Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:42:19.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pisistratus’ leadership in A. P. 13.4 and the establishment of the tyranny of 561/60 b.c.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Valerij Goušchin
Valerij Goušchin
Affiliation:
Perm, Russia, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known from the sources that three Athenian factions were organized after Solon's reforms. Herodotus writes as follows:

In the course of time there was a feud between the Athenians of the coast under Megacles son of Alcmeon and the Athenians of the plain under Lycurgus son of Aristolaides. Pisistratus then, having an eye to the sovereign power, raised up a third faction. He collected partisans and pretended to champion the hillmen (συλλέξαՏ δ­ σταƣώταՏ ĸαì τѽ λóγω τѽν ύπεραĸρíων προστάЅ). (Her. 1.59, trans. A.D. Godley [Loeb])

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1999 , pp. 14 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This paper owes much to the help and comments of Professor P.J. Rhodes, to whom the author addresses his sincere thanks. Professor Rhodes is in no way responsible for any errors which remain in it.

On the chronology of Pisistratus’ tyranny see RhodesP.J, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (2nd edn, Oxford, 1993), pp. 191–8.

References

2 The commentators have paid attention mainly to the order in which the factions appeared. How, W. W. and Wells, J. supposed that Pisistratus had formed his party after those of Lycurgus and Megacles (Commentary on Herodotus [Oxford, 1912], i, p. 81).Google Scholar B. Lavelle adds that ‘Pisistratus’ formation of a third party shows that he was an upstart, new to Athenian politics and without a significant established base of city-support’ (‘Note on the first three victims of Ostracism [Ath. Pol. 22.4]’, CP 83 [1988], 133, N. 12).

3 Aristotle knew and used Herodotus’ work. His treatise is much influenced by Herodotus’ work and attitude as well (see on this question Rhodes [n. 1], pp. 89, 204–5).

4 As in Herodotus, the party of Pisistratus is mentioned here last.

5 In correspondence P. J. Rhodes has expressed the opinion that this passage was Aristotle's (or the author's) personal point of view.

6 I leave aside here Aristotle's inclination to reduce the struggle to one between democrats and aristocrats. As distinct from A.P. it is not so obvious in Herodotus that Pisistratus was the leader of the demos. A. Podlecki has referred Pisistratus’ leadership over the demos to his fictitious identification with Solon (‘Solon or Peisistratus? A case of mistaken identity’, Anc. World 16 [1987], 8, n. 33).

7 Rhodes (n. 1), p. 97. W. R. Connor supposed that the term came into use in the lifetime of Pericles. It is then, as he writes, that the politicians began to represent themselves as the protectors of the whole city or of the demos (The New Politicians of Fifth-century Athens [Princeton, 1971], pp. 112–13). H. Schaefer and M. Lang dated its appearance to the sixth century (Schaefer, H., s.v. Prostates, in RE Suppl. 9 [1962], 1289–93Google Scholar; Lang, M., ‘Cleon as the Anti-Pericles’, CP 67 [1972], 161, n. 3).Google Scholar

Later, in the fourth century, prostates will be supplanted by ‘demagogue’ (see Zoepffel, R., ‘Aristoteles und Demagogen’, Chiron 4 [1974], 69–90).Google Scholar

8 Rhodes (n. 1), pp. 88, 345.

9 There was, I suspect, a special word for aristocratic leaders (or leaders of aristocratic staseis) in the Archaic Greek political vocabulary: it was hegemon. For this word see Sol. frs. 4.7, 6.1, 22a.2 (West), A.P. 26.1 (see below, n. 27). The appearance of prostatai tou demou and ton gnorimon in A.P. was not, I believe, theoretically grounded. It was simply casual word-usage.

10 On the meaning of demos, see Donlan, W., ‘Changes and shifts in the meaning of Demos in the literature of the Archaic Period’, PP 25/135 (1970), 381–95.Google Scholar

11 According to J. V. Fine, in the time of the first tyrants the demos consisted mainly of the men of hoplite status (The Ancient Greeks [Cambridge, MA, 1983], p. 209, cf. p. 108).

12 Andrewes, A, ‘The tyranny of Pisistratus’, CAH2, iii.3 (Cambridge, 1982), p. 394.Google Scholar

13 The phrase τŵ λόγω τŵν ύπεραĸρίων προΣτάՏthere could be equated, I suspect, with τŵλόγω τοû δήμον προστάՏ.

14 Rhodes (n. 1), pp. 88–9, 292, 345ff. On Aristotle's sociology, see also Day, J and Chambers, M, Aristotle's History of Athenian Democracy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961)Google Scholar; Ober, J., ‘Aristotle's political sociology’, in C., Lord (ed.), Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1991).Google Scholar

15 See n. 9. Aristotle's sociological prejudice made itself felt especially in the Politics. He reduced the conflict that began after Solon's reforms to Pisistratus’ struggle with the rich Pediakoi (Pol. 5. 1305a23–4). Pisistratus’ enmity towards the rich was the basis of the demos' trust in him (a22–3).

16 See Rhodes (n. 1), pp. 97, 159ff. On Solon's prostasia, see Isocr. Antid. 230ff.

17 See on this French, A., ‘Solon and the Megarian question’, JHS 77 (1957), 238–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frost, F. J., ‘The Athenian military before Cleisthenes’, Historia 33 (1984), 281–94 at 288–9.Google Scholar

18 That appointment could first be made at a spontaneous meeting of armed citizens: ‘In Greek cities’, as Sealey, R. writes, with reference to the time of the Thirty, ‘a gathering of armed men for military action could easily develop into a political assembly’ (The Athenian Republic: Democracy or the Rule of Law? [University Park and London, 1987], p. 96).Google Scholar

19 Frost (n. 17, p. 289) states that Salamis could have been captured by pirates and gangsters, and refers to the law ascribed to Solon (Dig. 47.22.4 = E. Ruschenbusch, ΣόλωνοՏ Nόμοɩ [Wiesbaden: Historia Einzelschriften 9, 1966], 98–9, fr. 76a). The sources, however, depict that operation as the result of the spontaneous mobilization of the citizens.

20 Solon's interpretation of the stasis, as David, E. remarks, conveys the impression of demagogia (‘Solon's electoral propaganda’, RSA 15 [1985], 7–22 at 13).Google Scholar

21 They were perhaps the same young men who desired the continuation of the war with Megara.

22 The citation is from French, A., Sixth-century Athens: The Sources (Sydney, 1987), p. 26.Google Scholar G. Ferrara wrote that the demos needed a champion when it was drawn into a struggle with the aristocrats (‘Su un’ interpretazione delle riforme di Solone’, PP 15/70 [1960], 33).

23 This is confirmed to some extent by Aristotle's Politics. An oligarchy at Cnidus was overthrown by means of prostasia (see n. 28, below). In the same way Solon puts an end to unqualified oligarchy (òλɩγαρíίν … ĸαταλûσαɩ λίαν ἄĸρατον) (Pol. 2. 1273b37–8).

24 Rhodes (n. 1), pp. 234, 242ff.

25 See the comments of Rhodes (n. 1), pp. 243–5. Herodotus narrates it in another way: έσΣοúμενοs δ­ ό Κλεɩσθένηs τòν δμον προσεταɩρίζεταɩ(Her. 5.66.2). P. Lévêque translates προσεταɩρίζεσθαɩ as ‘faire entrer le peuple dans son hétairie'; the same word, he writes, used in [Plat.] Axiochos 369a–b, refers there to the demagogues’ activities. (‘Formes des contradictions et voies de développement à Athènes de Solon à Clisthène', Historia 27 [1978], 538, n. 47). Manville, P. B., The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens (Princeton, 1990), pp. 185–8,Google Scholar argues that the final phrase means, ‘giving to all the people the citizenship’, but see Rhodes (n. 1).

26 Kienast, D., however, failed to notice Cleisthenes’ demagogic programme (‘Die innenpolitische Entwicklung Athens im VI. Jh. und die Reformen von 508’, HZ 200 [1965], 279).Google Scholar

27 Aristotle seems to differentiate prostates and hegemon. In A.P. 26.1 he wrote that ‘the aristocrats had no hegemon, but Cimon being youthful was their prostates' (see Rhodes [n. 1], p. 324). Hegemon here looks like a higher-grade leader than prostates.

28 According to Aristotle it was the demos that ‘took prostatai’. In A. P. 28.1 he writes that after Pericles’ death ‘the people for the first time adopted a head (προστάτην ᾤλαβεν ó σῆμοs) who was not in good repute with the respectable class’. In the Politics we hear that when at Cnidus stasis began among the oligarchs ‘the common people seized the opportunity of their quarrel and, taking a champion from among the notables (ò σῆμοs… λαβὼν προστ¬την ༐ĸ τŵν γνωτίμων) fell upon them and conquered them’ (Pol. 5. 1305b16–18). In both cases it was the demos which took the initiative in choosing a leader.

29 Rhodes (n. 1), pp. 199–200; Frost (n. 17), p. 290.

30 How and Wells (n. 2), p. i. 82.

31 Herodotus wrote that Pisistratus was granted a bodyguard since he became famous (πρότερον εàσοĸιμήσαs) in the war with Megara ‘when he had taken Nisaea and performed great exploits’ (Her. 1.59, cf. A.P. 14.1).

32 See French (n. 17), p. 241.

33 The authenticity of the term has been discussed elsewhere. How and Wells (n. 2, i, p. 82) thought that Herodotus was using this word in a non-technical sense. Andrewes supposed that it was the polemarchos who commanded in this war (CAH2, iii.3, p. 397).

34 Develin, R., Athenian Officials, 684–321 b.c. (Cambridge, 1989), p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Develin (ibid., p. 42) assumes that Pisistratus could still be a general when he became a tyrant.

36 For Andrewes's doubts see CAH 2, iii.3, p. 397. R. J. Hopper was inclined to assume the support of the hoplites for Pisistratus and saw it in the assignment of a bodyguard to him (‘“Plain”, “shore”, and “hill” in early Athens’, ABSA 56 [1961], 206, n. 169).

37 Herodotus, as has already been said, was conscious of the popular roots of the early tyranny (see pp. 15–16). Nevertheless, he tried to persuade his readers that Pisistratus was an exception to the rule.

38 Plato wrote of democracy which develops into tyranny (Rep. 5.564a). Aristotle supposes that more often revolution from democracy to oligarchy occurs (Pol. 5.1304b35ff.). See also Newman, W. L., The Politics of Aristotle, iv (Oxford, 1902), p. 334.Google Scholar

39 According to David tyranny used to be the ‘natural’ outcome of demagogy: thus ‘Solon gave the people no reason to believe that he would not follow the example of other demagogues’ (n. 20, p. 14). David guesses that this was a part of Solon's electoral propaganda; the verses condemning tyranny will have been written after his archonship (ibid). On Pittacus’ tyranny, see Arist. Pol. 3. 1285b25–6. See also Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956), pp. 96–9Google Scholar; Martin, H., Alcaeus (New York, 1972), pp. 29–31;Google ScholarDonlan, W., The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece (Lawrence, 1980), pp. 61–2.Google Scholar

40 ‘The resolution’, Aristotle continues, ‘being proposed by Aristion (’ριστίωνοs γράψαντοs τν γνώμήν)’ (A.P. 14.1). That the proposal survived in written form is doubtful (see Rhodes [n. 1], p. 200).

41 Acording to Plutarch their number was fifty (Plut. Sol. 30).

42 B. M. Lavelle thinks that citizens, not mercenaries, were recruited for the tyrant's bodyguard (‘Herodotus, Skythian archers, and the “Doryphoroi” of the Peisistratids’, Klio 74 [1992], 78–97).

43 Welwei, K. W., Die griechische Polis (Stuttgart 1983), p. 165.Google Scholar

44 Mossampeacute, C.; compares Pisistratus’ korynephoroi with the korynephoroi (or katonakophoroi) of Sicyon (La Tyrannie dans la Grèce antique [Paris 1969], pp. 62–4).Google Scholar W. Donlan (n. 39, p. 62) wrote that ‘club-bearers’ was a pejorative name for the common people.

45 ‘Club-bearers’, as Lavelle supposes, would have been ineffective against even a few heavily armed citizens (n. 37, p. 94 n. 91; id., ‘The Compleat Angler: observations on the rise of Peisistratos in Herodotos (1.59–64)', CQ n.s. 41 [1991], 317–24 at 318, n. 9).

46 Boardman, J., ‘Herakles, Peisistratos and sons’, RA (1972), 57–72Google Scholar; id., ‘Herakles, Peisistratos and Eleusis’, JHS 95 (1975), 1–12. For criticism, see Cook, R. M., ‘Pots and Pisistratan propaganda’, JHS 107 (1987), 167–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Boardman's response: ‘Herakles, Peisistratos and the unconvinced’, JHS 109 (1989), 158–9.

47 Why did Herodotus insist on the korynephoroi? It may be the result of his investigations; I suspect, however, that we are dealing here with Herodotus’ hostility to Pisistratus again. By referring to the ‘club-bearers’ he connected him not with ordinary Athenians (or indeed with hoplites) but perhaps with marginal men or with the dregs of society. Herodotus (intentionally or not) takes Pisistratus out of the ranks of early Greek tyrants who were often the people's champions. Perhaps Herodotus’ ‘club-bearers’ stimulated Aristotle's treatment of Pisistratus’ party in A.P. 13.5.

48 That is stated by some late sources (e.g. schol. Plat. Rep. 8.556b). See also Rhodes (n. 1), p. 200.

49 LSJ in fact distinguishes two words ῥûμα, corresponding to the two verbs ༐ρúω: (A) that which is drawn, e.g. a bow; (B) a defence. See T. E. Rihll, ‘Lawgivers and tyrants (Solon, frr. 9–11 West)’, CQ n.s. 39 (1989), 277–86 at 277–9; but she substitutes ῥúσια for ῥúματα (279 and n. 13).

50 Lavelle (n. 42), pp. 93ff. See also How and Wells (n. 2), i, p. 82.

51 Lavelle (n. 42), p. 78 and n. 1.

52 On aisymnetes and aisymnetia, see Busolt, G., Die griechische Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer (2. Aufl., München, 1892), pp. 38ff.Google Scholar = Griechische Staatskunde, i (München, 1920), pp. 372–4;Bauer, Vasilij, The Age of Ancient Tyranny (St Petersburg, 1864), pp. 26–71Google Scholar (in Russian).

53 This was in the case of Pittacus (see Diog. Laert. 1.75, Val. Max. 6.5. ext. 1, Nic. Dam. FGrH 90 F 53; also Bauer [n. 52], p. 47).

54 See n. 2.

55 I am not sure whether it is necessary to differentiate or not. Pisistratus could be a leader of his own faction as well as prostates. See n. 58.

56 See also Rhodes (n. 1), p. 201.

57 Pisistratus’ first tyranny lasted from a few months (Rhodes [n. 1], pp. 191–9) to a few years (cf. Andrewes, CAH 2, iii. 3, pp. 399–400).

58 It is well known that Cleisthenes was a leader of his own stasis. J. Ellis and G. Stanton refer to Solon as a leader of his faction, and treat Solon's friends as a hetaireia (‘Factional conflict and Solon's reforms’, Phoenix 22 [1968], 100–1); but Davies, J. K. denies the authenticity of the evidence referring to Solon's friends, and considers this story to be a late invention (Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 b.c. [Oxford, 1971], p. 506).Google Scholar As for Pisistratus, we hear of his στασιŵται in Herodotus (1.59). He too could be a leader of a faction and a prostates as well.

59 David (n. 20) erroneously regarded this as propaganda before his election as archon.

60 See also Newman (n. 38), p. 339.research-article