the seventh

and sixth

centuries

B.C.,

which arose

under

quite

different conditions

and

were,

for

that

reason,

different

in

character

and

purpose

from

the later

dictatorships

of

various times and

places

in

the Greek world.

Tyranny

or

dictatorship

was,

of

course,

in

Greece

as

elsewhere a

recurring

phenomenon.

In

the late sixth

and

early

fifth

centuries it was

a

device used

by Persia to govern the Greek cities of

Asia

Minor

within

the Persian

Empire.

The famous

western

tyrants

of

Sicily

and

South

Italy

appeared

in

the sixth and

especially

the fifth and

fourth

centuries;

and there

occurred

elsewhere shorter

or

longer periods

of

tyranny.

These

belong

to a

time

when

in

Greece

itself conditions

had

changed;

the

early

tyrannies

had been

overthrown,

and

a

reaction

against tyranny

had set in

owing

to

the

combined

influence

of

Sparta,

who was

proud

of

the

fact that

she

had been

always

without

tyrants

(aite

arvpavvevTos

Thuc.

1.

18.1)

and had

helped

in

the

expulsion

of

some

of the tyrants, and of Athens where, after the tyranny, the triumphant

progress

of

democracy

and

imperialism

exercised

great

influence

on

political

thought.

These

later

tyrannies

conform

to

the

modern

meaning

of

the

term;

indeed,

the term

acquired

its

technical

meaning

from their

character

and

from

discussions of

different

types

of

government

by

historians

and

philosophers,

who

had

them

in

mind when

they

described

tyranny

as

a

form of

demagogy,

a

perversion

of

monarchy,

oligarchy,

or

democracy.

The earliest

tyrants

were

not

demagogues

for

the

simple

reason

that

there was as yet no demos upon whose shoulders they could rise. They

belong

to

an

earlier

stage

of

political

development

and can

more

accur-

ately

be

described

as

the

successful

champions

of a

growing

middle

class,

who

overthrew

the

restrictive

aristocracies of

birth

and

so

freed

their

cities for

a

development

which

under

favourable

circumstances

could

and

sometimes

did

lead to

democracy.

The

early tyrannies

are

thus sui

generis

and

must be

studied

in

the

context

of

their

times to

be

understood.

It is

even

doubtful

whether

the

term

rvpavvos

was

commonly

and

generally

applied

to

them in

their

own

day. The word was still rare at that time and had a variety of meanings;

certainly

it

had

no

restricted

and

technical

meaning

until

the

end of

the

'This

paper

was

read

before

the

American

Historical

Association in

New York

on

December

28,

1954.

1

THE

PHOENIX,

vol.

9

(1955)

1


3/19

THE PHOENIX

fifth

century.

Its

origins

are

obscure,

it is

not

a

Greek

nor

Indo-European

term.

Whatmough's opinion,2

which has won

wide

acceptance,

is that

it

is

Lydian

and

is

related

to

a

group

of

Lydian

names:

Tvpa-a,

Turnus,

Tvpaavot

and

its alternative form

Tvpprlvol

the

Greek term for the

Etrus-

cans),

Tuscus

and

the

older

Tursco,

and

Turan,

the

Etruscan

name for

Venus.

The

probability

of

Lydian

origin

derives some

support

from the

fact that the

earliest use

of

any

form

of

the word

in

Greek is

by

Archi-

lochos

referring

to his

contemporary,

Gyges

of

Lydia

(ca.

687-652

B.c.):3

I

care

not

for

the wealth of

golden Gyges,

nor

ever have

envied

him;

I am

not

jealous

of

the works

of

Gods,

and

I

have

no

desire for

lofty

despotism

(JeyaY&Xr7s

O'iK

E

p&o

TvpavvlPos);

or

such

things

are far

beyond my

ken.

Here rvpavvisdenotes the

sovereign

power

of a

wealthy

monarch,

and is

probably

simply

a

synonym

for

absolute

or

royal

power.

Such continues

to

be one of its common

meanings

in

both

poetry

and

prose.

But as

early

as

Alkaios,

Theognis,

and

Solon

it

has

the

derogatory

sense

of

despotic

power

based

on

fraud

or

violence.

There

may

be some

suggestion

of

this

meaning

even

in

the first use

by

Archilochos of

Gyges,

a

resourceful

usurper

who in a

palace intrigue

killed his

predecessor,

married

his

queen,

and

by

a

vigorous

and

devious

policy

established

the

Mermnad

dynasty

as the

ruling power

in

Anatolia

(Hdt.

1.

8-12).

Alkaios

(Frs.

48 and

87)

is

the first to use the

word of a Greek

leader.

He

applies

it

to

Pittakos,

the

aesymnetes

or

dictator

elected as

mediator

between

the

aristocrats,

among

whom

Alkaios

and his

brothers were

prominent,

and

the

party

of

Melanchros

and

Myrsilos.

Aristotle

(Politics

1285

a30-b4)

describes

aesymnetes

as an

elective form

of

tyranny,

re-

sembling tyranny

in

being

despotic,

but

resembling

kingship

in

being

elective

and

constitutional.

Alkaios

has all

the

aristocratic

contempt

for

an

upstart,

and

objects

to

Pittakos

because he is

low-born,

KaKorrarpltas.

When

he

says

that

all

praised

Pittakos and set him

up

as

tyrant

(CTaraavro

7rpavvov),

he

uses

rvpavvos

as

a

term

of

personal

abuse

and not as the

proper

word

to use

of

the

constitutional

nature of

his

position.

Pittakos

was

scarcely

more a

tyrant

in

the

later

accepted

sense of

the term than

was

Solon

in

Athens,

who held similar

power

for

the

year

of

his

archon-

ship

(Aristotle,

Ath.

Pol.

5.2.

eiXovro

Kolvi

8LaXX\aKTrlv

KaL

&pXoovra

26Xova).

Theognis

uses various forms

of the

term

in

three

passages (823-824;

1181-1182;

1204),

Solon

three

times

(Fr.

23,

lines

6, 9,

19;

cf.

Fr.

10,

3-4

where

the word is not

used but the

idea is

present),

both

poets

in

the

sense of despotic rule but neither referring to a particular individual.

In the

fifth

century,

when the

tyrants

had been

driven

out

and,

in

2Joshua

Whatmough,

The Foundations

of

Roman

Italy

(London

1937)

231.

3Archilochos,

Fr.

22,

E.

Diehl, Anthologia

Lyrica

Graeca3

Leipzig

1952)

3.

10-11.

The other

fragments

of

the

lyric

poets

cited

will be

referred

to

by

the

numbers of

this,

or

for

Alkaios the

second,

edition.

The

translation

is

by J.

M.

Edmonds,

Elegy

and

Iambus

(Loeb

Classical

Library,

London

1931)

2.

110,

Fr.

25.

2


4/19

GREEK TYRANNY

Athens

especially,

democracy

had

won

its

glorious

victories over

the

Persian,

in

whose

train

had been

the

ex-tyrant Hippias

and the other

Peisistratidai, all forms of one-man rule were execrated, Persian monarchy

and Greek

tyranny

alike. This can

be

seen

in

the

honours

paid

to Har-

modios

and

Aristogeiton

who

murdered

Hipparchos.

They

became

the

tyrannicides,

their

statues were

set

up

in

the

Agora,

and

in

the

scolion

or

drinking song celebrating

their

deed

the refrain

reads:

OTETOrbv

pavvov

KaveT?7v

iaOVO6Iovos

r

'ASOvas

rotLao'LrTv

When

hey

slew the

tyrant

and

gave equal

aws

to

Athens.4

Here tyranny is specifically contrasted with isonomia, an earlier term

for

democracy.

The

Athenian dramatists have

a

similar

attitude towards

absolute

power. They

use the

word

tyrannos

frequently,

both

of

the

power

of

the

gods-Zeus,

Apollo,

and

Eros-and

of human

princes;

almost

always

it

contains the

suggestion

of

a

newly

acquired

or

dangerously arbitrary

power

which is

likely

to be

irresponsibly

misused.

Sometimes

this

is

explicit,

as in

Sophocles'

Oedipus Tyrannus

873:

V3pts VTreVL

rTvpavvov

Pridebreeds

yranny.

In

other

passages

there can be

seen

an

effective

double

entendre

between

the

conventional

meaning

of

king

and

the

derogatory

meaning

of

despot.

Although

the

Attic

use of the

word was

becoming

increasingly

coloured

with

this

derogatory meaning,

the Ionic

continued

to

have

both senses.

The

two

fifth-century

historians,

the Ionian

Herodotos

and

the

Athenian

Thucydides

illustrate this.

Herodotos

applies

it

constantly

to

oriental

kings

and their

power, occasionally

even to

governors

or

satraps,

and

regularly

to the various

Greek

tyrants,

in

fact

to

one-man rule of

any

kind with

no

implication

about

the character

of

the

rule.

But

in

other

places,

and these are the

more

emphatic,

it is

despotic

power

as

opposed

to

freedom

(eXevOepil

1.

62.2),

or

to

oligarchic

government

(IooKparia

5.

92.

a2);

and

in

the famous

Persian

debate

on

the virtues of

democracy,

oligarchy,

and

monarchy

(3. 80-82)

it is

significant

that

Otanes,

who

recommends

democracy,

uses

both

tobvvapxos

nd

TrVpavvos

nterchangeably

of one-man

rule

while

Dareios,

who

recommends the retention of

the

monarchy, uses ,oOvvapxosnly. Thucydides, on the other hand, restricts

4C.M.

(now

Sir

Maurice)

Bowra,

Greek

yricPoetry

Oxford

936)

415-421.For a

full

discussion of the

tyrannicide

cult

see

F.

Jacoby,

Atthis

(Oxford

1949)

158-164

and

notes;

K.

Schefold,

Kleisthenes,

MusHelv 3

(1946)

59-86;

V.

Ehrenberg,

The

Origins

of

Democracy,

Historia 1

(1950)

530-534;

G. W.

Williams,

The

Curse

of

the Alk-

maionidai

II,

Hermathena

79

(1952)

4-11;

G.

Vlastos,

Isonomia,

4AP

74

(1953)

340-344.

3


5/19

THE

PHOENIX

the

term

to the

well

known

tyrants

of

Greece and the

West

or

to

tyranny

as

an

illegal

and

despotic

form of

government.

The

two

most

striking

passages

in

the

latter

sense describe

the Athenian

Empire:

Perikles'

remark in

the second

book

(2.

63. 2:

cws

rvpavviSa

'yap

8srl xere

aVOrTv,

Xv

Xagl3ev

Lev

aiLKov

5OKEl

etvai,

&etvaL

6U

ErTLKiLvvvov.),

For

what

you

hold

is,

to

speak

somewhat

plainly,

a

tyranny;

to

take

it

perhaps

was

wrong,

but

to

let

it

go

is

unsafe,

is

echoed

by

Kleon

later,

in

his

speech

about

the

punishment

of

Mitylene (3.

37.

2:

ort

Tvpavvl6aeXETr

rvY

apXrv).

Even this

brief account of

the

history

of

the term indicates

that

there

is

no

certainty

that the

tyrants

of

the seventh

and

sixth centuries

were

so called

by

their

contemporaries.

If

they

were,

it denoted their absolute

power, or was a term of censure and abuse; it was not a technical de-

scription

of

a

type

of

government.

In

the

fifth

century

it

is

applied

to

them,

but has

two other

distinct uses: as

a

synonym

for

royal

or

absolute

power,

and

as

a

synonym

for ill

gotten

or

despotically

exercised

power.

Only

by

the

end

of

the

century

is the

latter

restricted

and technical

meaning

established.

When

it

was the

fashion

to

regard

Ionia

as the

pioneer

in

all

things

Greek,

it

was

thought

that Greek

tyranny

was modelled

on

Gyges

of

Lydia,

and

the

probable Lydian origins

of

the

word

and

its

first

appli-

cation to him were cited as corroborative evidence. On this theory the

idea

of

tyranny

first took

root

in

the

Greek

cities

of Asia

Minor,

perhaps

in

Ephesos

where

we

hear of

Melas

the son-in-law

of

Gyges,

or in

Miletos

where

Thrasyboulos

was

a

famous

tyrant;

thence it

spread

to

mainland

Greece.

But

Melas

is

nothing

but

a

name,

and

Thrasyboulos

was

a

contemporary

of

Periander,

who

belonged

to the

second

generation

of

tyranny

in

Corinth.

What

evidence we

have

points

in

the

opposite

direction,

to

the conclusion

that

the earliest

tyrants

were

in

Greece

itself,

the

group

at

the

Isthmus,

the

Kypselids

in

Corinth,

the

Ortha-

gorids in Sikyon, and Theagenes in Megara. Whether the career and

methods

of

Gyges

provided

a

pattern

for

the

Isthmian

tyrants

can be

only

a

conjecture

from

the

fact that

during

and

after

Gyges'

reign

Greek-Lydian

relations

first became

frequent

and close.

On

the

other

hand it is

certain

that

the

conditions

which

gave

rise to

these

tyrannies

were

peculiarly

Greek,

and

bear

little relation

to

anything

we

know,

or

can

guess,

of

the

circumstances

attending

the

palace

revolution

and

change

of

dynasty

in

Lydia.

In

the

Isthmian

cities Dorian

aristocracies

had

succeeded

the

kingships

established at the time of the Dorian invasions,

kingships

which still

persisted

at

Argos

and

Sparta.

We know

more of

the

Corinthian

aristo-

cracy

than of

the

others;

they

were the

Bacchiads,

a

group

of

Heraklid

land-owning

families

who

intermarried

among

themselves

and

jealously

monopolized

all

political

power

in

Corinth.

They

were an

able

and

vigorous

group

who in

the

early days

of

the colonial

movement

to the

4


6/19

GREEK

TYRANNY

West

planted

two

of

the most

famous and successful

colonies,

Corcyra

and

Syracuse

in

733 B.C.

They

seem

to have been the

first

to

see

the

com-

mercial possibilities opened up by this Greek expansion to the West,

and

instead

of

remaining merely

a

land-owning

aristocracy, solving

the

problems

of

growth by continuing

to

export

population

in

colonies,

they

encouraged

Corinth to

supplement

her

limited

agricultural

resources

by

crafts and

trade.

Strabo

(8.

6.

20,

C378)

says

of

them:

rTO

7roprov

a&6Ew

&Kapir6oavro,

they

fearlessly

reaped

the fruits

of

commerce. It

is

signifi-

cant

that Corinth sent out

only

the two

early colonies;

thereafter

it

is

her

pottery,

Proto-Corinthian,

one

of

the loveliest of

the

'Orientalizing'

wares,

which

appears

in

ever

increasing

quantities

not

merely

in

the

West but throughout the Greek markets. Corinth became famous for her

innovations in

naval

architecture and ca. 704

(Thuc.

1.

13.

3)

lent one

of

her

shipwrights

to Samos

to

build

four

ships

of the

new

style.

This was

probably

the

penteconter,

a

type

of

ship

which,

with

its

fifty

rowers

as

well

as

sails,

was

much less

dependent

on

winds

and currents and

could

make

faster and safer

journeys

than

the

older

ships.5

The

very

success of

the

Bacchiads

in

availing

themselves of

and

adapting

themselves

to

the

expanding opportunities

of

the

early

seventh

century

was

their

undoing.

The twin claims

of

land

and birth

upon

which

an aristocracy relies for its exclusive political control were challenged by

the

appearance

of

a

growing

middle class.

This

middle class

was not

an

exclusively

mercantile

group

in

contrast to

a

land-owning aristocracy;

there

seems to have

been

no

such

clear

distinction.6

Both

groups

had

both

agricultural

and

mercantile

interests,

and

land was still

the

principal

form of

security.

Inevitably,

as

some families

outside the

aristocratic

group grew

wealthy

and

prominent,

intermarriages

took

place.

Alkaios

and

Theognis,

themselves

die-hard

aristocrats,

complain

bitterly

of

such

marriages,

which

corrupt

noble

blood with

base-born

stock.

The new prosperity was reflected in a change of military equipment

and

tactics.

Hoplite

tactics

replaced

the

older

long-range

type

of

fighting

in

which

the aristocratic

cavalry

had

borne

the

burden

and

heat of

the

day,

supported by

a

lightly

armed

and

poorly

trained

militia.

Although

less

expensive

than

cavalry

equipment,

hoplite

armour

was much

heavier

and more

expensive

than that

formerly

used

by

the

fighters

in

the

ranks,

and

hoplite

tactics

involved

long

training

and

drilling

by

a

compact

body

of

fighters

whose

success

depended

upon

their

discipline

and

effective

cooperation.

The

middle

classes

contributed

the

hoplite

phalanx,

and this gave added force to their resentment against the aristocratic

monopoly

of

political

power

and

exclusive

right

to

interpret

justice.

Hesiod

of

Boeotia,

the

earliest

poet

of

mainland

Greece,

voices

the

5Rhys

Carpenter,

The Greek

Penetration of

the Black

Sea,

AJA

52

(1948)

1-10.

6See A.

Andrewes,

Probouleusis:

Sparta's

Contribution to

the

Technique

of

Govern-

ment, Inaugural

Lecture,

Oxford

1954,

13-15.

5


7/19

THE PHOENIX

gathering

storm of

protest against

princes

who

twist

justice

to

their

own

ends.

The answer

of

the Bacchiads to both criticism and demands was the

frequent

answer of

a

privileged

class,

greater

harshness

and

repression.

When,

in

addition,

Corinth

was unsuccessful

in

wars with her

neighbours

Argos

and

Megara

and

her

colony

Corcyra,

the situation was

ripe

for

a

revolution.

Kypselos brought

the discontent

to

a

head

for

his own

personal

advantage

and seized

power

with

the

support

of

the

middle

classes.

The stories of

Kypselos'

parentage,

of

his rise to

power,

and

of

his

policy

thereafter all

stress

that

hatred

of

the

oppression

of the

Bac-

chiads

was

the

sentiment that

rallied

support

for him.

Claims

to

rule

based on the prestige of birth are notoriously hard to break, and a strong

personality, able,resourceful,

and

ruthless,is

needed

to

initiate

a

successful

revolution.

Kypselos

was

a

man of

these

qualities.

Nicolaus

of

Damascus

says

that

Kypselos

became

polemarch,

in

which office the

mildness

of

his

judicial

decisions

contrasting

with

the harsh

decisions

of

the

Bacchiads

made

him

popular

so

that he was

able

to

make himself

tyrant

without

the

usual

bodyguard.7

We

may

be

sceptical

of

some

of

the

details of

the

story,

but

there is

little reason

to

doubt that

Kypselos

had

the

loyal

support

of

the

middle-class

hoplite

soldiers. The first

thing

he

did

was to

kill or drive out the Bacchiads, some of whom fled to Corcyra, Sparta,

and the West.

Periander,

Kypselos'

son

and

successor,

displayed

the

same

implacable

hatred

of

the

Bacchiads.

They

were

expelled

from

their

refuge

in

Corcyra,

and

a

son of

Periander

installed

as

regent.

It seems

clear,

therefore,

that

the

Corinthian

tyranny

arose

in

protest against

the

Bacchiad

monopoly

of

power,

and that the

studied

policy

of

the

Kypselids

was

to break

that

power

for

ever.

In

Sikyon

the

pattern

was similar.

The

Orthagorid tyrants

were

animated

by

hostility

to the

aristocratic

Dorian

families,

and

themselves

belonged to the fourth and non-Dorian tribe. The renaming of the tribes

(Hdt.

5.

68),

to us

a

childishly

spiteful

gesture,

was

Kleisthenes'

telling

attack

upon

the

prestige

of

the Dorian

aristocracy.

Orthagoras,

the

founder of

the

tyranny,

is

described as

the

son

of a

cook

or

a

butcher

(ua,yetpos).

As

a

young

man

he

distinguished

himself

in

his

military

service with

the

repPlro6XoL,

rontier

guards,

became

their

commander,

and

eventually

polemarch.

Then

with the

help

of

the

hoplites

he

seized the

tyranny.8

For

Megara

there is

less

evidence about

the

establishment of

Thea-

genes, but the little there is is

significant.

Aristotle

says

in the Politics

(1305a)

that

Theagenes

secured

power

after

slaughtering

the

flocks

and

herds

of

the

wealthy.

In

the

Rhetoric

(1357b)

he

says

that,

urged

by

the

poor

who

hated the

wealthy,

he

obtained

a

bodyguard

and so

became

7Nic.

Dam. Fr.

57,

F.

Jacoby,

FGH

IIA

(Berlin

1926)

356-357.

8p.

Ox.

11.

1365,

Jacoby,

FGH

IIA,

504-505.

6


8/19

GREEK TYRANNY

tyrant.

It should be

remembered that

Megara

in the seventh

century

had

founded

a

group

of colonies at

and around the

Bosporus,

the

two

most

famous being Chalkedon, an agricultural colony in a quiet bay on the

southern

shore,

and seventeen

years

later

Byzantion

on the

northern

shore

at

the

gates

of the

Euxine

in

a

position

to control the trade

in

and

out of the

Black Sea.

Megara

had

an

aristocracy

which,

like the

Bac-

chiads,

had

exploited

the

possibilities

of

colonization;

their

flocks

and

herds

and the wool

trade,

as Ure

suggests,9

were

an

important

part

of

their

wealth.

Aristotle's

evidence

indicates that

in

Megara

too

the

tyranny

was a

movement to

overthrow

aristocracy.

These Isthmian

tyrannies

are the

earliest

Greek

tyrannies,

so far as

can be inferred from the evidence we have. They begin in the second half

of

the seventh

century;

Kypselos

is

usually

dated

ca.

655,

Orthagoras

about the same

time,

and

Theagenes

in

the

630's.1?

It

seems to

me

that,

if

it is

correct to

say

that

tyranny

in

these

places

was

a

movement

against

the

aristocracies of

birth

led and

supported

by

a

rising

middle

class,

its

geographic position

is

significant.

The

Isthmus,

lying

between

the Corinthian

and

Saronic

gulfs,

stands at

the centre

of

the

principal

trade

routes: the

route to

the West which had been

opened

up

by

the

early

colonial

movement,

and the

routes

to

the

East,

to Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, and to the Black Sea. Here the impact

of

new

developments

was most

quickly

and most

acutely

felt,

and

brought

in

its wake

political

change.

The

idea

spread

eastward,

and

many

cities

in

Asia

Minor

seem to

have

had

tyrannies

in

the

early

sixth

century.

What

we know of

Thrasyboulos

of

Miletos

and the

struggles

in

Mitylene

in

which

the

poet

Alkaios

participated

suggests

that

in

these

places

also it

was

a

reaction

against

aristocracy.

In

Samos,

where

I

have

attempted

to

show

that

the

tyranny

began

as

early

as the 560's

with

the

piratical

activities of

Aiakes,

it was

the

overthrow

of

the

landowners,

the

7yEuo6'poL,

hich gave Aiakes the opportunity to seize personal power.

In

Athens,

tyranny

appeared

with

Peisistratos

in

561/60

under

special

circumstances

which

I

shall

discuss

later.

Although

the first

tyrannies

in

the newer

cities

of

the

West

arose

in

the

early

part

of

the sixth

century,

it

was

not until

the

end

of

the

century

and

the

beginning

of

the

fifth

century

that

most of

the

cities

had

tyrants.

By

this

time

tyranny

had

become

simply

a

designation

for

personal

power

or

dictatorship

and

had

lost its former

significance

as

a

symptom

of social

and

political

develop-

ment.

Similarly

the

later

tyrannies

in

Asia Minor

supported

by

Lydia

9P.

N.

Ure,

The

Origin

of

Tyranny

(Cambridge

1922)

266-267.

'?For

the

usual

chronology

see H.

T.

Wade

Gery,

CAH3

(Cambridge 1929)

Chap.

22.6,

pp.

548-570

and

the

note on

pp.

764-765.

For

a

later

dating

of

the

Kypselids

see

H. R.

W.

Smith,

The

Hearst

Hydria,

University

of

California

Publications in

Classical

Archaeology,

Vol.

1,

No.

10

(1944)

241-290.

1 The Duration

of

the Samian

Tyranny,

JHS

74

(1954)

36-43.

7


9/19

THE

PHOENIX

or

Persia

were

an

artificial

prolongation

of

the earlier

institution

and

cease to

have

any

real interest

for

us.

Having

examined

the

circumstances under

which

the

first

tyrannies

arose,

we

now

ask what was

the

nature

of

a

tyrant's power.

Was it

a

form of

government

based

on

constitutional

enactments;

if

so,

what

was

the

constitutional

formula;

if

not,

wherein did

a

tyrant's power

lie?

The

evidence is

discouragingly scanty

and

vague,

but there

is none

to

suggest

that

tyranny

was

a

form of

government

with

any

constitutional

pattern

of

its

own.

The

opposite

seems

more

likely,

that the

tyrants

did

not

make

any

radical

changes

in the

constitutions

of their cities.

How,

then,

did

they

work?

Basically

I

think it was

by

a

change

of

personnel.

The families of the former aristocracies were killed, expelled, or suppressed,

except

for

the few who

were

willing

to

make

their

peace

and

work

with

the

tyrants. They

were

replaced by

the

supporters

of

the

tyrants,

the

people

who

had

grown

prosperous

in

the

period

of

expansion,

who

made

up

the

hoplite

armies,

and

had

helped

the

tyrant

to set

himself

up.

That

they

were

capable

of

taking

responsibility

is clear

from

the fact

that their

respective

cities

continue

to

grow

more

prosperous

and

vigor-

ous. Far

from

there

being any sign

of

even

a

temporary

retrogression

caused

by

inexperience,

there is

expansion

and

development

in

every

sphere. In Corinth, although the Bacchiads were expelled, yet the city's

commerce

grew,

Proto-Corinthian

pottery

was

succeeded

by

the

Cor-

inthian

styles,

Early,

Middle,

and

Late,

which until about 550

dominated

the

pottery

markets of

the

whole

Greek world.

In

Sikyon

Kleisthenes'

non-Dorian

tribe became

the Rulers

and

the Dorian

tribes were

degraded,

yet

Sikyon

in

the

first half of

the

sixth

century

became

for

the

only

time

in

its

history

a

Greek

power

of

the first rank.

And

so one

could

continue

through

the

whole list.

The

tyrants

doubtless drew

for

their

personnel

upon

that

class

which

had

gained

experience

and

wealth but had hitherto

been excluded from political power, and the event amply demonstrated

their

capacity.

Did the

tyrant

himself

hold

any

one of

the

regular

offices?

Again

the

evidence is

incomplete.

For

Corinth

and

Sikyon

there

are

only

the

traditions

that

Kypselos

and

Orthagoras

held

military posts

with the

hoplite

armies

when

they

seized

power.

For

Samos

there is one

valuable

piece

of

evidence,

the

inscription

on

the

seated

statue

dedicated

by

Aiakes

or

his

successors

which

reads:

Dedicated

by

Aiakes son of

Bryson

who

secured the

booty

for Hera

KarTa

Trv

rl-rTaavw,

when he was

CtrfT&ra'S.

This perhaps indicates that Aiakes held the position of

CertLrTrs

while he

exercised what

later

generations

would

call

a

tyranny.

The most

interesting

evidence

is

for

Athens.

Both

Aristotle

(Ath.

Pol.

16. 2.

8)

and

Thucydides

(6.

54.

6)

are

emphatic

that

the Peisistratids

were careful

not to

disturb

the

existing

constitution

embodied

in

the

laws of

Solon,

but

Thucydides

adds this

significant

reservation:

7rXjv

KaO'

8


10/19

GREEK TYRANNY

o6ov aLel rva

e7reEMXrovTo

OfUv

atrsV

kv

rals

'pXaOs

elvaL- except

in

so

far

as

they

took

care

that some of themselves

should

always

hold

the archon-

ships. Here we see how the tyranny worked. The archonships were held

by

the

party

of the

tyrants,

and the archons became life

members

of the

Areopagos

at

the

end

of

their

year

of

office.

The

archons

were

the chief

executive

magistrates

of Athens

at this

time,

and the

Areopagos

in

the

words of

Aristotle

(,th.

Pol.

8.

4.)

still

supervised

the

greater

and

more

important parts

of

public

life.

Through

control of these two

branches

of

the

administrative

machinery

the

policy

of

the

tyrants

could

be

carried out without further violence

to the

Solonian

constitution.

Peisis-

tratos

himself

had

probably

been

polemarch

when he

captured

Nisaea

from Megara in the Megarian wars and was thus already a member of

the

Areopagos

before he became

tyrant.

The

archon list inscribed

on

stone ca.

425

B.C.,

a

portion

of which was

discovered

in the American

excavations

of

the

Agora

and

published

in

1939,12

shows that

Hippias,

the eldest

son

and heir of

Peisistratos,

became archon

in

526/5

as soon

as

possible

after his

father's

death,

and

that

his

son,

the

younger

Peisis-

tratos,

was

archon

in

522/1.

Two

other names

in

the list

are

interesting.

Kleisthenes was archon

in

525/4,

indicating

that the Alkmaionid

family,

which

had

gone

into

exile when

Peisistratos seized

power,

had become

temporarily reconciled to the tyranny and had returned to hold office in

the

early years

of

Hippias'

rule,

only

to

go

into

exile

again

probably

after

the

murder of

Hipparchos.

Miltiades,

archon

in

524/3,

belonged

to

the

Philaid

family

which

from the

beginning

had been

willing

to

cooperate

with the

tyranny.

For

Athens then we have

enough

evidence

to

say

with some assurance

that

the

tyrants

worked

through

the

regular

magistrates

and

council,

without

disturbing

the constitution.

But this was

only

their

modus

operandi-their

real

power

was

neither

dependent

upon

these offices

nor

circumscribed by them. They held a personal power far surpassing any

office

by

virtue of their successful

overthrow

of

the

aristocracy,

their

successful

leadership

of

their

supporters,

and

the benefits

of

their

policy

to

the

city

as

a

whole.

Usually,

at least

by

the

second

generation,

the

tyrant

took the

precaution

of

having

a

bodyguard,

for

fear

was not

a

negligible

factor in

their success.

Although

the scale

is

larger

and the

machinery

more

complex,

Augustus'

power

in

the

early

Principate

offers

many

analogies.

His

prestige

was won

by

the

victory

of

Actium,

and

his

victory brought

a

new

personnel

into the Roman

oligarchy

of

office. Although he was careful to take only certain specific offices and

powers

and

proclaimed

that

he

had

restored

the

republic,

no

one

was

under

any

delusion

as to the

extent

of

his

real

power,

which

pervaded

every aspect

of the life of the

empire,

and was

even

greater

because

not

12The

ragment

is

published

with

a

photograph

and

commentary

by

B. D.

Meritt in

Hesperia

8

(1939)

59-65.

9


11/19

THE PHOENIX

explicit.

There are

many

similarities between

tyranny

and

principate,

and

a

tyranny

in

the smaller

context of

the

city

state needed

less

ma-

chinery.

To

take another

analogy closer in time though perhaps less

similar

in

character,

Perikles'

power

in

fifth-century

Athens

during

the

last

fifteen

years

of

his

life when he was

continuously

elected

general

was

much

greater

than

the

generalship.

It

rested

in his

ability

to

carry

with

him

the

Ekklesia

in all

questions

of

policy.

As

Thucydides

says

(2.

65.

9)

Athens

was

in

name a

democracy,

in

reality

it was

government

by

the

first

citizen. The

Ekklesia

had

by

the

constitutional

changes

of Kleis-

thenes,

Ephialtes,

and

Perikles himself

become

sovereign,

and he

who

led the

city

must

lead

it. In

the earlier

period

before

the demos had

such

power, it was through archons and Areopagos that the tyrants must

work.

We

ask

next;

what did

the

tyrants

try

to

do

and

how much

did

they

achieve?

In

the

first

place,

they

led their

cities to

greater

material

prosperity,

by

encouraging

a

diversified

economy

in

which

agriculture

continued

to

hold

an

important

place

but

was

supplemented

by

an

ever-

increasing

development

of

such

crafts as

pottery,

metal

work,

and

textiles,

and of

export

trade

with the

ship-building

and mercantile

activity

which

must

accompany

it.

Corinth

provides

a

good

illustration.

There, using the excellent clay which is one of Corinth's most valuable

natural

resources,

the

many

small

establishments

of

the

Potters'

Quarter,

the

Kerameikos,

produced

vast

quantities

of

all

kinds of

pottery

and

terracotta

figurines

to

flood the

Greek

markets;

roof-tile

factories made

and

exported

the

special type

of

roof-tiles

invented

in

Corinth;

terracotta

architectural

decorations for

temples

and

public

buildings

were

shipped

abroad

and

have been

found

in

such

places

as

Thermon

and

Kalydon

in

Aetolia;

perfume

was

made to fill

the

thousands of

little

decorated

aryballoi

or

perfume

bottles,

one of

the

most common

types

of

Corinthian

pottery. Other exports were perishable and less easy to trace, but from

literary

sources

we know

that

Corinth was

famous

for

bronzes

and

other

metal

work,

and textiles.

Some

of

the

bronzes

survive

and are

discussed

and illustrated

by

Payne

in

Necrocorinthia.

There

is

also the

famous

golden

bowl

dedicated

by

the

Kypselids

at

Olympia,

now

in

the

Boston

Museum

of

Fine

Arts.

The

Kypselids

gave

Corinth

her

first

coinage,

a

means

of

exchange

to

facilitate

this

mercantile

development.

Within

the

previous

generation

coinage

had been

invented

and

came

into

use

first

in

Lydia

and the

Greek cities in Asia Minor. Aegina had issued the first silver

coinage

in

Greece

itself,

the

silver

turtles.

The

beginning

of

Corinth's

coinage

with

the

winged Pegasos

as its

device

is

now

dated

about

600

B.C.,

and

was

probably

the

second

example

of

coinage

in

European Greece,

to

be

followed

shortly

by

Athens.13

laFor

this

later

dating

of

the

early

coinages

see E. S.

G.

Robinson,

Coins

from

the

Ephesian

Artemision

Reconsidered,

JHS

71

(1951)

156-166.

10


12/19

GREEK

TYRANNY

Corinth

built and maintained

a

navy

of both

warships

and

merchant

ships.

A

canal

was

cut

through

the isthmus

between

Leucas and the

mainland so that ships would not have to sail outside Leucas. Periander

planned

a

canal

through

the Isthmus

of

Corinth but was unable to

carry

it

out.

To

secure

raw materials

and

to

safeguard

the

routes

to the

West

against any

interference from

a

hostile

Corcyra,

the

Kypselids

planted

a

series

of

colonial

foundations

of

a

new

and

imperialist

type

on

the

north-west

coast

of

Greece:

Leucas, Ambracia,

and Anaktorion

just

north of

the

Corinthian

Gulf,

and

Apollonia

north

of

Corcyra.

Potidaia

on

the Isthmus

of

Pallene

in

Chalkidike

was

clearly designed

to

secure

timber from Macedonia and minerals. In each a member of the Kypselid

family

was

placed

as

viceroy

(as

was

done

also

in

Corcyra

itself

by

Periander when

he

expelled

the

exiled

Bacchiads),

and the colonies

were

kept

under

strict Corinthian control. This control was

maintained

long

after

the end

of

the

tyranny;

in

the

fifth

century

even

their

coins were

certainly

sometimes and

may usually

have been minted in

Corinth and

were the

Corinthian 'colts' with

distinguishing

letters

for

each

colony.

The second

aspect

of

tyrant

policy

which

I

wish

to

emphasize

arises

directly

out

of

this mercantile

development,

that

is,

urbanization.

The

city of Corinth must have grown enormously during the seventy-odd

years

of

the

tyranny. Many people

were

employed

in

the

various

small

industrial and commercial businesses

and had

to

live

in

the

immediate

area of

the

city

and

its

harbours. It was in

this

period

and

due

to these

causes

that

what we

think

of as the

typical

city-state

came

into

being.

A

Greek

city-state

consists not

only

of

the urban

and harbour area

with

its

industrial

establishments,

shops

and

market

place,

civic

offices,

temples

and

public buildings,

and the

population employed by

all

these

businesses,

but

also

of

the

country

and its

villages

with

the

agricultural

population. Until the time of mercantile expansion the urban area was

little more than the

seat

of

government

and the

city

cults,

and

a

place

of

refuge

in

case

of

attack;

the

country

and

villages

were more

important.

The

situation

changed

at this

period

and the

urban

centre

of

the

city-

state

began

to

be built

up

with

a

much

larger

population earning

its

living

therein.

Water

supplies, drainage,

streets,

market

places,

public

buildings,

new

temples,

and

city

walls

appear,

the

outward and visible

signs

of

the new

city-state.

Little of this

remains

in

Corinth,

so

thoroughly

was

it

destroyed

by

the Romans

in

146

B.c.,

except

for

the Potters'

Quarter with a few remains of a

city

wall, and the two fountain-houses of

Peirene

and

Glauke,

the earliest

structures of which

belong

to the

tyrants.

A

good

and

abundant

water

supply

was one of

the

first

needs

of

a

growing population

in a

country

like

Greece

which

is

short

of

water.

It

is,

therefore,

not

surprising

that

fountain-houses and

aqueducts

are

among

the best

known

public

works of

the

tyrants.

The

choice

by

the

Kypselids

of the

winged

horse

Pegasos

as

the

device

for

their coins

was

an

11


13/19

THE

PHOENIX

ingenious

piece

of

propaganda

for

the fountain of

Peirene,

which

in

legend

gushed

forth

where

Pegasos

struck

his hoof

as

he mounted

into

the

air. The temple of Apollo, the only other early building left in Corinth,

was built

a

little

later than

the

period

of

the

tyranny

but

was

part

of

the

same

policy

and testifies to

the

resources

accumulated

by

the

tyrants.

In

the

third

place,

the

tyrants

made

their

cities

powers

of

the

first

rank

by

a

vigorous foreign

policy,

a

munificent

generosity

to the

influ-

ential Greek

shrines,

and

an

enlightened

patronage

of

the arts.

The

Kypselids

treated

on

equal

terms with the

kings

of

Lydia

and

Egypt,

arbitrated

in

disputes

between

cities,

and

maintained

friendly

relations

with

other

tyrants.

Their

dedications at

Delphi

and

Olympia

excited

the

admiration of future generations. Their patronage of the arts was a

deliberate

part

of

their

policy;

they

needed artists

and craftsmen for

the

designing

and

executing

of

pottery,

metal

work, textiles,

and terra-

cottas;

architects and

sculptors

for

the

new

buildings

and

for

their

dedications

at

home and

abroad.

They

were

equally

interested

in

attracting

poets

to

their

courts. The

result

was

a

brilliant

period

in

the

development

of

both arts

and

literature.

The

Samian

tyrants

of

the

sixth

century

displayed equal

vigour

and

resource

in

their

policies.

The

most acute

problem

for

them

from

the

middle of the century onward was foreign relations: how to preserve

their

independence

in

the

face

first

of

Kroisos'

threat to

conquer

the

islands as

well as

the coasts of

Asia

Minor, then,

when Kroisos fell

and

Asia Minor

became

part

of

the Persian

Empire,

of

Persia's more

relentless

pressure.

Aiakes

built

a

strong

navy

of

penteconters,

and

cultivated

close

relations with

Egypt,

so

that Samos

was

in

a

position

to

fall

heir

to the

vacant

thalassocracy

when

the

previous

thalassocrat,

Phokaia,

was

ruthlessly

subjected

to

Persia.

Aiakes

apparently

(Hdt.

1.

169)

made

token

submission

to

Persia,

but

Persia,

without

a

navy

of her own

until

she conquered Phoenicia and Egypt, was in no position to interfere with

Samos'

virtually

independent

control

of the

Aegean

sea-lanes.

Polykrates

inherited both

navy

and

foreign

policy.

He

converted the

navy

of

pente-

conters

into

a

navy

of

triremes,

the new

type

of

warship,14

and

improved

the

harbour

of

Samos

by

building

the mole

which

Herodotos

(3. 60)

mentions,

and

maintained

the

alliance

with

Amasis of

Egypt

until

Kambyses'

attack

on

Amasis

forced

him

to

choose

between Persia

and

Egypt.

He

seized

every

opportunity

of

strengthening

his

position

in

the

Aegean: by

alliance

with

Lygdamis

of

Naxos,

by

subjecting

some of

the

islands and

dedicating

Rhenaia to the Delian

Apollo,

whose

festival he

celebrated,

and

by

giving

refuge

to Arkesilaos

of

Cyrene.15

Polykrates'

14J.

A.

Davison,

The First

Greek

Triremes,

CQ

41

(1947)

18-24.

15Lygdamis

of

Naxos,

Polyainos

1.23;

the

islands

and

Rhenaia,

Thuc.

1.13;

for

the

suggestion

that

Rhodes

may

have

been

one of

them,

Bowra,

Greek

Lyric

Poetry,

260-262;

the celebration

of the

Delia,

H.

W.

Parke,

Polykrates

and

Delos,

C2

40

(1946)

105-

108;

Arkesilaos

of

Cyrene,

Hdt.

4.

155,

159.

12


14/19

GREEK

TYRANNY

enemies

charged

him with

a

piratical

blockade

of

the

Aegean,

but

in

reality

Samos did the

Greek

cause

important

service

in

these

years

by

building up a strong bulwark of naval power in the Aegean against

Persian

westward

expansion.

The domestic

policy

of

the

Samian

tyrants

is less

well

known

than

that

of

either

the

Corinthian

or Athenian

tyrannies,

chiefly

because

attention

is focussed

on

their

foreign

relations

and

the

dramatic

tale

of

Polykrates'

fall

(Hdt.

3.

120-125).

The evidence

for

the

office

of

krtarar7rs

which

Aiakes

held

has

already

been

mentioned;

there

is

no

evidence

of

what,

if

any,

office

Polykrates

held.

Hostility

to

the

aristocracy

of

'y7wob6po,

overthrown

by

Aiakes when

he seized

power,

persisted

to

the

time of Polykrates, who to be rid of them sent them as his contingent

to

Kambyses

for the

invasion

of

Egypt.

They

went

instead

to

Sparta

and with

Spartan

and Corinthian

assistance

tried

unsuccessfully

to

drive

out

Polykrates.

The interest

of

the

tyranny

in

commerce

is

obvious.

Samos

was

one

of the three

states

to have

a

separate

temenos

at

Naukratis;

her

close

connexions

with

Cyrene

and the

West,

the

semi-piracy

of

her

naval

policy-all

point

clearly

to

vigorous

commercial

activity,

as does

Poly-

krates'

reputation

for

wealth

and

his

prosperity.

The public works of the Samian tyranny were famous. Herodotos

(3.

60)

mentions

the

three

notable structures:

the

harbour

mole

to

which

reference

has

already

been

made,

the

Heraion

built

by

Rhoikos,

and

the

water

tunnel

of

Eupalinos.

There

were

two

temples

to

Hera:

an

older

temple,

the

channelling

of whose column

bases

was

commented

on

as

late

as

the

first

century

A.D.

by

Pliny (N.H.

36.

90),

was

destroyed

soon

after

its

completion

about the

middle

of the

sixth

century,

and

a new

and

larger temple- the

largest

of

all

temples

known to

us, says

Herodotos-

was laid

out

on

the

site, utilizing

in

its

foundations

the

column

bases

of

the earlier structure. This temple was in process of building when Poly-

krates

was killed

about

522

B.C.,

and

was not

completed

until

Hellenistic

and

Roman times.

Its foundations

with

the

beautiful

column

bases

cut

and

fitted

into the

masonry may

still

be seen

in Samos

to-day.

The

water

tunnel

was

deservedly

regarded

as

one

of

the

most

remarkable

engineering

works

of

the

ancient

world.

It

brought

water

into the

city

of

Samos

from

a

spring

a little

more than

a mile

away,

on

the

other

side

of

the

mountain

to the

north

of the

city.

The

water

was carried

in

pipes

for

about

half

a

mile

to the

mountain,

then

a

tunnel,

eight

feet

high

and

eight

feet wide and rather less than half a mile long, was dug

through

the

mountain,

both to

carry

the

water

pipes

and

to

provide

a

means

of

escape

from the

city.

It

emerged

inside

the

city

walls

and the

water

was

taken

by

another

conduit

to

a

fountain-house

somewhere

in

the

city.

Tunnels

were

driven

from both

ends

of

the

mountain

at the

same

time,

meeting

in

the

middle.

At

the

junction

the

section

from the

north

was found to

be

only

about

twenty

feet

west

of the section

from

13


15/19

THE PHOENIX

the

south

and about

eleven feet

higher,

and connexion

between

them

was

made

without

undue

difficulty.

The tunnel

must

have

taken

at

least

fifteen years to build and required considerable knowledge of both

surveying

and

engineering.

It

and

the

two

temples

are

evidence

for

two

generations

of

tyranny

at

Samos,

beginning

as

early

perhaps

as

the

second

quarter

of

the

century,

rather than the usual view that

Polykrates

(ca.

532-522

B.c.)

alone was

tyrant.'6

Many

men of

science,

artists,

and

poets

are

associated

with the

Samian

tyranny.

Rhoikos was

the

architect

of the

Heraion;

Theodoros

is

named

by

some authorities

as

joint

architect,

and the two are said to

have

in-

vented the

hollow

casting

of bronze

statues.

Theodoros

was

one

of

the

most

famous metal workers of the period and made many well known works

of art

such as

the

bowl

dedicated

by

Kroisos

at

Delphi

and the emerald

ring

of

Polykrates

(Hdt.

1.

51;

3.

41). Mnesarchos,

the

gem engraver

and

father

of

the

philosopher Pythagoras,

was

an

older

contemporary

of

Rhoikos and

Theodoros.

Pythagoras

himself disliked the

tyranny

and

left

Samos,

first for

his

earlier visits

to

Egypt

and

Babylon,

and

eventually

for

Kroton

in the

West.

Eupalinos

of

Megara

was

brought

as

engineer

for

the tunnel. It

has been

suggested

that Thales and

Anaximander,

whose

floruit

coincided with the

Samian

tyranny,

acted

as

consultants

for the surveying of the tunnel. Demokedes of Kroton, the physician who

later treated

Dareios and

Atossa,

was attracted

to Samos

by

Polykrates

by

the

large salary

of two

talents

a

year

(Hdt.

3.

131).

Two

poets

are known

to have been at the court

of

the

Samian

tyrants.

Ibykos

of

Rhegion

went

to

Samos

in

the

days

of

Aiakes,

and there

spent

most

of

the

rest

of

his

days.

A

poem

found at

Oxyrhynchus

ends with

a

graceful

compliment

to the

young

Polykrates:

Kai

a(,

IIoXiKpaTrE,

KX,OS

&a0Trov

T

E

s,

cW

KaT' aOLtav Katle.obv KXCos.

Anakreon of

Teos was

brought

by

Polykrates

as tutor for

his

son,

and

remained until

Polykrates'

tragic

death,

when

Hipparchos

of

Athens

sent

a

penteconter

to

convey

him

to

Athens. Most

of his

poetry

was

written

in

Samos.17

The

courageous,

though

ruthless,

foreign policy,

the

magnificent pro-

gramme

of

public

works,

and this

galaxy

of

artists and

poets

made the

Samian

tyranny

one of

the most brilliant

and memorable

in

Greek

history.

I have

deliberately

left

to

the end

the

Athenian

tyranny,

which

though

typical

in

some

of

its

aspects,

is

in

many

of

its most

important

features

'6For full

discussion of the

length

of

the Samian

tyranny

and

details

of the

public

works and

the

patronage

of

the

arts

below

see the

article

cited

in

JHS

74

(1954)

36-43.

For

Ibykos'

poem

and

discussion of Anakreon see

Bowra,

Greek

Lyric Poetry

259-264,

287-305.

14


16/19

GREEK

TYRANNY

unusual.

From

its

very beginning

the

Athenian

tyranny

was a

less

violent reaction

against

the

older

aristocracy

because

of

the

reforms

of

Solon which preceded it. Solon had made property the basis for eligibility

to office

and

so

broken the

Eupatrid

monopoly

of

the

archonship

and

the

Areopagos.

Families

of

wealth

and influence outside the

Eupatrid

circle,

like the Philaids and

Peisistratos himself

from

Brauron,

were

enabled to hold

office

by

the

change.

The

Solonian

changes,

however,

were not

accepted

without

bitter resentment.

The

antagonism

between

the

two

parties

of the

Plain

and

Coast,

the

opponents

and

supporters

of

Solon's

reforms,

gave

Peisistratos the

opportunity

to

organize

his

own

personal

party,

the

Diakrioi or

Hill,

with which he

seized

power

in

561/60.

His personal following was not at first strong enough, and he was driven

out

twice,

the second

time for

a

long

ten-year

exile,

before he

finally

returned victorious

in

546.

He

was

tyrant

then until his

death

in

528/7,

and

his

eldest son

Hippias

succeeded

to his

power

until

he

was

expelled

in

511/10.

The

thirty-six

years

of

tyranny

were

a

period

of

enforced

political peace during

which

the bitter

rivalries of

the

nobles,

which

had

harassed Athens both before

and

after

Solon,

died

out. Some

families

like the

Alkmaionidai went

into

exile,

others like

the

Philaids

remained

to

work

with the

tyrants,

still

others refrained

from

opposition

because

hostages had been taken and deposited in Naxos. We have already

observed how Peisistratos

was

able to

carry

out his

policies

within

the

framework

of

the

Solonian

constitution.

People

were

reconciled to

the

constitution

during

these

years,

and

the

difficult transition

from

birth

to wealth was

peacefully

accomplished.

The

increase

in

prosperity

made

more

people

eligible

for

the various

offices,

the

property qualifications

of which

Solon

had

established. The

general

effect was

a

levelling

of

political

differences

and

a

widening

of

the

circle

of

political

experience,

so that after the

tyranny

Athens

was,

in

a

real

sense,

ready

for

Kleis-

thenes' democratic reforms.

The

economic

development

of

the

whole

country

did much

to

produce

that middle

class,

with

enough

stability

and

leisure to

devote

itself

to

politics,

needed

for

Kleisthenic

democracy.

Peisistratos

was

able

to loan

money

to

poor

farmers to enable

them to transfer from

cereal

cultivation

to more

profitable

agricultural crops

such as

olives and

vines,

and so

had

relieved

the severe

economic distress

which

Solon

could

not

cure

and

had

established

on

a

sound basis the class of small

farmers

which

continued

to

be

hereafter

an

important

element

in

the Athenian

economy.

At the

same time, like all other tyrants, he encouraged the industrial and

mercantile

development

of

the

city.

From

about 550

Athenian

pottery

ousts Corinthian from

the

markets;

black-figure

is

followed

by

red-figure

as the

finest

pottery

of the

Greek

world. Athens

embarked

on

a

remarka-

ble

building programme,

which laid the

foundations

of

the

future

form

of the

city

and also

immediately

provided

employment

for

artisans

of

15


17/19

THE

PHOENIX

all

sorts,

architects,

sculptors,

masons,

carpenters,

metal

workers,

and

a host

of

other

trades.

The

introduction of

the

tetradrachm

coinage

and

its immediate popularity facilitated Athens' growing trade.

The urban

development

so

characteristic of

the

tyrant period

else-

where

is

conspicuous

in

Athens

also,

but

accompanying

and

comple-

menting

it is

a

policy arising

out of

the

special

circumstances

of

Attica,

that

is,

the

unification

of

Attica

around

Athens

as its

centre.

Not

long

before Solon's

time the

synoicism

of

Attica

had

been

completed by

the

incorporation

of

Eleusis,

but

there

remained the

task

of

welding

the

whole into

a

strong

and

permanent

unity.

And this

the

tyrants

accom-

plished by

a

policy

both

astute

and

imaginative.

Their concern

for

the

small farmer class as well as the expansion of employment for artisans

and workmen of all

kinds has

already

been

noted.

To

this

in

no

small

measure was

due

the

success of

their

efforts

to

create

a

united state.

The

prosperity

of rural

and

urban

elements

was

interdependent; agri-

culture

no

longer

had to

provide

for

virtually

the

whole

population,

and

with

the

removal

of

overstrain on

its

resources

both

groups

shared

a

new

prosperity.

But

there

was

another

side of

the

unification

which has

not

hitherto

been

given

sufficient

recognition,

the

part played

by

festivals

and

cults.

On the Acropolis a new temple to Athena was built and the Great Pana-

thenaic festival

was made

the

symbol

of

the

synoicism;

indeed

the festival

of the

Synoikia

was its

initial

ceremony.

After

the

days

spent

in

athletic

contests,

musical

competitions,

and the

famous

recitations

of

Homer,

the festival

culminated

on

the

28th

of

Hekatombaion in

the

great

pro-

cession

to

the

Acropolis

when

the

whole

people

made

its

offerings

to

Athena.

In

this

magnificent

and

solemn

pageant

the varied life of

Attica

found

its

ideal

representation.

In

the

Agora

was

built

the

Altar

of

the

Twelve

Gods,

six

pairs

of the

principal deities worshipped throughout Attica. This was made the

central

mile-stone

for a

road

system

of

Attica.

Local

cults

from

different

parts

of

Attica

received

a

new

importance

and

dignity

by

the

establishment of

festivals

and

temples

in

Athens,

so

that

they

became cults for

the

whole

of

Attica.

The

most famous

is,

of

course,

the

festival

of

Dionysos

of

Eleutherai,

now

brought

to

Athens;

a

temple

of

Apollo

was

built

on

the

south

slope

of

the

Acropolis

and in

his

honour

were

performed

the

choruses

out

of

which

grew

the

great

dramatic

competitions

of

tragedy

and

comedy.

Similarly

the

Eleusinian

Mysteries

became an Athenian

festival;

Artemis of

Brauron,

the

village

from

which

Peisistratos

came,

was

given

her

precinct

on

the

Acropolis;

the

younger

Peisistratos

dedicated

an

altar

to

the

Pythian

Apollo;

and the

enormous

temple

of

the

Olympian

Zeus

was

begun,

although

not

completed,

before

the

expulsion

of

the

tyrants.

There is

some

reason

to

believe that Solon

16


18/19

GREEK TYRANNY

had

begun

this

policy

of

providing

cults

for

the

whole

people,

but

un-

doubtedly

it was

the

tyrants

who

exploited

it

with brilliant

success.l8

Patronage of the arts, a usual feature of the tyrants' policy, was more

extensive

and

more fruitful

here than elsewhere.

Vase-painters,

sculptors,

architects,

poets,

and musicians

were drawn to

Athens

by

the

generous

opportunities

offered

there.

Anyone

who

wishes

to understand

and

appreciate

fully

the

genius

of

the

Peisistratids need

only

study

the

amazing

progress

in

all

the

arts

in

the

last

years

of

the sixth

century

and

the full

flowering

of

the fifth

century.

In

their

foreign

policy

can be

seen

the same

clear

insight,

the

same

shrewd

judgement

as

to

where

Athens'

future fortunes would

lie.

They

maintained friendly and pacific relations with their neighbours in Greece

itself,

but

turned their

eyes

to the

island

world,

to

the

Hellespont,

and

to the

Thracian

coast.

The

tyrant

of

Naxos

was

assisted,

and

Delos,

where

the

Ionians

celebrated

the

festival

to

the Delian

Apollo,

was

purified.

Whether

they

had

any

Documents

Phoenix 1955 Greek Tyranny