Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Hipparchos : studies in peisistratid history, 528-514 B.C. Lavelle, Brian M. 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A1 L34.pdf [ 12.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100293.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100293-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100293-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100293-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100293-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100293-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100293-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100293-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100293.ris

Full Text

HIPPARCHOS: STUDIES IN PEISISTRATID HISTORY; 528-514 B.C. by BRIAN M. LAVELLE B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , San Diego, 1974 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Davis, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of C l a s s i c s We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE" UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1983 g> B r i a n M. L a v e l l e , 1983 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f (L^ASSt C -S  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT This d i s s e r t a t i o n examines Hipparchos, the son of P e i s i s t r a t o s , and the years 528-514 B.C. at Athens. Modern s c h o l a r s h i p has g e n e r a l l y adjudged Hipparchos a powerless, d i s s o l u t e aesthete on the b a s i s of Thucydides' t e s t - imonia about Hipparchos' murder. Yet., i t i s c l e a r from o t h e r sources t h a t Hipparchos was much more, perhaps even the most important P e i s i s t r a t i d a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s ' death, c e r t a i n l y the most v i s i b l e . The purpose of t h i s d i s -s e r t a t i o n i s t o shed new l i g h t on t h i s important p e r i o d by aiming a t a b e t t e r understanding of Hipparchos. Chapter I concerns Hipparchos' image and i s a c o m p i l a t i o n of t e s t i m o n i a r e l e v a n t t o him. The i n t r o d u c t i o n to the chapter attempts t o i l l u s t r a t e the importance of image t o Greek t y r a n t s of the a r c h a i c p e r i o d and to show t h a t image can be u s e f u l as an i n d i c a t o r of t y r a n n i c a l power. The remainder of the chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l and l i t e r a r y r ecords of Hipparchos. Sections are devoted to Hipparchos' herms, the w a l l of the Akademy and h i s P t o l o n d e d i c a t i o n . The l i t e r a r y r e c o r d i s d i v i d e d i n t o e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s (Hipparchos and I o n i a ) , i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s (the O n o m a k r i t o s - a f f a i r ) , and i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s (the Panathenaia and Hipparchos). The c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t Hipparchos was f a r more prominent than h i s brother Hip p i a s and much more s i g n i f i c a n t than p r e v i o u s l y b e l i e v e d . Chapter I I c o n f r o n t s the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l problem of succession t o P e i s i s t r a t o s . I t i s d i v i d e d i n t o examination of the s t e l e concerning the a d i k i a of the tyrants', Thucydides' most important evidence f o r the succes-sion,and the l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n about the succession. (An appendix examines the evidence of the s i x t h century a r c h o n - l i s t . ) The c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t the s u c c e s s i o n - i s s u e became c o n t r o v e r s i a l i n the f i f t h c entury, apparently w e l l a f t e r the end of the tyranny. Chapter I I I d e a l s w i t h Thucydides' account of Hipparchos' murder. Sec-t i o n s are g i v e n t o accounts before Thucydides', but l a t e r accounts are con-s i d e r e d o n l y as they d i f f e r from h i s on s p e c i f i c p o i n t s . Thucydides 1 account i s examined i n two s e c t i o n s : m o t i v a t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s and the a c t i t -s e l f . The c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t Thucydides was q u i t e probably i n f l u e n c e d by h i s own preconceptions t o read h i s b e l i e f s i n t o a s u b s t r u c t u r e of e a r l i e r m a t e r i -a l . The evidence f o r t h i s i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y and i m p l a u s i b i l i t y i n Thucydides' account. An e p i l o g u e c o n s i d e r s Hipparchos 1 i n f l u e n c e over l a t e r prominent Athenians and the c i t y i t s e l f . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i ABBREVIATIONS i x INTRODUCTION 1 I . THE IMAGE OF HIPPARCHOS 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n : The Appearance of Tyranny 5 2. The A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Record 13 A. Hipparchos 1 Herms 13 B. The Wall of Hipparchos 2 3 C. The P t o i o n D e d i c a t i o n 27 3. The L i t e r a r y T r a d i t i o n 29 A. E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s : Hipparchos and I o n i a 29 1. ) Background: P e i s i s t r a t o s and Delos 29 2. ) Hipparchos and Anakreon 31 B. I n t e r n a l / E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s : Hipparchos and Onomakritos ... 34 C. I n t e r n a l A f f a i r s : Hipparchos and the Panathenaia 37 1. ) I n t r o d u c t i o n : P e i s i s t r a t o s 37 2. ) Hipparchos 40 D. Conclusions: Hipparchos, The L i o n Enduring 42 V 4. Conclusions 48 I I . THE SUCCESSION 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 78 2. The S t e l e concerning the Crime of the Tyrants 81 A. I n t r o d u c t i o n 81 B. Reconstr u c t i o n 85 C The Charge 95 D. H i s t o r i c a l C o nsiderations 105 E. Thucydides and;the S t e l e 117 3. L i t e r a r y T r a d i t i o n 121 A. I n t r o d u c t i o n 121 B. Herodotos 122 C. H e l l a n i k o s 125 D. Athenaion P o l i t e i a - 127 E. Thucydides 129 F. Harmodios-Skolia 132 G. The Archedike-Epigram " 136 H. Conclusions 138 4. Conclusions 140 I I I . THE MURDER OF HIPPARCHOS 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n : Thucydides and the Tyrannicide 179 2. Accounts before Thucydides 1 182 A. I n t r o d u c t i o n 182 B. Herodotos 182 C H e l l a n i k o s and Other Versions 185 v i 3. Thucydides 187 A. Introduction 187 B. Motivation 189 C. The Act 197 D. Conclusions 207 EPILOGUE 224 BIBLIOGRAPHY 237 APPENDIX: The Sixth Century Archon-List 253 1. Hippias 25'3 2. Thucydides, the' Archon-List, and Hipparchos 265 3. Conclusions 268 v i i L I S T OF T A B L E S T A B L E 1 : CHART C O M P A R I N G P U N I S H M E N T S 1 0 3 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to my ad v i s e r s f o r t h e i r d i l i g e n c e , h e l p f u l n e s s and e x p e r t i s e . S p e c i a l thanks must go t o Professor M.F. McGregor f o r h i s k i n d help and h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y e x c e l l e n t thoroughness, to Pro f e s s o r P. Harding who k i n d l y arranged t h a t I might work on t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n during the summer of 1981, and t o Pro f e s s o r A.J. P o d l e c k i f o r generously supplementing my grant w i t h departmental work during 1981-82. I am a l s o g r a t e f u l to the Tina and M o r r i s Wagner Foundation of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r t h e i r k i n d award of a g r a n t - i n - a i d f o r 1981-82. Thanks are due a l s o to Prof e s s o r H. Immerwahr f o r h i s gracious a s s i s t a n c e i n Athens and t o Professo r Peter Rahn f o r k i n d l y reading an e a r l i e r d r a f t of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and f o r h i s h e l p f u l comments. I thank Ms. S h i r l e y Todd who typed t h i s t h e s i s . I wish a l s o t o thank Ms. J i l l Pegusch f o r her support and encouragement during my work and, above a l l , I thank my mother, Mrs. Rosemary L a v e l l e , w i t h -out whose kindness, g e n e r o s i t y and love I could not have completed t h i s work. i x ABBREVIATIONS Jou r n a l t i t l e s are abbreviated i n general conformance w i t h L'Annee  P h i l o l o g i g u e ( P a r i s ) . Other common a b b r e v i a t i o n s used i n t h i s work are as f o l l o w s : ( s e e b i b l i o g r a p h y f o r complete i n f o r m a t i o n ) : Cadoux Davies, APF Dover, HCT F r G r H i s t How and Wells IG Jacoby, A t t h i s  LGS Meiggs and Lewis PMG  R-E SEG T.J. Cadoux, "The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides", JHS 68 (1948) J.K. Davies, Athenian P r o p e r t i e d F a m i l i e s , 600-300 B.C. A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K.J. Dover, A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides, IV F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der G r i e c h i s c h e n H i s t o r i k e r W.W. How and J . W e l l s , A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Herodotus  I n s c r i p t i o n e s Graecae F. Jacoby, A t t h i s . The L o c a l C h r o n i c l e s of Ancient Athens D. Page, Lyra Graeca S e l e c t a R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A S e l e c t i o n of Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s t o the End of the F i f t h Century B.C. D. Page, Poetae M e l i c i Graecae  Pauly's Realencyclopadie der c l a s s i s c h e n Altertumwissenschaft, e d i t e d by G. Wissowa, W. K r o l l and K. M i t t e l h a u s Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum A l l dates i n t h e s i s are B.C. unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d . 1 INTRODUCTION H i s t o r i c a l l y , the years 528 - 514 B.C. a t Athens are vaguely known and l a r g e l y unexplored. L i t t l e evidence has survived to shed l i g h t on the events from P e i s i s t r a t o s ' death to the death of h i s son, Hipparchos. Modern views of the p e r i o d are based f o r the most p a r t on inference and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n from r e a s o n a b i l i t y . Much of what has been reco n s t r u c t e d or i n f e r r e d r e s t s upon the testimony of Thucydides, who i n Book VI (54-59) recounts Hipparchos' murder. On the b a s i s of t h a t testimony, we assume th a t Hippias succeeded h i s f a t h e r i n 528 and t h a t h i s brother Hipparchos contented himself w i t h the r o l e 1 of aesthete and patron of poets. I t i s f u r t h e r assumed th a t Hippias r u l e d much as h i s f a t h e r had u n t i l h i s f r a g i l e a l l i a n c e w i t h the great f a m i l i e s of Athens, such as the A l k m a i o n i d a i and the P h i l a i d a i , apparently broke down. The r e s u l t was Hipparchos' murder. I t i s g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t , throughout the p e r i o d , Hippias remained q u i e t and r u l e d u n o b t r u s i v e l y , d e s i r i n g not to offend the Athenian a r i s t o c r a c y , but t h a t Hipparchos, to the c o n t r a r y , acted t y r a n n i c a l l y and p a i d the p r i c e because of h i s behaviour. These assumptions are a c t u a l l y p a r a d o x i c a l : i f Hippias was t y r a n t , why would Hipparchos appear to be t y r a n t ? Again, how could Hippias c o n c i l i a t e the Athenian a r i s t o c r a c y i f he allowed Hipparchos to f l a u n t the power of the tyranny? The r e c o n s t r u c -t i o n thus seems u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . Of the l i t t l e s o l i d evidence from our sources t h a t p e r t a i n s to the p e r i o d , much concerns Hipparchos, not H i p p i a s . Indeed, even from cursory study of what i s s a i d about Hipparchos i n Herodotos and i n other authors' 2 works and from h i s a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e c o r d , i t i s c l e a r t h a t Hipparchos was a much more s u b s t a n t i a l f i g u r e than modern s c h o l a r s h i p has allowed. In' g e n e r a l , Hipparchos has been dismissed as a dandy who "...had a r e p u t a t i o n 2 f o r d i s s o l u t e arrogance". Again, t h i s judgement a r i s e s from Thucydides' assessment of the t y r a n n i c i d e . Yet i t i s c l e a r t h a t Thucydides has adopted a p o l e m i c a l approach to the importance of the t y r a n n i c i d e and h i s views may not be untouched by t h a t a t t i t u d e . T his d i s s e r t a t i o n aims p r i m a r i l y a t c l a r i f y i n g Hipparchos' s t a t u s and importance i n h i s own time away from the polemic and controversy of l a t e r authors. To achieve t h i s aim, the d i s s e r t a t i o n i s d i v i d e d i n t o two main s e c t i o n s : examination of Hipparchos' a r c h a e o l o g i c a l and l i t e r a r y records (Chapter I) and of the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l problems about him t h a t d e r i v e from Thucydides (Chapters I I and I I I ) . The f i r s t chapter i s l a r g e l y con-cerned w i t h Hipparchos' image and a c t s as a preface t o the f o l l o w i n g chap-t e r s . The i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s chapter i s a study of the importance of image t o Greek t y r a n t s of the a r c h a i c p e r i o d ; the c o n c l u s i o n examines Hipparchos' d e s i g n a t i o n i n Herodotos as l i o n , an apparent a l l u s i o n to power. Quite c l e a r l y , Hipparchos appears t o have been a wealthy, powerful man who g r e a t l y outshone a l l Athenians of h i s day, i n c l u d i n g H i p p i a s , i n the same way as P e i s i s t r a t o s and other t y r a n t s were luminous. H i p p i a s , t o the con-t r a r y , was s i l e n t and nearly i n v i s i b l e during the p e r i o d . This very low p r o f i l e i s e s p e c i a l l y anomalous i n view of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' example. With t h i s new p e r s p e c t i v e on Hipparchos i n mind, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o con-f r o n t the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l problems a f f e c t i n g him. The purpose of the d i s s e r t a t i o n ' s second s e c t i o n i s two-fold: to determine what Thucydides wrote about Hipparchos and t o d i s c o v e r , i f p o s s i b l e , why Thucydides wrote what he d i d . Thucydides' strongest evidence f o r h i s views about the 3 succession, the subject of Chapter I I , i s the s t e l e concerning the a d i k i a of the t y r a n t s . Yet. there are reasons t o question Thucydides' c o n c l u s i o n s , e.g. , the s t e l e Thucydides saw was probably not set up before 480. On the other hand, the Archedike-epigram, which d e r i v e s from an e a r l y p a r t of the f i f t h century, seems to show t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i ranked themselves c o l l e c t i v e l y . I t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t Thucydides was locked i n t o an argu-ment f o r Hippias' primacy t h a t precluded c o n s i d e r i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of a shared r u l e . Indeed, there are c l e a r i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n Thucydides' account of Hipparchos 1 murder, the subject of Chapter I I I . I t appears t h a t Thucydides' dejdication to h i s argument about the importance of Hipparchos and the t y r a n n i c i d e compelled him to f o r c e h i s preconceptions onto a subst r u c t u r e of f a c t s t h a t y i e l d only i m p e r f e c t l y t o those preconceptions. I t i s a secondary aim of t h i s chapter t o b r i n g t o l i g h t t h a t substructure and to explore i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Thucydides' account and f o r our own understand-ing of the t y r a n n i c i d e . 4 Notes 1 Cf. A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956) 109-11; L.H. J e f f e r y , Archaic Greece: The C i t y - S t a t e s , 700-500 B.C. (London, 1976)-95-8; R. Sealey, A H i s t o r y of the Greek C i t y - S t a t e s , 700-338 B.C. (Berkeley, 1976) 136-7. 2 J e f f e r y (above, n. 1) 98. 5 I. THE IMAGE OF HIPPARCHOS 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n : The Appearance of Tyranny Good fortune i s f i r s t of p r i z e s , good repute i s second; he who a t t a i n s these two and grasps them i n h i s hands i s given the uttermost garland. II 1 Pindar, Pyth. 1.98-100 These words have some s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r an assessment of the image of Hipparchos: f o r t o estimate h i s importance reasonably a c c u r a t e l y , he must be viewed i n h i s own time away from the polemics of l a t e r w r i t e r s and be judged on the b a s i s of what he appeared to be i n h i s time. Such an examination and i t s r e s u l t a n t impression w i l l not be devoid of worth, how-ever, because ar c h a i c Greeks made f a r l e s s d i s t i n c t i o n between appearances and r e a l i t i e s . A man was what he appeared to be: i f he was luck y , he reported i t ; i f he was wealthy, he d i s p l a y e d i t ; i f he was powerful, he lorded i t . Things were r e a l , not s u b t l e , and men measured themselves and t h e i r accomplishments by comparisons. Thus, appearance suggested substance and substance was ass u r i n g and t h e r e f o r e admirable and e n v i a b l e . L i k e t y r a n t s and other powerful men of h i s day, Hipparchos d i s p l a y e d wealth and power. I do not mean t o say by t h i s t h a t such appearance can be r e l i a b l y used to i n d i c a t e t h a t Hipparchos was the t y r a n t of Athens a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s , but only t h a t he apparently shared an a t t i t u d e common among t y r a n t s and so could e a s i l y have generated the b e l i e f t h a t he was the t y r a n t f o r l a c k of more substantive evidence. The concept of appearance and i t s bearing on 2 6 the comportment of t y r a n t s must, however, be kept i n mind while Hipparchos' p r o j e c t s and endeavours are examined, c h i e f l y because appearance was impor-t a n t to the t y r a n t s of the day and because Hipparchos' appearance c o n t r a s t s so sharply w i t h the near i n v i s i b i l i t y of Hippias before 514. Tyranny i n a r c h a i c Greece was never c l a n d e s t i n e . Tyrants wished to be recognized f o r what they were: men who, w i t h a measure of d i v i n e a i d , 3 had gained preeminence among t h e i r f e l l o w s . They were eudaimones, s p e c i a l among men and blessed: "The great mind of Zeus guides 4 the angel i n the men he l o v e s . " Such men n a t u r a l l y wanted others t o know of t h e i r fortune and so wished t o 5 p u b l i c i z e the d i f f e r e n c e s between themselves and common f o l k . Andrewes observes: " I f h i s c o u r t i e r s c a l l e d him king or t y r a n t , i t was a r e c o g n i -t i o n of h i s power and enhanced h i s p r e s t i g e . . . . The t y r a n t d i d not t r y to conceal the f a c t of h i s power but r a t h e r a d v e r t i s e d i t , knowing t h a t the 6 o r d i n a r y man would at l e a s t h a l f admire him f o r i t . " Simonides sets out the popular conception of the motivations of t y r a n t s i n Xenophon's Hieron: "...you (sc. t y r a n t s ) rush headlong to i t (sc. tyranny) so t h a t you are honoured, t h a t a l l w i l l obey you i n a l l t h i n g s unquestioningly, t h a t a l l w i l l look upon you, t h a t a l l by words and deeds may g l o r i f y you whoever i s 7 around you." Any concealment w i l l have det r a c t e d from the t y r a n t by mut-ing the d i f f e r e n c e s worthy of p e c u l i a r honour. Power and wealth were sources f o r honour i n ar c h a i c Greece and were confirmed by d i s p l a y : "Wide i s the str e n g t h of Wealth when, mixed w i t h s t a i n l e s s v i r t u e 8 and granted of d e s t i n y , mortal man leads i t home...." 7 Simonides says i n the Hieron: "The ochlos forms i t s o p i n i o n of one man's luck (eu"«f°t^ov<y ) and another's l a c k by seeing. Tyranny o f f e r s i t s precious 9 possessions outspread f o r a l l to see." Wealth was the d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t set the t y r a n t above the common f o l k , f o r i t was the assurance of s u r f e i t and 10 s e c u r i t y , of coveted l u x u r i e s t h a t were denied the ord i n a r y Greek. Kr o i s o s ' wealth caused him to consider himself the most fortunate of men ( o/\/3c wnocro^ ) and earned him undying r e p u t a t i o n through h i s d i s p l a y of i t : 12 "The generous achievement of Kroisos fades not." Secret wealth or undisplayed power would have earned nothing whatsoever f o r i t s possessor; memorability and respect were won by examples of wealth 13 demonstrated f o r a l l the Greeks to see. One of the Greeks most impressed w i t h such d i s p l a y was Herodotos, whose h i s t o r y i s r e p l e t e w i t h the r e p o r t of fabulous d e d i c a t i o n s made by r i c h and powerful men of the arch a i c p e r i o d . L i k e other Greeks of h i s day, Herodotos v i s i t e d H e l l e n i c shrines and s a n c t u a r i e s , such as at Delphoi, where he noted the sumptuous g i f t s of men who c o n t r o l l e d power and wanted repute among t h e i r f e l l o w Greeks: Kypselos, Herodotos observed, was r e a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the 14 s p l e n d i d treasury of the K o r i n t h i a n s at Delphoi. In i t was housed the 15 remarkable censer of Euelthon, the t y r a n t of Cyprian Salamis. The gold statue of Alexander P h i l h e l l e n e of Macedon was used by Herodotos to o r i e n t 16 h i s readers, implying t h a t many would know i t w e l l . Greeks who, l i k e Herodotos, came to Delphoi or other sanctuaries would have been impressed by such r i c h o f f e r i n g s as Herodotos was and would have taken back r e p o r t of them to t h e i r own towns or v i l l a g e s . The r e p u t a t i o n of the dedicator would grow and grow. S i m i l a r l y , to the shrines during f e s t i v a l - t i m e s would come Greeks from a l l p a r t s of the H e l l e n i c world to witness the games. I t was then t h a t a 8 t y r a n t or powerful man could hope to impress, l i t e r a l l y , a l l Greece w i t h h i s wealth and good fortune. For wealth enabled the t y r a n t or powerful man to 17 compete i n the l o r d l i e s t of a l l competitions, the four-horse c h a r i o t - r a c e . And i f h i s team won f o r him at Olympia or at the P y t h i a , h i s name would be 18 proclaimed v i c t o r before the assembled Greeks. Proof of eudaimonia was thus witnessed by the assembly, who then d i s p e r s e d each to h i s own c i t y w i t h the t a l k : "Great i s h i s fame always 19 whom your b r i g h t v i c t o r y b e f a l l s . " Such were the power and p r e s t i g e i n v o l v e d i n the games t h a t , i t seems, some t y r a n t s sought t o acquire e s t a b l i s h e d games or to set up t h e i r own. Co n t r o l of the games could help ensure c o n f i r m a t i o n of eudaimonia, f o r a t y r a n t might then i n f l u e n c e the outcome of contests and competitions. This seems to have been the course of Pheidon of Argos who acquired c o n t r o l over the Olympic games and s u b s t i t u t e d h i s own agonothetai f o r the t r a d i t i o n a l 20 E l e i a n judges. K l e i s t h e n e s of Sikyon, on the other hand, devised h i s own 21 v e r s i o n of the P y t h i a a t Sikyon and i t i s l i k e l y t h a t P e i s i s t r a t o s i n f l u -22 enced the competitions of the Greater Panathenaia. C o n t r o l of domestic games, which were l e s s p r e s t i g i o u s than t h e i r p a n h e l l e n i c counterparts, nevertheless o f f e r e d the advantage t o t y r a n t s of c o n t r o l l i n g the l i m e l i g h t : the e n t i r e event could be made to r e f l e c t upon the t y r a n t and h i s accom-plishments. No l e s s important than the v i c t o r y was i t s p u b l i c a t i o n and i t s p u b l i -c i z e r . The p u b l i c i z e r par excellence of the l a t e r a r c h a i c p e r i o d was, of course, Pindar of Thebes. Pindar was q u i t e conscious of h i s important r o l e : "And I , l i g h t i n g a c i t y beloved w i t h a blaze of w h i r l i n g song, 9 s w i f t e r than the proud horse or winged ship on the sea, w i l l c a r r y the message 23 everywhere... . " Pindar emulated other p u b l i c i s t s : "For other kings other men have given 24 the high sound of song, r e q u i t a l of t h e i r achievement." And he was conscious of song's e f f e c t : "The vaunt of r e p u t a t i o n t o come alone a t t e s t s the l i f e of those who are gone, 25 i n song and s t o r y . " The same sentiment was echoed a century l a t e r i n prose by Isokrates f o r Ni k o k l e s , the son of Evagoras of Salamis:; " I f r e p o r t (?\oflo$) w e l l recounts h i s deeds, i t would make f o r a l l men never t o be f o r g o t t e n the arete of 26 Evagoras." The p r a i s e of im m o r t a l i t y became mere f l a t t e r y f o r the c l e v e r court-poets such as Ibykos: "...and you, P o l y k r a t e s , s h a l l have fame undying 27 i n song as my fame w i l l . " The deed that would l e g i t i m a t e l y win g l o r y f o r i t s doer had become s u p e r f l u -ous f o r the i n s p i r a t i o n of the court-poet who now could c o n s c i o u s l y purvey immo r t a l i t y to h i s patron without i t . P o l y k r a t e s , the t y r a n t of Samos i n the t h i r d quarter of the s i x t h cen-t u r y , r e t a i n e d such court-poets as Ibykos and Anakreon, the author of s k o l i a 28 and other banquet-poetry. Anakreon r e p a i d h i s patron w i t h frequent mention 29 i n h i s poetry. When Po l y k r a t e s was murdered and Samos f e l l , Anakreon was 30 fetched to Athens from Samos on a pentekonter by Hipparchos. At court i n Athens were a l s o Simonides of Keos and Lasos of Hermione, the reputed 10 31 inventor of the dithyramb. When the P e i s i s t r a t i d s were e x p e l l e d from Athens, Simonides proceeded f i r s t to the courts of Thessaly, to the Aleuadai and Skopadai, and then, perhaps, to the s p l e n d i d realms of the t y r a n t s of 32 S i c i l y . Simonides was reputedly fond of money and the m o b i l i t y of the poets of the day suggests t h a t t h e i r s e r v i c e s were a v a i l a b l e to the highest bidder: indeed, there i s some reason to b e l i e v e t h a t t y r a n t s l i k e P o l y k r a t e s 33 engaged i n bidding wars to secure the presence at court of eminent men. Now the mere presence at court of the renowned, who were ready to do the biddi n g of the t y r a n t and so g l o r i f y him, became an i n d i c a t i o n of power and wealth. As I have already s t a t e d , t y r a n t s were b e t t e r able t o d i s p l a y t h e i r d i s t i n c t i o n s a t home than abroad: only the imprudent c i t i z e n would seek to compete w i t h a t y r a n t f o r r e p u t a t i o n a t home. In f a c t , few at home could hope t o match the vast o u t l a y p o s s i b l e f o r the c o n t r o l l e r s of s t a t e revenues. Great temples and p u b l i c works could be financed from the common fund and these e d i f i c e s would become i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e i r d e d i c a t o r s . For example, the c o l o s s a l temple of Hera a t Samos was P o l y k r a t e s ' , while the temple of Olympian Zeus a t Athens was, throughout a n t i q u i t y , a t t r i b u t e d to the 34 P e i s i s t r a t i d s . The grand s c a l e of these monuments could not be d u p l i c a t e d by p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s . The fountain-house was a c l e v e r l y devised combination of p r a c t i c a l bene-35 f a c t i o n and grandiose d i s p l a y . Less imposing c e r t a i n l y than the mammoth temples, fountain-houses were nevertheless u s e f u l and p r a c t i c a l and undoubt-edly p r i z e d by the n a t i v e f o l k f o r t h e i r convenience. They were a pla c e of d a i l y congregation, e s p e c i a l l y f o r women, and t h e i r donors could be sure 36 t h a t t h e i r d e d i c a t i o n s could be d a i l y observed. Indeed, t r a v e l l e r s even i n l a t e a n t i q u i t y were s t i l l q u i t e sure t h a t P e i s i s t r a t o s had dedicated the i i 37 Enneakrounos f o u n t a i n . Personal d i s p l a y was e a s i e r s t i l l f o r t y r a n t s and undoubtedly more agreeable. The common view held t h a t t y r a n t s enjoyed the very best t h a t l i f e i n Greece could o f f e r : they possessed the f i n e s t houses, servants, horses, 38 arms and c l o t h i n g . The t y r a n t ' s t a b l e , i t was thought, was always f i l l e d 39 w i t h the c h o i c e s t of d e l i c a c i e s i n never-ending supply. D a i l y proof of eudaimonia could best be expressed i n conspicuous consumption, f o r the commons could best appreciate what they themselves l a c k e d , i . e . , comfortable abundance. Di s p l a y s of power and wealth would inform have-nots of the t y r a n t ' s e x t r a o r d i n a r y l o t by simple c o n t r a s t . To show t h i s d i f f e r e n c e , t y r a n t s courted a t t e n t i o n , not an anonymity t h a t could be i n t e r p r e t e d as shame occa-40 sioned by l a c k of m a t e r i a l wealth. Clandestine wealth and power were use-l e s s , f o r e i g n t o a r c h a i c Greek t y r a n t s , f o r a l l eyes must be upon them. Os t e n t a t i o n t o g a i n repute among the Greeks was an important p a r t of a r c h a i c tyranny. I have made t h i s case to introduce the examination of Hipparchos' image. Of a l l the persons and events t h a t p e r t a i n t o Hipparchos, there are none t h a t can s p e c i f i c a l l y p e r t a i n t o Hippias f o r the same p e r i o d (528-514). This con-t r a s t provides some c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence f o r the g r e a t e r importance of Hipparchos during those years and must be kept i n mind during the survey of evidence concerning Hipparchos. I t does not by any means prove t h a t Hipparchos was t y r a n t , but i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t H i p p i a s , u n l i k e P e i s i s t r a t o s , Hipparchos, or even h i s son, P e i s i s t r a t o s , has l e f t nothing by way of d e d i c a t i o n or p u b l i c work or a record of a c t i v i t y before 514. This s i l e n c e i s anomalous, even f o r Athens. This examination of i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to Hipparchos w i l l proceed i n 12. two parts, the archaeological record and the literary one, which, of course, w i l l be further subdivided. I shall present a composite survey based on evidence at the end of the examination. 2. The A r c h a e o l o g i c a l Record A. Hipparchos 1 Herms "When he had educated those c i t i z e n s around the c i t y and they marvelled at him f o r h i s wisdom, he-'thought to educate those i n the countryside and so put up herms f o r them by the sides of roads i n between the c i t y and each deme. Then he s e l e c t e d from the wisdom th a t he had learned and th a t he had discovered the t h i n g s he thought best, and, t u r n i n g them i n t o e l e g i e s , wrote them as poems and as examples of wisdom. He d i d t h i s f i r s t of a l l i n order t h a t the c i t i z e n s might not admire those wise t h i n g s w r i t t e n i n Delphoi, such as KNOW THYSELF and NOTHING TOO MUCH and other such t h i n g s , but t h a t they might t h i n k h i s sayings wiser. Second, he d i d i t i n order t h a t those going t o and f r o would read and t a s t e of h i s wisdom and would come i n from the f i e l d s t o be educated completely. There are two i n s c r i p t i o n s of h i s : on the l e f t of each herm i s w r i t t e n Hermes saying t h a t he stands between c i t y and deme midway ( ev ju.eerto zou <*OT£O§ K*L. rats dij/Aev ) , on the r i g h t he says THIS IS A MEMORIAL OF HIPPARCHOS: WALK INTENT ON JUSTICE. There are many other b e a u t i f u l epigrams on other herms: there i s even t h i s one on the S t e i r i a road t h a t says: THIS IS A MEMORIAL OF HIPPARCHOS: DECEIVE NOT A FRIEND. [ p i a t o ] Hipparchos, 228c-229b 14 The author of t h i s d i a l o g u e , which i s a s c r i b e d t o P l a t o and g e n e r a l l y dated to the f o u r t h century B.C., was f a m i l i a r w i t h Hipparchos 1 herms i n some 41 form. They were already famous, however, i n Old Comedy as Harpokration (s. v. %pynotL ) shows: ort «ft en-x^oOveo ti*£5 K*\ IntrAp^eot £Joyu.«2 <<rr© IfrtrJp— e > 4 2 e* TUJ J.rTTr<xp^t0 . The herms are thus a t t e s t e d i n l i t e r a t u r e no l a t e r than the f i f t h century B.C. The e x i s t e n c e of the herms i n the s i x t h century B.C. has been confirmed i n t h i s century. K i r c h n e r and Dow redisco v e r e d a fragment of an i n s c r i p t i o n 43 from what must have been a Hipparchan herm. The l e t t e r s of the i n s c r i p -t i o n had o r i g i n a l l y been t r a n s c r i b e d by the Abbe Fourmont i n the e a r l y eighteenth century but the herm had been subsequently l o s t from then u n t i l i t s r e d i s c o v e r y i n 1935; Fourmont's t r a n s c r i p t i o n was publ i s h e d as IG I 2 837: JX|N ME*OI KE^AUE* TE KAI A4TE0*,ANEP, CMJO HEPMEf Peek, i n a p r e l i m i n a r y study sanctioned by Kirc h n e r and Dow, o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g emended reading of Fourmont's t r a n s c r i p t i o n : [EJN MhEjOl KE^AUE^ T E KA» A^TEOf ATl-AO^ HEPME> C l e a r l y , the l i n e found on the herm and t h a t a t t e s t e d i n the Hipparchos are 45 n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l . The s t a t e of the stone was such t h a t i t permitted reasonable conclusions about i t s o r i g i n a l p r o p o r t i o n s and even added some new info r m a t i o n about herms. The preserved height (1.291 m.) was probably the o r i g i n a l height of t h i s s u r v i v i n g element of the herm, which was composed of p a r t s : the top 46 and bottom had apparently been smoothed f o r a n a t h y r o s i s . The bottom of the preserved stone f i t t e d onto a stone base and the head was attached s e p a r a t e l y on top, making the combined height of the separate elements, of 15\ 47 course, more than t h a t of the element preserved. From the herm's l a t e r use, i t was a l s o p o s s i b l e to determine what was probably i t s o r i g i n a l / breadth: h a l f an e n c i r c l e d cross s u r v i v e d i n s c r i b e d i n the stone, which 48 allowed the herm's breadth t o be c a l c u l a t e d at .28 m. The herm's o r i g i n a l 49 t h i c k n e s s was about .17 m., although i t tapered from bottom to top. Spurs 50 .16 m. from the top of the stone i n d i c a t e d t h a t brackets had e x i s t e d . The l e t t e r i n g of the stone does not correspond e x a c t l y to the d e s c r i p -t i o n i n the Hipparchos. In the t e x t , the hexameter i s s a i d t o have appeared on the l e f t , w h i l e the pentameter was i n s c r i b e d on the r i g h t . On the herm, i t i s j u s t the opposite: the r i g h t s i d e c a r r i e s the hexameter, w h i l e the 51 l e f t (presumably) c a r r i e d the pentameter. Peek r i g h t l y observed t h a t t h i s v a r i a t i o n should cause no d i f f i c u l t y : "Es darf auch a. p r i o r i b e z w e i f e l t werden, dass d i e Hermen des Hipparch w i r k l i c h a l l e so uniform waren, wie es 52 nach den D i a l o g der Anschein hat." Indeed, the author's personal acquain-tance w i t h the herms may not have been extensive and he perhaps g e n e r a l i z e d on the b a s i s of h i s i n d u c t i o n . I t cannot be f o r t u i t o u s , however, t h a t the words on the stone so c l o s e l y match the t e x t of the verse given i n the Hipparchos. The fragment confirms the existence of herms set up by Hipparchos i n the s i x t h century. From the agreement between t e x t and stone, we may take i t t h a t the herms were erected midway between c i t y and deme, t h a t each one de-c l a r e d i t s e l f t o be Hermes, and t h a t the herms were yu.v>//-L«=*"ce< of Hipparchos t h a t i n c l u d e d h i s moral griomai, which the passer-by must have i d e n t i f i e d w i t h Hipparchos. I t i s of course important t o d i s c o v e r i f p o s s i b l e the primary purpose of the H.ermai. Were they road-signs or markers, shrines or memorials of Hipparchos? Or were they designed t o combine the p o l i t i c a l , the r e l i g i o u s and the p r a c t i c a l ? Most of a l l , what d i d they mean to Athens, A t t i c a and Hipparchos? Are they important? P o s s i b l y the most s i g n i f i c a n t t h i n g about the herms i s t h a t they are the 53 f i r s t known square herms to have appeared i n Greece. Herodotos (11.51) s t a t e s t h a t the Athenians f i r s t of a l l the Greeks adopted the herm-form from the P e l a s g i a n s , the p r e - H e l l e n i c i n h a b i t a n t s of the Aegean b a s i n . E a r l i e r he had s a i d (1.57.3) t h a t the Athenians were themselves P e l a s g i a n and he seems t o be d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between Pelasgians of the c i t y and Pelasgians of 54 the c o u n t r y s i d e . The Pelasgians had settlements i n olden times around the f o o t of Mount Hymettos and t h e i r depradations f i n a l l y caused the 55 Athenians of the c i t y t o d r i v e them from A t t i c a . Obviously, the Athenians 56 learned of the herm-form while the Pelasgians were s t i l l i n A t t i c a . What Herodotos seems t o be saying i s t h a t the herm-form appeared f i r s t i n the A t t i c countryside and Pausanias (IV.33.3) a f f i r m s t h a t connection. Hipparchos 1 herms, however, had f a r g r e a t e r impact than any of t h e i r predecessors. Marwitz notes t h a t herms do not appear on vase-paintings before 520 and the p r o f u s i o n of herms throughout A t t i c a can be dated from 57 t h a t p e r i o d . The n o v e l t y of the herms a t t r a c t e d the a t t e n t i o n of vase-p a i n t e r s from the e a r l y f i f t h century. One p a i n t i n g by the Pan-painter (480-50) shows a boy running t o market past a herm set up upon a stone 58 base. Beazley's a s c r i p t i o n of the herm i n the p a i n t i n g as Hipparchan i s very a t t r a c t i v e because the boy running t o market would n a t u r a l l y be expected 59 • to use a road as the q u i c k e s t way to town. On the Pan-painter's name-vase, Pan chases a boy past an apparently wooden herm somewhere i n the country-60 s i d e . This herm was perhaps a r u s t i c precursor of Hipparchos' stone 61 herms. On the other hand, i t may be t h a t not a l l Hipparchos' herms were of stone: a cup by E p i k t e t o s (520-490) shows a boy apparently c a r v i n g a 17 62 wooden herm surrounded by the i n s c r i p t i o n HlPAP+o^ KAUO^ . I t i s tempt-in g t o see i n t h i s p a i n t i n g an i n d i c a t i o n of the p o p u l a r i t y of Hipparchos 1 herms. The herms themselves seem to have o r i g i n a t e d as p i l e s of stones 63 (c^ >/*« ), heaped by roadsides, perhaps by t r a v e l l e r s . In time, the growing c a i r n s acquired daimon, becoming sacred as w e l l as f a m i l i a r landmarks t o 64 t h e i r passers-by. I t has been suggested t h a t the herms evolved g r a d u a l l y : p i l e s of stone were surmounted by a n i c o n i c p i l l a r s or p o s t s , perhaps more to d e f i n e the daimon, and these i n t u r n acquired t h e i r more f a m i l i a r semi-human 65 form. M i l l e r has proposed t h a t the t r a c e s of a n a t h y r o s i s atop the s u r v i v -ing fragment of the Hipparchan herm do indeed i n d i c a t e t h a t i t s head was attached s e p a r a t e l y and t h a t t h i s i n t u r n i n d i c a t e s almost the p r e c i s e moment i n the e v o l u t i o n of the herm-form when the a n i c o n i c s l a b acquired i t s human 66 head. How the herms came to be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h Hermes i s unclear. The n a t u r a l assumption, t h a t the god's name came from the word f o r these p i l e s of stones, i s u n l i k e l y because Hermes was known to the Mykenaians as Hermes and because 67 Priapos was a l s o i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the herm-form. Others have suggested t h a t the herms d e p i c t Hermes as the Guide, a f u n c t i o n most notable i n 68 Homer, or as the Psychopompos, si n c e semata of the dead are f r e q u e n t l y 69 found along Greek roads. Goldman b e l i e v e d t h a t Hermes acquired the func-t i o n of a r u r a l Dionysos and t h a t the herms were r i t u a l l y dressed at weddings 70 i n the countryside; F a r n e l l t h a t Hermes was o r i g i n a l l y a p a s t o r a l god l i k e 71 Pan. Perhaps the best view i s t h a t the herm-form was parented by "one of those indigenous godlets who were afterwards confused or i d e n t i f i e d w i t h 72 P r i a p o s " or Hermes. Hipparchos' herms must be l i n k e d w i t h Hermes who leads the t r a v e l l e r , 18 since, of course, the herms were erected p r i m a r i l y with the t r a v e l l e r i n mind. But Herodotos' information about the o r i g i n of the herm-form surely indicates that the herms were r u r a l to begin with. Hipparchos apparently blended the form indigenous to the countryside with Hermes' Homeric function as the Guide. There may be something more to Hipparchos' i n t e r e s t i n Hermes than as a r u r a l godlet,- f o r i n Hipparchos' day Hermes was much more than a l o c a l god or a mere guide to t r a v e l l e r s . He was also the Thief, popular i n l i t e r a t u r e 73 and a r t . Brown has outlined the p o s s i b i l i t y of a very s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p 74 between Hermes and Hipparchos that can account for the herms. There i s perhaps some t r u t h to i t : i n t e r e s t i n g l y , a Panathenaic prize-vase, dated £. 540, shows Athena i n her t r a d i t i o n a l spear-throwing a t t i t u d e , but c u r i -75 ously joined by Hermes. Of course, Hipparchos was a patron of the 76 Panathenaic games. Brown also noted that the epithet used on the herm to 77 describe Hermes, «XA°<O^ , occurs also i n the Homeric Hymn to Hermes. Brown argued that the Homeric Hymn, which was composed during the s i x t h century, was authored at Athens under the patronage of the p o e t i c a l l y - i n c l i n e d 78 Hipparchos. His connections are, however, very tenuous. I t has also been suggested that Hipparchos' herms were introduced as part of a general improvement of A t t i c roads under the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i that 79 included the A l t a r of the Twelve Gods. The A l t a r was erected i n the 80 archonship of P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger, the nephew of Hipparchos, i n 522/1. By the f i f t h century, the A l t a r had become the c e n t r a l milestone of Athens, 81 from which distances to outlying points were measured. Since the herms measured the distance between deme and c i t y , the A l t a r of the Twelve Gods and Hipparchos' herms have been considered complementary and so j o i n t l y con-82 ceived. Some have even ventured to add that the P e i s i s t r a t i d road-19 improvement was meant t o b e n e f i t merchants who would use the roads and so 83 improve commerce throughout A t t i c a . This connection i s f a l s e . For, as f a r as I can t e l l , there i s no proof 84 of any P e i s i s t r a t i d road-improvement beyond the herms and the A l t a r . The herms cannot be taken as evidence of any such improvement since they were set up on e x i s t i n g roads and since t h e i r measurements are imprecise, u n l i k e 85 the measurements of the f i f t h century. Again, Hipparchos 1 herms measured the halfway p o i n t between deme and c i t y , not deme and A l t a r , and so there i s nothing to i n d i c a t e any interdependence. The p o s i t i o n of the A l t a r a t the northwest corner of the Agora where the Panathenaic Way entered the Agora and. where three important roads met made the A l t a r a l o g i c a l p o i n t from 86 which t o compute d i s t a n c e s l a t e r . What the A l t a r may have become i n the f i f t h century cannot however be used t o a l l e g e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between i t and the herms i n the s i x t h century. Hipparchos' herms seem to have been inde-pendently conceived. Crorne, who took the testimony of the Hipparchos l i t e r a l l y , estimated t h a t more than one hundred herms were s p r i n k l e d throughout A t t i c a , one f o r 87 each deme. That i s an extremely l a r g e number t h a t would have r e q u i r e d vast 88 o u t l a y s of time and money. While i t i s not impossible t h a t such numbers were a c t u a l l y c onstructed and erected, i t seems l i k e l i e r t h a t the herms were 89 set up along main roads t h a t r a d i a t e d to the major demes from Athens. Smaller demes would have been reached from these " t r u n k l i n e s " anyway. I t i s abundantly c l e a r t h a t the primary i n t e n t i o n of the herms was t h a t 90 they should be seen by those t r a v e l l i n g to and from the country demes. L i k e the boy running t o market on the Pan-painter's vase, the m a j o r i t y of those t r a v e l l i n g the A t t i c roads were probably simple country f o l k who 91 journeyed to Athens t o buy and to s e l l a t the market. The author of the 20 Hipparchos r e a l i z e d the connection between the l o c a t i o n of the herms and the people who would notice them and reasoned that Hipparchos 1 i n t e n t i o n was to 92 educate the r u s t i c s . The herms were not meant p r i m a r i l y to inform the demesman of h i s place on the road i n respect of Athens, for most demesmen had obviously made the t r i p to market countless times before Hipparchos' 93 herms informed them that they were halfway from deme or c i t y . The herms were meant, however, to a t t r a c t attention and that they un-doubtedly d i d as the vase-paintings show. Their i n i t i a l novelty combined with t h e i r s o l i t a r y placement to draw the passer-by to look at the herm, 94 95 perhaps to touch i t for luck, and then to read the in s c r i b e d message. The herms can thus be compared with the funerary monuments set up along A t t i c .96 roadsides, h a i l i n g the t r a v e l l e r : w / \ / ? i x\ ^ / 97 Other couplets d i r e c t e d the onlooker to stop and ponder the message on the stone: • 9 8 These monuments reach out to the reader and communicate d i r e c t l y ; they were undoubtedly set up by the sides of roads to a t t r a c t the greatest number to 99 view them. Indeed, great c l u s t e r s of semata were s i m i l a r l y placed at crossroads and along w e l l - t r a v e l l e d roads, such as.the Sacred Way i n the 100 Kerameikos. Hipparchos' message was thus the object f o r att e n t i o n on the herm, both i t s gnome and i t s commemoration. The commemoration i s informative: the herm declares i t s e l f to be Hermes, a ^LVTJ^OL of Hipparchos, not a dedication to 101 Hermes. We note too that no patronymic was ins c r i b e d : Hipparchos must 21 have f e l t t h a t he needed no f u r t h e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n beyond h i s name. No other d e d i c a t i o n from members of Hipparchos' f a m i l y approaches t h i s type of per-102 sonal indulgence. Hipparchos' message was conveyed by s h o r t , e a s i l y remembered verses. The gnomai are moral d i r e c t i v e s , i n s t r u c t i n g the country f o l k as the author of the Hipparchos induced. Perhaps, as the author "says, Hipparchos wished to arrogate t o himself the t i t l e of sage of Athens at Delphoi's expense. The P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were apparently not on good terms w i t h the Delphic o r a c l e 103 throughout t h e i r h i s t o r y . But d i r e c t i v e e l e g i a c s were as o l d as K a l l i n o s 104 of Ephesos and T y r t a i o s and Hipparchos may have taken Solon f o r h i s model. Although Solon was famous more f o r h i s longer, more i n s t r u c t i v e e l e g i e s , he 105 could s t i l l muster the c u r t d i r e c t i v e . Even i n h i s l i f e t i m e , Solon was recognized by the Athenians as a possessor of sophia, t h a t combination of 106 moral and p o l i t i c a l wisdom, and was ranked among the Seven Sages. Perhaps Hipparchos, whose f a t h e r , t r a d i t i o n t e l l s , knew and appreciated Solon, used the m o r a l i z i n g verses of the herms to acquire f o r himself t h a t mantle of 107 Solon, o r , at l e a s t , made the attempt. Such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n would reap p o l i t i c a l d ividends f o r Hipparchos and the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i : . f o r Hipparchos was perhaps not s t r o n g l y l i n k e d w i t h the coup of P e i s i s t r a t o s and the people of the country would be soothed by the image of a benign moral philosopher i n the mode of Solon as leader i n Athens, i n s t e a d of a c l e a r - c u t t y r a n t l i k e P e i s i s t r a t o s . The herms might thus be viewed as p r o p a g a n d i s t i c symbols t h a t the regime a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s 1 was more t o be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h Solon than w i t h P e i s i s t r a t o s , perhaps used to c o n c i l i a t e the r u r a l f o l k and to keep them q u i e t . In sum, Hipparchos' herms appear t o have been a s u c c e s s f u l combination of a n c i e n t r u r a l r e l i g i o n , i n n o v a t i v e graphic a r t and c u r r e n t m o r a l / p o l i t i c a l 22 l i t e r a t u r e . As Hermes the Guide, the herm protected the t r a v e l l e r on his way to the c i t y and home again i n a form that had long been known i n the A t t i c countryside. But Hipparchos r e f i n e d the form and made i t less austere by giving i t more human features. The s t r i k i n g new f i g u r e i d e n t i f i e d i t s e l f as a jAyT^fJLox. of Hipparchos and issued a short moral maxim that may have re-minded i t s reader of the l a s t great A t t i c moralist, Solon. In one gesture, the A t t i c countryside and i t s roads became the domain of herm, Hermes and Hipparchos. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that at Sparta the kings had domain over the pu b l i c roads (Hdt. VI.57.4). Was Hipparchos t r y i n g to arrogate to himself the image of Commander of the 'Roads? Hipparchos' herms were a coup de main of p u b l i c i t y that could only earn him advantage. Each time the demesman passed the herm, even without bother-ing to read the dedication or look c l o s e l y at the herm, he would, i n h i s mind, r e i n f o r c e i t s i d e n t i t y with Hipparchos. Perhaps as never before country demes were united with Athens, t h e i r metropolis. The herms were not singl e dedications, but a network of p u b l i c i t y f o r Hipparchos. Von Stern has suggested that Hipparchos 1 herms were nothing more than a dedication made by Hipparchos to commemorate his archonship, on the order 108 of that made by P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger. But aside from the obvious d i f f e r e n c e that Hipparchos d i d not mention anything about o f f i c e are other d i f f e r e n c e s : the herms were many i n number and ubiquitous, they were unique and, above a l l , gnomic, not dedicatory. The herms were much more than memo-r i a l s or dedications, they were f a r more a l i v e with i n s t r u c t i o n . We s h a l l perhaps never know the precise meaning of the herms or t h e i r i n t e n t , but they are important as the f i r s t p u blic documents of Athens and the f i r s t tangible symbols of A t t i c unity: a l l roads l e d to Athens and a l l roads were guarded by Hermes, a s s i s t e d by Hipparchos.' We know that the herms evolved i n the 23 f i f t h century i n t o a symbol of the Athenian democracy. I t i s tempting t o see i n the u n i f y i n g herms of Hipparchos the beginning of t h a t e v o l u t i o n . B. The Wall of Hipparchos CvpAvoV trepc x^V AIK°CoTj/*•<-<*v xei-^o$ utKooOfLye-e.^ o'Scv K<*t eirc rwy S^rratv-npcoV Tip«^^OX.Ty e / }/ The d i s t r i c t of the Akademy, s i x stades o u t s i d e the Dipylon Gate to the 109 northwest of the c i t y , was dedicated t o the hero, Hekademos. Hekademos, who apparently came to A t t i c a w i t h the T y n d a r i d a i , was deemed the f i r s t 110 s e t t l e r of the Akademy. A small a p s i d a l house of the Geometric p e r i o d has been unearthed i n the area and named a p p r o p r i a t e l y the "House of 111 Hekademos." A l a r g e r b u i l d i n g of unbaked b r i c k of the same p e r i o d stands nearby dubbed the "Sacred House" because i t s rooms house p l e n t i f u l evidence 112 of c u l t . We may take i t t h a t the Akademy was a plac e of c u l t a t l e a s t from t h a t time. Remains of the w a l l e n c l o s i n g the p r e c i n c t are scanty, but a s e c t i o n of w a l l t h a t has been assigned by some sc h o l a r s t o the Archaic p e r i o d has been found a short d i s t a n c e to the southeast of the Geometric b u i l d i n g s . P a r t s of a l a t e r w a l l have been discovered near the Church of St. Tryphon and these may t r a c e the c i r c u i t of Hipparchos' w a l l . At the southeast corner of 24 Aimonos S t r e e t and T r i p o l e o s S t r e e t , a boundary stone has come to l i g h t w i t h an i n s c r i p t i o n dated c_. 500 B.C. reading: ho jpc j j r e $ heK^S^^LCLot.^ . That stone f i x e s the northeast corner of the p r e c i n c t of the Akademy and sup-p o r t s the existence of the w a l l of Hipparchos, which i s otherwise undis-covered. In Pausanias' time, s e v e r a l a l t a r s stood at the entrance t o the 113 Akademy. From the a l t a r of Prometheus outside the p r e c i n c t , torches were l i t and c a r r i e d i n races down the Akademy road toward the c i t y . Outside the p r e c i n c t were other a l t a r s dedicated t o Hermes, Herakles and the Muses. Another a l t a r had been dedicated t o Eros by Charmos, the f a t h e r of 114 Hipparchos, the f i r s t man o s t r a c i z e d . In f a c t , Charmos was the f i r s t Athenian to dedicate an a l t a r to Eros and on i t was i n s c r i b e d : Charmos i s very c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . Of course, h i s son bore the same name as P e i s i s t r a t o s ' son and seems to have s u f f e r e d 116 f o r h i s f a m i l y t i e s w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . Charmos himself was des-c r i b e d by Kleidemos as an erastes of Hi p p i a s , but by P l u t a r c h as an erastes 117 of P e i s i s t r a t o s . I n s p i t e of the c o n f u s i o n , the reputed connection w i t h the t y r a n t - f a m i l y i s p l a i n and i t i s no s u r p r i s e t o f i n d Charmos a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the Akademy, e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of Hipparchos 1 s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n i t . t Three words i n Charmos' epigram may help i n understanding Hipparchos' i n t e r e s t . Eros, t o whom Charmos 1 a l t a r was dedicated, was the symbol of sexual l o v e , but he may a l s o be j o i n e d w i t h Orphism a t Athens. For the f i r s t 118 great god of the Orphics was Eros, a l s o c a l l e d Phanes. To the Orphics, Eros embodied the p r i n c i p l e of generation by which a l l i s created. In t h a t l i g h t , i t was perhaps not by chance t h a t the a l t a r s of Eros and Prometheus 25 119 were c l o s e together outside the p r e c i n c t . P e i s i s t r a t i d i n t e r e s t i n Orphism i s i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r patronage of Onomakritos, the reputed e d i t o r 120 121 of Musaios' o r a c l e s . Musaios was a myth-hero of Orphism. Onomakritos himself i s most c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Hipparchos of a l l the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and i t may w e l l be t h a t he c u l t i v a t e d most an i n t e r e s t i n Orphism and current Orphic theology. (I say more about Hipparchos and Onomakritos i n s e c t i o n 3,B.) I f t h a t connection i s v a l i d , Charmos' a l t a r t o Eros might be l i n k e d t o Orphism and perhaps be considered a symbol of respect f o r Hipparchos' i n t e r -est i n i t . But the e p i t h e t used i n the epigram t o d e s c r i b e Eros, TrotKtAcyuT^jrVV' , b e l i e s such a connection; f o r i t i n d i c a t e s a f a r l e s s s e r i o u s conception of Eros than as the P r i m a l Mover. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , compounds of 7Tot/c<-Xo- occur i n the love-verse of Sappho and of Anakreon, the l a t t e r of whom was i n the 122 company of Hipparchos at Athens a f t e r 522. The e p i t h e t rt-ocK<-Xo/4.rj^o<.vc , a hapax legomenon and so perhaps a c o n c e i t , summons t h a t very Eros of Anakreon who i s invoked f o r l o v e - i n t r i g u e s and p a s s i o n , a t o p i c apparently much i n vogue among Hipparchos' set. Hipparchos' r e p u t a t i o n was f o r eros and poetry, a r e p u t a t i o n he must have earned through the very poets he employed: f or P o l y k r a t e s of Samos before him and Kimon a f t e r were described biograph-i c a l l y by t h e i r p o e t - r e t a i n e r s , the one as the l o v e r of boys and the other as 12 3 the l o v e r of women. Charmos w i t h h i s d e d i c a t i o n may thus be p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the court-vogue: c e r t a i n l y h i s own r e p u t a t i o n as l o v e r of P e i s i s t r a t o s and Hippias suggests some e r o t i c connection w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . The l a s t important word, yv/KVot'trcov' , shows t h a t already by the time of Charmos' d e d i c a t i o n the Akademy had become an o f f i c i a l p lace f o r young men 124 to p r a c t i s e and d r i l l . The Athenians themselves thought of t h e i r gymnasia as as o l d as Solon and Charmos' i n s c r i p t i o n makes t h e i r b e l i e f at l e a s t 26 12 5 approximately correct. M i l i t a r y p r a c t i c e we may imagine was as old as the introduction of the h o p l i t e and the c i t y ' s young men r e g u l a r l y t r a v e l l e d to the open spaces around the c i t y to game and to p r a c t i s e , but i t may be that Hipparchos with h i s wall was the f i r s t to designate the Akademy as a place o f f i c i a l l y devoted to such p u r s u i t s . The connection between the hero, Hekademos, and the wall marking the area for gymnic p r a c t i c e i s c l e a r : Hekademos came from Arkadia with the Dioskouroi to fetch Helen back to Sparta 126 a f t e r she had been abducted by Theseus and sequestered at Aphidna. Hekademos, i n response to the d i r e c t i v e of an oracle, was s a c r i f i c e d before the whole army of the Tyndaridai at the Akademy. This mythic connection with the patrons of boxing and sport for young men, Kastor and Polydeukes, made the Akademy an appropriate place to assign to the exercise of Athens' youth. Again, i t may be that Hipparchos, who was interested i n f e s t i v a l s and compe-t i t i o n s (see below, section C), decided to set aside the land at the Akademy once and for a l l as a permanent t r a i n i n g ground for Athenian competitors, perhaps i n the same way a patron of sports would do today. We see from the testimony of the Souda that the Akademy wall was synony-mous with l a v i s h expenditure, and i t surely would have been expensive to wall 127 the Akademy. The wall must have earned Hipparchos the reputation for wealth, envy f o r which perhaps impelled Kimon l a t e r to embellish the Akademy 128 grounds. But the walling shows very c l e a r l y that Hipparchos was indeed a man of substance, very great substance i f he could a f f o r d i t , the herms and other luxuries (see below, section 3,A,2). If one were to judge from these two projects alone, Hipparchos must have been one of the r i c h e s t men of h i s day: he had the means to expend on an order r i v a l l i n g Kimon 1s. Kimon of 129 course drew his wealth from the Persian s p o i l s and as M i l t i a d e s ' h e i r ; Hipparchos' source of such wealth would be worth knowing. 27 C. The Ptoion Dedication In 1920, L. Bizard published the details of a small marble base found at 130 the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios near Akraiphia in Boiotia. It bore the following inscription: HirrAtM-O^ A ^ E f c E ^ K E f HO r E | ?l$]TPATO The ascription of the dedication to Hipparchos, the son of Peisistratos, can 131 scarcely be questioned. The well-engraved letters of the inscription bear close a f f i n i t y to the inscription of the surviving fragment of the altar of 132 Apollo Pythios at Athens and i t is possible that one hand engraved both. In fact, the letter-forms of both inscriptions seem so advanced for the sixth century that some have argued that they could not possibly antedate the be-133 ginning of the f i f t h century. But letter-forms that became common later can have appeared earlier in isolated cases i f they were cut by an advanced mason: an approximate date for the inscriptions in the late 520s seems best 134 for both inscriptions. The dedication shows that Hipparchos wished to propitiate Apollo Ptoios 135 at his shrine in Boiotia. The oracle was controlled by the Thebans and i t is possible that Hipparchos was making a p o l i t i c a l as well as religious gesture toward the Thebans, who had been a l l i e s of his father, for their con-136 tinued goodwill toward the Peisistratidai. If that is true, the dedica-tion was probably made before 519 when the Athenians snubbed the Thebans and 137 a l l i e d themselves with the Plataians, their inveterate enemies. On a less tangible level, i t is interesting to view Hipparchos' dedica-tion to Apollo Ptoios in light of what {JPlatcQ says about his competition with Delphian Apollo in the Hipparchos. There i t is claimed that Hipparchos 138 vied with Delphoi for the moral leadership of the Athenians. That pro-28 nouncement would a t t r a c t no a t t e n t i o n except f o r the f a c t t h a t r e l a t i o n s be-139 tween the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and Delphoi were never very good. Although i t could be t h a t ( P l a t o ] based h i s deduction t h a t Hipparchos contested the moral l e a d e r s h i p of the Athenians s o l e l y upon the maxims of the herms, i t might a l s o be t h a t he drew on more s u b s t a n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t defined Hipparchos 1 a n t i p a t h y toward Delphoi. In t h a t case, the d e d i c a t i o n made by Hipparchos t o P t o i o n A p o l l o might have been something of a s l i g h t d i r e c t e d against the P y t h i a . 29 3. The L i t e r a r y T r a d i t i o n A. E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s : Hipparchos and I o n i a 1.) Background: P e i s i s t r a t o s and Delos Both P e i s i s t r a t o s and Hipparchos had i n t e r e s t s t h a t overlapped those of the great t y r a n t of Samos, P o l y k r a t e s . P e i s i s t r a t o s ' a t t e n t i o n s were f o -cussed on the i s l a n d of Delos, the hub of the Cyclades and a r e l i g i o u s center of I o n i a and the i s l a n d s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of th a t a t t e n t i o n i s shown r e a l l y only by P o l y k r a t e s ' a c t i o n s i n regard t o the i s l a n d a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s ' death. At some time during h i s r e i g n as t y r a n t , perhaps c_. 546 (see below t e x t ) , P e i s i s t r a t o s undertook to p u r i f y Delos (Hdt. 1.64.2): npo$ r-e ^ r t pLer-epopec £ 5 Si.'XXoV ^ - G j p o y T1J5 4 > ) A a v * * t X . To Herodotos, the p u r i f i c a t i o n was an outstanding act of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' r e i g n and w i l l s u r e l y have earned f o r P e i s i s t r a t o s good repute among the i s l a n d e r s and perhaps the p r e s t i g e of being considered a leader of the i s l a n d com-141 munity. Athens had a c l a i m t o t h i s l e a d e r s h i p t h a t dated t o the remote past: 142 a l l Ionians were a p o i k o i from Athens. Solon had r e c e n t l y r e c a l l e d t h a t l e a d e r s h i p i n h i s poetry, s i g n i f y i n g a t the very l e a s t a consciousness on h i s 143 p a r t t h a t Athens was the mother-city of the Ionians. Some have viewed 144 Solon's words as propaganda f o r the l e a d e r s h i p of Athens. P e i s i s t r a t o s , however, a c t i v e l y pursued an eastern p o l i c y , designed, we 30 may imagine, t o increase h i s v i s i b i l i t y among the Ionians. His i n t e r e s t be-gan w i t h the p u r i f i c a t i o n , but apparently d i d not end w i t h i t : according both t o Herodotos and Thucydides, P e i s i s t r a t o s p u r i f i e d only as much "as 145 could be seen from the temple (sc. of A p o l l o ) " . Thus, P e i s i s t r a t o s p u r i -f i e d Delos only i n r e l a t i o n t o the temple, a f a c t t h a t has been shown t o be important because of the archaeology of the temple area. ' ' E x c a v a t i o n has 146 revealed the remains of an a r c h a i c temple of A p o l l o d a t i n g c_. 550 B.C. The connection between t h i s temple and Athens i s c l e a r : p a r t s of the s t r u c -t u r e were made of y e l l o w poros from Piraeus and E l e u s i n i a n limestone, some-what s u r p r i s i n g l y s i n c e the q u a r r i e s of f i n e P a r i a n and Naxian marble are so 147 c l o s e at hand. I t i s thus very tempting t o a s s o c i a t e P e i s i s t r a t o s 1 par-t i a l p u r i f i c a t i o n of the i s l a n d w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s temple. At any r a t e , i t seems th a t stones were brought from A t t i c a i n order t h a t a c t u a l p a r t s of the " o l d e s t land of I o n i a " would be p h y s i c a l l y among the i s l a n d e r s . The temple could then have been constructed very s h o r t l y a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s ' r e t u r n to power a t Athens i n 546, perhaps b u i l t as a t h a n k - o f f e r i n g f o r a 148 s u c c e s s f u l e n t e r p r i s e . I f P e i s i s t r a t o s d i d not b u i l d the temple, i t may be t h a t h i s p u r i f i c a t i o n of the land around was meant t o cut i n t o the pop-u l a r i t y of the b u i l d e r of the new temple (whoever t h a t might have been). N a t u r a l l y , h i s a c t i o n w i l l have made him enviable to the throngs who f l o c k e d 149 to the quadrennial D e l i a . An even more t a n g i b l e proof of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' eastern p o l i c y i s h i s a l l i a n c e w i t h the t y r a n t of Naxos, Lygdamis. Herodotos (1.64.2) s t a t e s t h a t P e i s i s t r a t o s conquered the i s l a n d f o r Lygdamis and turned i t over t o him be-f o r e the b a t t l e of Pallenei; f o r when P e i s i s t r a t o s had routed the Athenians, he took hostages and deposited them w i t h Lygdamis on Naxos. In the A t h . P o l . (15.3), however, i t appears t h a t Lygdamis was not i n possession of Naxos at 31 the time of Pallerite, but acquired i t l a t e r . What i s c l e a r i s th a t Lygdamis acquired Naxos through P e i s i s t r a t o s 1 a i d and undoubtedly r e p a i d the kindness 150 w i t h cooperation. P e i s i s t r a t o s thus e s t a b l i s h e d a f r i e n d i n a dominant 151 p o s i t i o n i n the Cyclades, very near to Delos. Sometime l a t e r , between 529 and 522, P o l y k r a t e s turned h i s a t t e n t i o n toward Delos (Thuc. III.104.2): .. . TroA ^ K p ^ e^i o ^ . ^ i o n / -cUff^We^ iO^V<re<J XLYeH \/f>0V0V YtXl/VLXtJ K«C tWV r£ oCAA«>V VljO-W tXp£o<5 Kofi. TY)V <PyVGLo<v' €AOJV « V e @ r j K 6 r u J 7/\jTo)\)[a>VL zu J\tj\lu> v&Je-eL S-^<re<^ 7 r p o j " £ ^ V / J k v j A p V . In a d d i t i o n t o the d e d i c a t i o n of Rheneia, a t h e a t r i c a l gesture, P o l y k r a t e s 152 was a l s o of a mind t o e s t a b l i s h games on the i s l a n d . Death, however, 153 prevented him from accomplishing h i s purpose. P o l y k r a t e s ' a c t i v i t y has been considered both commercially and s t r a t e -154 g i c a l l y i n s p i r e d . But the nature of h i s i n t e r e s t i n Delos was obviously more f o r show than f o r substance: the chain was as unnecessary as i t was memorable. P o l y k r a t e s ' a c t i o n s show t h a t he was making a d i s p l a y f o r the i s l a n d e r s and Ionians. Delos, as the crossroads of the Aegean, was the place t o make such a gesture. In t h a t he was t r y i n g t o impress, P o l y k r a t e s ' a c t i o n s are emulative of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' . P e i s i s t r a t o s ' a c t was pious; P o l y k r a t e s ' gaudy, such t h a t i t would outshine t h a t of the Athenian. P o l y k r a t e s seems to have acted c o n s c i o u s l y t o e c l i p s e others w i t h h i s 155 b r i l l i a n c e and Delos was, a f t e r a l l , on h i s doorstep. 2.) Hipparchos and Anakreon About 522, we are t o l d , Hipparchos, the son of P e i s i s t r a t o s , dispatched 156 a pentekonter t o c a r r y the poet, Anakreon of Teos, to Athens. The poet had been r e t a i n e d by P o l y k r a t e s a t h i s court u n t i l the year of the t y r a n t ' s 32 death and Anakreon had r e p a i d the kindness of patronage by mentioning h i s 157 employer f r e q u e n t l y i n h i s poems. There can be no doubt t h a t Hipparchos fetched Anakreon to Athens i n order t h a t the poet would do f o r him what he had done f o r P o l y k r a t e s at Samos: to d e l i g h t and perhaps to immortalize 158 h i s patron. Anakreon was, above a l l , the poet of l o v e , e s p e c i a l l y the love of boys, 159 and P o l y k r a t e s was notorious f o r h i s s e l f - i n d u l g e n c e i n t h i s respect. N a t u r a l l y , the t y r a n t would want a singe r to d e l i g h t w i t h amorous songs and Anakreon's poems were undoubtedly r e p l e t e w i t h references to P o l y k r a t e s ' 160 a f f a i r s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e no s u r p r i s e t h a t Hipparchos, described i n the Ath.Pol. as an e r o t i k o s , would want to procure Anakreon 1s s e r v i c e s f o r 161 h i m s e l f . But Anakreon was something more than an e r o t i c poet. He was very, very good at what he d i d . His technique was unmatched: h i s v a r i e d use of metre i n d i c a t e s a thorough acquaintance w i t h the Lesbian poets and he was himself an innovator i n the use of metre; h i s wording was c l e a r and uncomplicated, 162 h i s d i a l e c t , the elegant Ionian. His short poems are j e w e l - l i k e , spar-163. k l i n g and complete. Anakreon's poetry was not simple love poetry, i t was the l a s t word i n Greek love poetry of the l a t e s i x t h century. Hipparchos wanted to o b t a i n the b r i l l i a n c e of Anakreon t o add to h i s own growing c o u r t - c i r c l e . His assembly of poets r i v a l l e d P o l y k r a t e s ' , i f not o u t s t r i p p e d i t , f o r b r i l l i a n c e : f o r , i n a d d i t i o n to Anakreon, Hipparchos a l s o r e t a i n e d a t court Simonides, an e l e g i s t , d i t h y r a m b i s t and e p i n i k i a n 164 poet. Simonides was a v i c t o r many times i n competitions and p r i d e d him-s e l f on h i s memory: h i s knowledge of p o e t i c technique matched, i n i t s way, 165 Anakreon's. I t should be noted t h a t Simonides' s e r v i c e s d i d not come cheaply to Hipparchos: earned or not, Simonides' r e p u t a t i o n was f o r a v a r i c e 33 166 and i t was c e r t a i n l y a sign of wealth for Hipparchos to r e t a i n him. J o i n -ing these at court and no less an innovator was Lasos of Hermione, renowned 167 as a dithryambist (he competed with.'Simonides). Lasos was reputed to have been the author of a book on.jnusic, implying that he too was an expert i n his 168 f i e l d . Hipparchos thus surrounded himself with poets who could also have 169 been teachers. With t h i s c i r c l e came h i s reputation f o r poetic i n t e r e s t s and with them too Hipparchos may have fashioned a poetic patrimony for the 170 Athenians that bore f r u i t i n the f i f t h century. Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t thing about Hipparchos' e f f o r t to fetch Anakreon to Athens i s the way i n which the Teian was brought to Athens. .. Instead of making a quiet journey as the other poets seem to have, Anakreon 171 a r r i v e d at Athens i n a warship. This gesture, which may have been re-corded i n Anakreon's verse, was perhaps unnecessary, but c e r t a i n l y theat-172 r i c a l . I t was obviously done to show to the world how highly Anakreon was regarded by Hipparchos. Such a gesture n a t u r a l l y required spectators. The dispatch of the pentekonter i s reminiscent of Polykrates' t h e a t r i c s at Delos. In both cases, the spectators were p r i m a r i l y the Ionians and the object was to demonstrate a c e r t a i n power. Perhaps Hipparchos acted i n a very l i m i t e d way to in d i c a t e to the Cyclades again Athens' claim to leader-173 ship of Ionia.: 'for the thalassocrat, Polykrates, had died and the seaways were open. There were no obvious contenders and -in t h i s vacuum even a very weak gesture w i l l have created some impression. In that l i g h t , the dispatch of the pentekonter might be viewed as a l i m i t e d r e assertion of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' p o l i c y i n the wake of Polykrates' dramatic f a l l . Hipparchos may have been acting on h i s own i n i t i a t i v e i n following the lead of Polykrates, f o r he seems to have emulated the Samian by acquiring a c i r c l e of court-poets, thus di s p l a y i n g h i s wealth and magnificence by r e t a i n -34 174 ing them a t court a t Athens. The power t o hold such a luminous group t o -gether was a proof of Hipparchos' good fortune and i t s u r e l y helped t o pro-mote h i s image a t Athens as i t had done f o r P o l y k r a t e s a t Samos. The o s t e n t a t i o n of the court was d a i l y apparent t o the Athenians and, by means of analogy w i t h P o l y k r a t e s ' c o u r t a t Samos, would l a t e r g i ve evidence to the Athenians t h a t Hipparchos, not H i p p i a s , had succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s as the ty r a n t of Athens. I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to know on whose a u t h o r i t y Hipparchos sent the warship t o f e t c h Anakreon. B. I n t e r n a l / E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s : Hipparchos and Onomakritos When Xerxes was h e s i t a t i n g to invade Greece, c e r t a i n of the Greek e x p a t r i a t e s a t Susa urged him on, among whom were the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and 175 Onomakritos. A short while before, Onomakritos arid the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i had been enemies: jfbip vno CJ.TtTr£p)(o\r Tad TJle L<rLcrT^o<KXro\f J ^ O v c ^ K j O i . ^ e^AQyjV^iOK Onomakritos, a ^ /O^o^oAo^o^ concerned c h i e f l y w i t h e d i t i n g the o r a c l e s of the Orphic Musaios, was caught i n the act of t r y -ing t o i n s e r t a forged o r a c l e among them, t o w i t , t h a t the i s l a n d s near Lemnos would s i n k i n t o the sea. I t was Lasos of Hermione who caught Onomakritos and, although Hipparchos had employed Onomakritos before, he 176 nevertheless banished him from Athens f o r h i s a c t . The P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o r a c l e s and oracle-mongering. P e i s i s t r a t o s himself was c a l l e d Bakis and, a t P a l l e n e , he was accompanied by the Acarnanian seer, Amphilytos, who f o r e t o l d h i s v i c t o r y over the 35 177 Athenians. I t i s p o s s i b l e that the store of oracles housed on the 178 Akropolis, l a t e r raided by Kleomenes, was P e i s i s t r a t o s ' creation. Hippias, i t seems, was well-acquainted with these oracles: at (Korinth, a f t e r he had been expelled from Athens and r e c a l l e d to the congress of Peloponnesian a l l i e s , Hippias predicted future trouble for Korinth from 179 Athens on the basis of the oracles. According to Herodotos, no man knew the oracles better than Hippias. I t i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g , i n view of Hippias' reputed acquaintance with and implied i n t e r e s t i n the oracles, that not he but Hipparchos acted to expel Onomakritos. K.J. Beloch has argued on t h i s basis that Onomakritos' banishment pro-180 vides. adequate reason to believe that Hipparchos succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s . For Beloch believed that banishment was a prerogative exercised by a r u l e r , not a subordinate. E. von Stern, however, objected to Beloch's reasoning 181 c a l l i n g i t "ein sonderbare Schlussfolgerung". According to Stern, pro-ceedings against Onomakritos would have to have been l e g a l and systematic, e s p e c i a l l y since the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i had a reputation for abiding by the law. The appropriate l e g a l body handled the banishment: Hipparchos merely recom-mended to them that Onomakritos be banished, f i t t i n g l y , since he was most responsible for the conduct of poets at Athens. Others have suggested that Hipparchos simply made i t p l a i n to Onomakritos that he was no longer welcome 182 at Athens a f t e r the crime and that no l e g a l proceedings were involved. The s i g n i f i c a n t thing about Herodotos' testimony concerning the incident i s that i t names Hipparchos at a l l : f o r , regardless of the l e g a l aspects of the case, i t i s remarkable that Hippias, "who knew the oracles better than any l i v i n g man", had no hand i n the a f f a i r . The testimony i s the only r e a l l i n k between Hipparchos and oracles and, as such, i t constitutes something of a l e c t i o d i f f i c i l i o r that i s a l l the more s i g n i f i c a n t i n view of the 36 importance of o r a c l e s f o r the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . For Onomakritos cannot be understood as j u s t another poet belonging t o Hipparchos 1 l i t e r a r y c i r c l e . My statements are explained by the importance attached to o r a c l e s by the Spartan kings. Herodotos (VI.57) s t a t e s t h a t , at Sparta, the kings c o n t r o l l e d the o r a c l e s , although they shared knowledge of them w i t h the Pythians, s p e c i a l o f f i c e r s chosen by the kings. C o n t r o l of the o r a c l e s was apparently e x e r c i s e d s o l e l y by the kings as a r o y a l p r e r o g a t i v e , per-183 haps i n t h e i r c a p a c i t y as mediators between gods and men. The Pythians evolved as a check on the r o y a l domain over o r a c l e s . >' .. . Obviously, great abuse could a r i s e i f the kings alone knew the o r a c l e s . In f a c t , the kings may have a l t e r e d or forged o r a c l e s t o s u i t t h e i r own purposes and could e a s i l y have done so before the c r e a t i o n of the Pythians without any fea r of being g a i n s a i d . The Pythians prevented such abuse. U n l i k e the Spartan k i n g s , the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i had no such checks. Con-sequently, t h e i r power over the Athenians through the o r a c l e s could have been enormous, si n c e they could have manipulated the Athenians w i t h t h e i r own orders i n the guise of d i v i n e w i l l . N a t u r a l l y , the Athenians would have been f a r more p l i a n t i f they had thought they were obeying the i n j u n c t i o n s of the god. When Onomakritos invaded t h e i r preserve and a l t e r e d the o r a c l e s , i t was not harmless tampering he accomplished, but treason aimed at the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and i t w i l l have earned him a f a l l from grace and the enmity 184 of the t y r a n t - f a m i l y . The nature of Onomakritos' i n s e r t i o n i s i n t r i g u i n g , f o r i t concerns Lemnos, a s t r a t e g i c i s l a n d i n the northeast Aegean, h i g h l y p r i z e d by the 185 Athenians and c l o s e to P e i s i s t r a t i d i n t e r e s t s i n S i g e i o n . Diodoros (10.19.6) says t h a t the T y r r e n o i l e f t Lemnos because of f e a r of the Persians but a l s o t h a t they departed because of some o r a c l e s . O s t e n s i b l y , they handed 37 186 Lemnos to M i l t i a d e s i n accordance w i t h an o r a c l e . Now i t may be th a t these anecdotes were l a t e r constructed t o e x p l a i n how M i l t i a d e s was able to acquire Lemnos from the T y r r e n o i , but there may a l s o be more to i t than t h a t . For i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i t r i e d t o "s o f t e n up" the Ty r r e n o i by p e l t i n g them w i t h doom-saying o r a c l e s about the f a t e of Lemnos l i k e 187 Onomakritos' about the f a t e of the i s l a n d s nearby. Perhaps Onomakritos was eager t o please h i s patrons and thus decided t o s l i p a (marginally?) 188 h e l p f u l o r a c l e i n t o the p i l e t o be used somehow against the Lemnians. At any r a t e , Onomakritos' i n s e r t i o n concerned a very s e n s i t i v e , a c t i v e area of P e i s i s t r a t i d i n t e r e s t . I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Hipparchos acted on Onomakritos 1 treason and th a t he acted alone. Hipparchos e x i l e d Onomakritos and, so doing, performed what was necessary f o r the leader of the f a m i l y . I t may thus have been h i s pre-r o g a t i v e to c o n t r o l and dispense the o r a c l e s accumulated on the A k r o p o l i s as he saw f i t . What i s d e f i n i t e from Herodotos' testimony i s t h a t H i p p i a s , who we expect should have taken a hand i n the matter, i s e n t i r e l y out of the p i c t u r e . C. I n t e r n a l A f f a i r s : Hipparchos and.The Panathenaia 1.) I n t r o d u c t i o n : P e i s i s t r a t o s The games of the Greater Panathenaia were e s t a b l i s h e d at Athens during 189 the archonship of Hippokleides (566/5 B.C.). The archon was apparently the same Hippokleides who l o s t the competition i n Sikyon f o r the hand of 38 190 Agariste, the daughter of Kleisthenes of Sikyon. While i t cannot be con-cluded from the evidence a v a i l a b l e to us that Hippokleides a c t u a l l y had a hand i n the establishment of the games, i t appears l i k e l y that he d i d , from the importance that we know was attached to the games elsewhere by other 191 a r i s t o c r a t i c f a m i l i e s . The s c h o l i a s t on A r i s t e i d e s ' Panathenaikos says that the l e s s e r Panathenaia was begun by Erichthonios but that the greater 192 Panathenaia was begun by P e i s i s t r a t o s . That a s c r i p t i o n should be rejected because i t i s imprecise i n comparison with the information that puts the f e s t i v a l at the time of Hippokleides' archonship: the record of a v i c t o r -193 l i s t i s implied. But the l i n k that the s c h o l i a s t makes between P e i s i s t r a t o s and the Panathenaia should not be rejected out of hand. A l a t e r author looking back-ward to Athens i n the s i x t h century could e a s i l y have been tempted to asso-c i a t e the games with Peisistratos-, c l e a r l y the most famous Athenian of h i s time. Moreover, P e i s i s t r a t o s was e s p e c i a l l y associated with the goddess Athena i n the minds of the Athenians and the growth of her c u l t i n the c i t y can perhaps be estimated i n P e i s i s t r a t o s ' time by the construction of the 194 temple of Athena P o l i a s on the Akropolis (c_. 560) . The advent of tyrant, growth of c u l t of Athena and the beginning of the games might have led the writer to j o i n P e i s i s t r a t o s with the o r i g i n of the Panathenaic games. I t was surely not by coincidence that the games, which included musical, a t h l e t i c and equestrian competitions, originated i n the period of confusion at Athens immediately before P e i s i s t r a t o s ' f i r s t attempt to gain power. Kleisthenes of Sikyon, who had figured prominently i n the l i v e s of Hippokleides and Megakles the Alkmaionid, two Athenian notables of the 560s, had done much i n the way of example to promote games, at l a s t e s t a b l i s h i n g 195 his own at Sikyon. Such proud and powerful Athenians as Megakles, 39 Kleisthenes' son-in-law, w i l l surely have r e a l i z e d the value of the games 196 and the chance they afforded f o r glamour and prestige. L i t t l e wonder then that P e i s i s t r a t o s , who became the most powerful Athenian, also became the "founder" of the Greater Panathenaia. I t was also not by coincidence that the Panathenaia blossomed at the same time into something more than a l o c a l f e s t i v a l . The "Burgon" amphora, 197 dated c_. 560, i s the oldest known Panathenaic prize-vase. I t s importance i s two-fold: f i r s t , i t depicts Athena i n her l a t e r canonical a t t i t u d e , 198 brandishing her spear, poised to thrust. Second, more importantly, the l e t t e r i n g on the vase proudly proclaims the vase as a p r i z e "from the games at Athens". Thus, by the time the "Burgon" vase was awarded, the games of the Panathenaia had grown to include non-residents of A t t i c a . For the people of Athens and A t t i c a , Athena symbolized the contests and the c i t y , but on the "Burgon" vase- the l e t t e r i n g names the occasion and the c i t y f o r foreigners who might not know the symbols. The l e t t e r i n g was surely designed to pro-199 mote the games overseas or around Greece outside A t t i c a . I t i s tempting to l i n k the flowering of the Panathenaia with P e i s i s t r a t o s ' i n t e r e s t s i n the east: for, above a l l , a f e s t i v a l honouring Athena at Athens w i l l have appealed, a f t e r the Athenians, to the Ionians, who thought themselves descendants of the Athenians. I have already outlined P e i s i s t r a t o s ' i n t e r e s t s i n the Cyclades and Ionia (above, section 3,A,1) and his e f f o r t s to impress the islanders and Ionians. Promotion of the Panathenaia outside of A t t i c a might be viewed as another phase of Athens' growing i n t e r e s t s abroad and her need to be recognized i n Greece and the Aegean. This expansionistic nationalism, already alluded to by Solon, offered a sense of purpose to the Athenians and undoubtedly served to strengthen the 40 sense of unity at home. Expressions of t h i s nationalism - Solon's, P e i s i s t r a t o s 1 , Hipparchos' - constitute the f i r s t e f f o r t s of the Athenians to assert t h e i r leadership over Ionia and the Aegean and c u l t i v a t e d the seeds of leadership that were to flower a f t e r the Persian Wars among the Cyclades and Ionia. Thus, the establishment and growth of the Panathenaia may not be a sign that A t t i c a was engaged i n unifying h e r s e l f , but rather that she was already u n i f i e d , confident and looking outwardly, perhaps a l -ready sure of her s e l f as r i g h t f u l - hegemon of the Ionians. 2.) Hipparchos Hipparchos' connection with the Panathenaia i s much more sub s t a n t i a l and s p e c i f i c ([piatoj Hipp. 228b) : -cot'O^pov• erry irputas £ K o / < < - £ 6 V ei$ TyV yrjV W u t ^ V ^ t<ct\ ^ V o ^ K ^ o-e covf p^^SoU^ TToCVac &Y]•«* Lo£.5 e 1^  \rtTo\-rjyreu>$ C^e^-ys " H ^ c * 6(.<-lv<*L K X X . The evidence of the dialogue, written by a l l accounts i n the fourth century, has been considered p l a u s i b l e by 200 Davison. Given Hipparchos 1 i n t e r e s t i n poetry and poets, i t i s c e r t a i n l y no surprise to f i n d him involved i n the r e c i t a t i o n of Homer. Rec i t a t i o n of the I l i a d was apparently already a regular thing at 201 Brauron i n east A t t i c a . Brauron i s very close to the P e i s i s t r a t i d deme 202 of P h i l a i d a i and strengthens a connection between Hipparchos and the "Panathenaic r u l e " at Athens: i t i s possible that Hipparchos or P e i s i s t r a t o s t r a n s f e r r e d the p r a c t i c e of rhapsodic r e c i t a l s to Athens from Brauron. Brauron, on the eastern coast of A t t i c a , may have copied the p r a c t i c e of rhapsodic r e c i t a l s from the great maritime c i t y of Chalkis where such r e c i t -203 a l s had been long established. At any rate, according to JjPlatcQ, the son of P e i s i s t r a t o s adjusted the 41 competition so that the rhapsodes would r e c i t e consecutively, the implication 2 04 being that they had r e c i t e d haphazardly before. This innovation implies the existence of a standardized text of Homer from which v a r i a t i o n could be measured, and t h i s i n turn brings one face to face with the very vexed question of the " P e i s i s t r a t i d recension". Cicero (De Or. 3.34.137) states: "qui (sc. P i s i s t r a t u s ) primus Homeri l i b r o s confusos antea s i c disposuisse d i c i t u r ut nunc habemus". There are other testimonia, but they do not d i f f e r 205 s u b s t a n t i a l l y from Cicero's account. Unfortunately, there are only,'later testimonia to use and these appear to derive from a common source. It was almost c e r t a i n l y the hindsight of l a t e r authors that a t t r i b u t e d the recension to P e i s i s t r a t o s , since no author from the fourth century B.C. 206 or before ascribed a recension to anybody i n the s i x t h century. The question then becomes, why was P e i s i s t r a t o s ' name attached to the recension? A simple s o l u t i o n to the problem might be that v i c t o r s i n the r e c i t a t i o n -competitions were known from P e i s i s t r a t o s ' time, perhaps from a v i c t o r - l i s t or t r a d i t i o n . I f the recitation-competitions began i n 566, i t would be as natural to ascribe the recension to P e i s i s t r a t o s as i t was to ascribe the 207 beginning of the games to him. Another author, Ps.-Plato, a t t r i b u t e d what must be the same thing to Hipparchos, but for d i f f e r e n t reasons. The element most suspect i n the Hipparchos i s the motive given to Hipparchos for s t a r t i n g the competition, i . e . , that he wished to educate the people i n order that he could r u l e the 2 08 best. The e n t i r e theme of the excursus i n the Hipparchos about him i s his r o l e as educator of the people. I t was an excellent, kingly thing to do and so was a d e s i r a b l e accomplishment to ascribe to Hipparchos. The con-nection could be made because of a) h i s renowned p o e t i c a l i n t e r e s t s , and b) the lack of d e f i n i t e a s c r i p t i o n to anybody els e . Hipparchos' p o e t i c a l i n -42 c l i n a t i o n s presuppose an i n t e r e s t i n the competitions involving song and would n a t u r a l l y l i n k him with the r e c i t a l s of Homer. We can imagine him taking a great deal of i n t e r e s t i n contests as he d i d i n l y r i c poetry. On the face of i t , Hipparchos was a l i k e l y candidate for i n s t i t u t i o n of the r e c i t a l s and patron of the Panathenaia. I t may have been no accident that ' ' 209 he was k i l l e d while dispatching the Panathenaic procession. D. Conclusions: Hipparchos, The Lion Enduring > f \ > A / 1 c *1 / ) >_ / OWOCC5 oCV&ptJTTcJV c<OLKl>iV ZLCt-V OUK oifrOTCCeC These " r i d d l i n g " hexameters were spoken to Hipparchos while he slept by 210 a b e a u t i f u l a pparition on the night before h i s death. When Hipparchos awoke, he t o l d the dream-interpreters of hi s v i s i o n , but then dismissed i t s 211 meaning and went to his death anyway. The l i n e s have aroused scant i n t e r e s t . Some have considered the l i n e s obscure, others argue that Hipparchos i s addressed with some respect as a 212 l i o n and that the epithet might imply honour f or him. Dyson finds i t 213 possible to associate the l i n e s with Orphism. As f a r as I can t e l l , the l i n e s have not been considered f o r t h e i r relevance to Hipparchos' status or i n regard to the approximate time of t h e i r composition. My examination takes up these points. Two s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t s can be gleaned from the verses a f f e c t i n g Hipparchos: Hipparchos i s addressed as leon and i n e v i t a b l e r e t r i b u t i o n i s promised to the perpetrators of his death. Obviously, the prophecy must 43 p e r t a i n to the tyrannicide, since i t immediately precedes Hipparchos' death and since Hipparchos' casual disregard of i t s meaning provided a c e r t a i n 214 poignance to the story. I t i s very s u r p r i s i n g i n view of the g l o r i f i c a -t i o n of the tyrannicides that t h i s story does not make t h e i r act heroic or even j u s t i f i e d , but the act of unjust men who w i l l s u f f e r j u s t i c e because of i t . The verses are favourable to Hipparchos. The epithet leon has been thought ambiguous i n Herodotos, c h i e f l y be-cause i t seems to occur i n contexts that are both complimentary and uncompli-215 mentary. The word can be ambivalent, i t has been urged, s i g n i f y i n g e i t h e r strength and power or danger and malevolence. Strassburger's pronouncement i s representative: "Aus Herodot selb s t l a s s t es s i c h nicht umgehen, gerade die zwei auf Tyrannen bezuglichen S t e l l e n zur Deutung heranzuziehen: 5,56,1 wo Hipparchos der Sohn des P e i s i s t r a t o s , i n Traum a l s Lowe angeredet wird (hier v i e l l e i c h t mehrerbietig gemeint), anderseits das Orakel: ot£evo$ C€J^e*_ Aeovr<* Koip-cepo* utprja-vrj^f welcher auf den b l u t g i e r i g e n Tyrannen 216 (Kypselos) hindeutet." The d i s t i n c t i o n f a i l s because i t disregards what i s shared i n Herodotos' usage. A f a r better way to determine Herodotos' meaning when he applied the word to humans i s to examine more c l o s e l y the passages where the word occurs and to note what those passages have i n common. Use of the word outside of Herodotos must i n e v i t a b l y have l i m i t e d a p p l i c a t i o n to his usage. The f i r s t use of leon occurs i n Herodotos' account of the siege of Sardis (1.84). A concubine had born a l i o n cub to King Meles, Kroisos' ancestor. The Telmessian seers declared that, i f Meles c a r r i e d the lion;cub around the walls of Sardis' c i t a d e l , the f o r t r e s s would be impregnable. Meles d i d so, but scorned to carry the cub past what seemed already impreg-nable. I t was from that quarter that the Persians l a t e r attacked and forced 44 entry i n t o the Lydian c i t y . The only human being named i n the s t o r y i s Meles, and i t i s t o him t h a t the Lydians a t t r i b u t e d the e a r l i e r i m p r e g n a b i l i t y of the c i t a d e l of S a r d i s . The l i o n cub, the product of Meles and a nameless concubine - o b v i o u s l y , the r i g h t f u l queen produced human h e i r s - was'a symbol, of the/ s t r e n g t h and d u r a b i l i t y of the w a l l s of S a r d i s ' c i t a d e l , a product of King Meles too. 217 We note t h a t the l i o n was the symbol of the Lydian r o y a l house. At V.92, Herodotos r e p o r t s the o r a c l e given to A e t i o n concerning the b i r t h of h i s son, l a t e r named Kypselos: K « * ( o T € ^ o o v ' u>f*.-rfO"cy • * rroX^wv S> una ^ o w o t w xJtrec' The l i o n , which the eagle (= Aetion) bore, was the f u t u r e t y r a n t of K o r i n t h 218 and the o r a c l e portends Kypselos' a c q u i s i t i o n of power. He was a ravening l i o n because, when he acquired the tyranny, he k i l l e d and e x i l e d many and took away t h e i r possessions. But Herodotos can s t i l l c a l l Kypselos "blessed" ( o'/>\6«.o5 ) because he f i n i s h e d h i s l i f e a f t e r twenty years of power -and 219 handed i t i n t a c t over to h i s successor, Periander. The term l e o n t a i s used t o des c r i b e Kypselos as a r u l e r , f o r i t was only a f t e r he had acquired the tyranny t h a t he "loosed the limbs of many". Kypselos' power was h i s t o r y and the o r a c l e helped enhance the s t o r y of 220 Kypselos' r i s e to power. Herodotos could disapprove of Kypselos and the way he used h i s tyranny, but he could a l s o admire him f o r having i t a t 221 a l l . Leonta here must mean "man of s i n g u l a r power" or t y r a n t . Most of the controversy concerning Herodotos' use of leon i n v o l v e s VI.131, where he de s c r i b e s the b i r t h of P e r i k l e s to A g a r i s t e . She, pregnant w i t h P e r i k l e s , dreamed t h a t she gave b i r t h t o a l i o n a few days before p a r t u -r i t i o n . Some have seen i n t h i s dream a compliment to P e r i k l e s , others con-45 sider i t at l e a s t ambivalent because of Herodotos' use of the term leon 222 elsewhere. So f a r Herodotos has used the word to designate ro y a l or singular power and i t would be no surprise to f i n d i t here used i n the same way. P e r i k l e s was sometimes c a l l e d "the new P e i s i s t r a t o s " and was regarded as exercising 223 a singular influence over the Athenians. In f a c t , P e r i k l e s enjoyed a primacy at Athens from the 440s such that even Thucydides characterized h i s 224 influence as " r u l e by the f i r s t man of the state".. Such primacy could be considered e i t h e r good or bad, but was s t i l l enviable and there were no other 225 examples of singular power as f a m i l i a r to the Greeks as t h e i r own tyrants. P e r i k l e s was, by a l l accounts, the f i r s t man of Athens and Herodotos, l i k e 226 Thucydides, was undoubtedly admiring him for i t . There i s one more l i n k i n Herodotos between leon and kingly power, although not s p e c i f i c a l l y applied by Herodotos. At VII.225, the Spartans at Thermopylai perceived that Ephialtes had betrayed them and was leading the Persians to e n c i r c l e them. They withdrew to a l i t t l e h i l l o c k i n the pass and made t h e i r l a s t stand: o <$e KoXwvos IQTL £<tz*} i<ro6<*J, OKOU yOv O"\L6CVO^ AetJV t,a-cy-jKe. en*. A(.coVL<f~rf. We note that, unlike the l a t e r dedication of the l i o n over the bodies of the f a l l e n Sacred Band at Chaironeia, the l i o n of Thermopylai was dedicated to Leonidas, the f a l l e n king of Sparta; a sema was 227 made separately f o r the r e s t of the dead. The l i o n was meant to s i g n i f y 228 the courage, strength and kin g l i n e s s of Leonidas. Throughout the History, Herodotos uses the word leon to denote r o y a l t y or r o y a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In every case, i t was applied to some type of r u l e r . Later, writers used i t to describe such singular and royal personages 229 as Alkibiades and Alexander. Although i n poetry the image of the l i o n may have been ambivalent, i t s i m p l i c a t i o n i n Herodotos i s apparently consis-46 230 tent. As applied to Hipparchos, the word leon suggests a perception of him as roya l or kingly or as a r u l e r of some sort. I t i s a complimentary epithet and favourable to Hipparchos. The words xevX^ozL QujxZi are also favourable to Hipparchos because they constitute a formula found frequently i n the Odyssey i n d i c a t i n g courage and the endurance of a sympathetic character i n a d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n : cecA<*yU€v«*c- Qt/ju.Zj was an admirable thing f or a 231 Homeric warrior. More favourable to Hipparchos i s the second hexameter. Far from making Hipparchos the deserving v i c t i m of the tyrannicides or even casting t h e i r act i n an approving l i g h t , the tone of the second hexameter suggests reproof of the tyrannicides. Hipparchos' murder i s i n d i r e c t l y deplored and j u s t i c e i s promised f o r the perpetrators (unnamed) of the crime. There i s a t r a g i c overtone i n the way that the author of the hexameters perceived the murder. But t h i s i s remarkable: i t seems to o f f e r proof that some at l e a s t at Athens d i d not look approvingly on the tyrannicides, one of whom was the author of these hexameters. Such a disapproving a t t i t u d e would be e n t i r e l y out of place a f t e r the c u l t of the tyrannicides was established f i r m l y at 232 Athens, no l a t e r than 480 B.C. A f t e r that, Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n were the very embodiment of Athenian democracy and t h e i r c u l t was apparently 233 well-woven into the f a b r i c of the state. Thus these hexameters must have been composed before the tyrannicides were apotheosized, i . e . , before 480. The l i k e l i e s t time for the story should be before 490 because the Athenian a t t i t u d e toward the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i soured t o t a l l y only a f t e r the b a t t l e of Marathon. The period before Marathon, one i n which an ambiguous a t t i t u d e toward the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i i s apparent, would allow for such a favourable view of Hipparchos and an anonymity f o r the 47 234 k i l l e r s . That i s again s i g n i f i c a n t because, i f t r u e , i t means th a t the composer of the hexameters designated Hipparchos a leo n , a complimentary term i n d i -c a t i n g o f f i c i a l and, i n some cases, t y r a n n i c a l power w i t h i n two decades a f t e r h i s death. In view of the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l record of Hipparchos and the l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n concerning him, i t i s not r e a l l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t he should be so designated. The hexameter appears t o a f f i r m what Hipparchos' record i m p l i e s - t h a t he was a very important (perhaps the most important?) P e i s i s t r a t i d a t Athens before h i s death. At any r a t e , the favourable tone of the hexameters i s c l e a r : the word A€iov and the a d j e c t i v a l phrase r c r X ^ o c i Qu/u-£ are complimentary t o Hipparchos; leon i n d i c a t e s some s o r t of o f f i c i a l s t a t u s . The second l i n e p o r t r a y s the murder as unjust and the t y r a n n i c i d e s as murderers who w i l l atone f o r t h e i r crime. 48 4. Conclusions The image of Hipparchos that emerges from t h i s survey of the archaeolog-i c a l and l i t e r a r y record i s that of a very wealthy, important P e i s i s t r a t i d who seems to have held centre stage during his l i f e t i m e . Hipparchos' a c t i v i t y included the primary r o l e i n the a f f a i r involving Onomakritos and was not confined to c u l t u r a l p u r s u i t s . His high p r o f i l e w i l l account for the p e r s i s t e n t notion that Hipparchos was considered the successor of P e i s i s t r a t o s . Two major projects depict Hipparchos' considerable substance and v i s i o n . The herms and the Akademy wal l , the l a t t e r of which became pro v e r b i a l for expensiveness, were c e r t a i n l y c o s t l y , but they also demonstrated Hipparchos' i n t e r e s t i n the community of Athens and A t t i c a . The herms were a constant reminder to the demesmen of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e i r metropolis, while the Akademy wall enclosed a permanent place for Athenians to congregate for a t h l e t i c p r a c t i c e . Perhaps equally as c o s t l y was Hipparchos' c i r c l e of court-poets. Like the great Polykrates before him, Hipparchos surrounded himself with eminent a r t i s t s of the day, such as Anakreon and Simonides. These poets were un-doubtedly employed by Hipparchos at l e a s t i n part to f l a t t e r him with t h e i r s k i l l s and t h e i r presence as.they had done for Polykrates. But these men were also s k i l l e d enough to be teachers and i t may have been part of Hipparchos' plan for them to school the Athenians i n appreciation of the new-est trends i n l i t e r a t u r e and music: obviously, Hipparchos' poets w i l l have influenced the flowering of Athenian l e t t e r s i n the f i f t h century. At any rate, Hipparchos' c i r c l e of poets shows the same sort of megaloprepeia as Polykrates'. Like that tyrant, Hipparchos may have had other men who were 49 eminent i n other f i e l d s around him. The most s i g n i f i c a n t conclusion from t h i s examination of Hipparchos i s that, by contrast, Hippias had no p r o f i l e at a l l . Hipparchos, as the more v i s i b l e P e i s i s t r a t i d , would have been thought the true successor of h i s father. For i t was he who apparently sought reputation among the islanders as P e i s i s t r a t o s had ( a l b e i t i n a less grandiose way), i t was he who a c t i v e l y promoted the concept of A t t i c unity by means of the herms and, perhaps, the Panathenaia, and i t was he, not Hippias, who protected the important family-i n t e r e s t s of the oracles when Onomakritos t r i e d to interpolate h i s forged oracle. L i t t l e wonder, then, that Hipparchos was c a l l e d leon and considered tyrant so soon a f t e r h i s death. How he seemed w i l l have represented P e i s i s t r a t i d tyranny to the Athenians because i t resembled perceptions of P e i s i s t r a t o s and of other tyrants throughout Greece. In contrast to h i s brother, Hippias was r e l a t i v e l y i n v i s i b l e before 514, the year of Hipparchos' death. In f a c t , Hippias was apparently remembered for l i t t l e more than his "reign of t e r r o r " following Hipparchos' death. In view of the examples of other highly v i s i b l e tyrants l i k e Polykrates and of Hippias' father, brother, and even h i s son, Hippias' conspicuous i n a c t i v i t y i s p l a i n l y anomalous. Whatever "image" Hippias might have had while Hipparchos l i v e d must surely have paled before the r e l a t i v e magnificence of Hipparchos, h i s works and his manner of l i v i n g . Hipparchos' herms were abroad throughout A t t i c a , h i s poets ever-present at the f e s t i v a l s and i n the c i t y , h i s p r o f i l e high and resplendent i n A t t i c a and the r e s t of Greece. But Hippias was very much i n the background. The reason generally given to r e c o n c i l e the problem of Hippias' i n v i s i -b i l i t y i s that h i s r u l e was cloaked i n order to d u l l i t s sharp edge. This would c o n c i l i a t e otherwise discomfitted Athenian a r i s t o c r a t s . Perhaps i t 50 suited Hippias to allow h i s brother the higher p r o f i l e i n order to control the c i t y from "the wings". Hipparchos thus acted as something of a befud-dled, d i s s o l u t e pawn to confound or d i s s i p a t e animosity. This explanation should be rejected. Its main defect i s that i t makes much too sophisticated a d i s t i n c t i o n between appearances and r e a l i t i e s . I have t r i e d to show i n the introduction that archaic tyranny involved honour and honour demanded v i s i b i l i t y . There was no honour i n remaining i n v i s i b l e and P e i s i s t r a t o s , Hipparchos and even P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger knew i t . The f a c t of the tyranny was d a i l y driven home to the Athenians by Hippias' r e l a t i v e s who acted as tyrants, but also by the doryphoroi who enforced i t and the exactions charged upon the Athenians to keep i t functioning. The concept of a cloaked tyranny i s modern and inappropriate: some other reason must be found to explain Hippias' s i l e n c e and " i n v i s i b i l i t y " . In sum, Hipparchos was the most prominent P e i s i s t r a t i d of h i s time and so could e a s i l y have been taken f o r tyrant when he was murdered. On the face of things - a consideration not to be disdained when contemplating archaic tyranny - Hipparchos was also the most important P e i s i s t r a t i d u n t i l his death. I t was only a f t e r h i s death that Hippias c l e a r l y became r u l e r of Athens. Notes A l l t r a n s l a t i o n s of Pindar from R. Lattimore, trans. The Odes of Pindar (Chicago, 1976). Cf. Pind. Pyth. 1.85: "Envy i s better than pity';?' Hdt. III.80.4; see P. Walcot, Envy and the Greeks (Warminster, England, 1978) 39-43. Cf. Pind. Olym. 1.114; Xen. Hieron 8.5; Isok. 9.40: c</p<xvvc<r<x ,,. . jueflioTov K*L re/n.voC'KJZov Hat rreptr«tX'fToCC<x:aV e i ^ 4 " The view that tyranny was perceived by the Greeks as e n t i r e l y e v i l (How and Wells, I I , 338ff.) has been l a i d to r e s t (cf. J.H. Davie, "Herodotos and Aristophanes 'on Monarchy", GSR Ser. 2,-26 [l979] 160-3; G.B. Ferngren, Studies in Early  Greek Tyranny Diss., Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia [1972], 175ff. ; the contrary views of Arthur F e r r i l l , "Herodotus on Tyranny", H i s t o r i a 27: [l978^ 385-98 are based on s u p e r f i c i a l arguments). [ Pind. Pyth. 5.122-3; c f . also Olym. 1.106-7, 2.21-2, 36. > Cf. Xen. Hieron 8.3. A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956) 25. r Xen. Hieron 7.2; c f . also Diod. 10.33 ("...the tyrant's [sc. Gelon's] ambition i n h i s demanding the supreme command thwarted the a l l i a n c e " ) ; 10.34.7 ( " . . . i t i s not money he requires..., but praise and glory to gain which noble men do not hesitate to die; for the reward which 52 g l o r y o f f e r s i s t o be p r e f e r r e d above s i l v e r " ) ; Hdt. III.80.5 ("...accord him but j u s t honour, and he i s d i s p l e a s e d t h a t you make him not your f i r s t care") . 8 Pind. Pyth. 5.1; c f . a l s o Eur. Nauck f r a g . 2 (=Athen. 566b): TTpuirav pikv €t<foj «£cov Tup<xvv{.Sos} A r i s t . P o l . 1311a, 30-1. 9 Xen. Hieron 2.3-4. 10 Cf. Pind. Olym. 5.18. 11 Hdt. 1.30.2; see H. Immerwahr, Form and Thought i n Herodotus (Cleveland, 1966) 153-6 and 160-1 on o l b o s / o l b i o s . 12 Pind. Pyth. 1.94. 13 Cf. Hdt. 1.152; VI.127; Athen. 273c, 531b-c, 537b-c, 541a. 14 Hdt. 1.14.2. 15 Hdt. VI.162.3. 16 Hdt. VIII.121; c f . D. Page, ed. Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981) 397. 17 Hdt. VI.123.6; P l u t . Them. 25.1; see H. Schobel, The Ancient Olympic  Games (Pr i n c e t o n , 1966) 92; L. Drees, Olympia: Gods, A r t i s t s , A t h l e t e s 53 (New York, 1968) 70; M.I. F i n l e y and H.W. P l e k e t , The Olympic Games: The  F i r s t Thousand Years (London, 1976) 106. 18 Cf. P l u t . Mor. 185.2; see E. Norman Gardiner, Greek A t h l e t i c Sports and  F e s t i v a l s (London, 1910) 205; Schobel (above, n. 17). 19 Pind. Olym. 8.10-11; c f . a l s o Olym. 7.10, 10.74-80; c f . a l s o P l u t . Them. 16.2; c f . N. Y a l o u r i s , ed. The E t e r n a l Olympics (New York, 1979) 134-41. 20 Hdt. VI.127.3; c f . Andrewes•(above, n. 6) 40-1. 21 K l e i s t h e n e s triumphed at the P y t h i a (Paus. 10.7.6) and i n the Olympic c h a r i o t race (Hdt. VI.126.2). He may have organized the P y t h i a a t Sikyon (Schol. Pind. Nem. 9, i n s c r i p t . and 20) t o compete w i t h the Delphian Games (see M.F. McGregor, "C l e i s t h e n e s of Sicyon and the P a n h e l l e n i c F e s t i v a l s " , TAPA 72 [ l 9 4 l ] 282ff.; Andrewes [above, n. 6j] 60; W.G. F o r r e s t , "The F i r s t Sacred War", BCH 80 [l956] 37). 22 See below, s e c t i o n 3,C,1. 23 Olym. 9.21-6. 24 Pyth. 2.13-4. 25 Pyth. 1.92-4; c f . a l s o Olym. 1.102-3. 26 Isok. 9.7. 54 Ibykos (LGS 263, 47-8); c f . Souda s.v. 28 Hdt. III.121.2; Max. Tyr. 27.2, 37.5. 29 Strabo 14.638. 30 P l a t o Hipp. 228C; A e l . Var. H i s t . 8.2; see below, s e c t i o n 3,A,2. 31 f A t h . P o l . 18.1; Souda s.v. Aaiooj . See below, s e c t i o n 3,A,2. 32 Theok. Id_. 16.36; c f . A.J. P o d l e c k i , " F e s t i v a l s and F l a t t e r y : The E a r l y Greek Tyrants as Patrons of Poetry", Athenaeum 68 (1980) 383-6; Schol. P i n d . I s t h . 2, i n i t . ; but see A.J. P o d l e c k i , "Simonides i n S i c i l y " , PP 184 (1979) 6-7. 33 P o l y k r a t e s apparently o u t b i d Hipparchos(?) f o r Demokedes (Hdt. I I I . 1 3 1 . 1-2), the eminent p h y s i c i a n . Simonides had the r e p u t a t i o n of being very fond of money ( A r i s t . Rhet. 1405b; Ar. Peace 697-9 and s c h o l . ad l o c . ) . 34 V i t r u v . 7, pr a e f . 15. 35 Cf. Paus. 1.40.1 (on Theagenes' f o u n t a i n i n Megara). 36 See J . Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure Vases (London, 1975) i l l . 44; a l s o J.B. Bury and R. Meiggs, A H i s t o r y of Greece to the Death of Alexander (London, 1975) i l l . 5,1 and p. 553. 55 37 Paus. 1.14.1. 38 Xen. Hieron 2.2. 39 Cf. Xen. Hieron 4.6-7. 40 Cf. Pind. Olym. 8.69. 41 See P. F r i e d l a n d e r , P l a t o : The Dialogues ( F i r s t Period) (New York, 1964) 119-28, e s p e c i a l l y 127-8; see a l s o J.A. Davison, "Homer and P e i s i s t r a t u s " , TAPA 86 (1955) 11. 4 2 c t Photios {e£pf*Mc ) e s s e n t i a l l y repeats the same inf o r m a t i o n as Harpokration, although i n somewhat shortened form; Hesychios (s_.v. LitiT<<p)((.'-os '"•pt+VS ) appears t o have d e r i v e d h i s i n f o r m a t i o n from the Hipparchos. Ne i t h e r entry adds any new in f o r m a t i o n . 43 J. K i r c h n e r and S. Dow, " I n s c h r i f t e n vom A t t i s c h e n Lande", AM 42 (1937) 1-3. 44 W. Peek, " E i n Herme des Hipparch", Hermes 70 (1935) 461-4. Peek's reading of u/l€<roc should stand: see SEG XV.53; a l s o W. Kendrick P r i t c h e t t , Studies i n Ancient Greek Topography, I I I : Roads (Berkeley, 1980) 161, n. 42; on the height of the l e t t e r s see J . K i r c h n e r , Imagines  Inscriptionum Atticarum ( B e r l i n , 1948) 11. 45 Fourmont apparently made the o r i g i n a l connection (see Ki r c h n e r and Dow 56 [above, n. 43^ 1). I t i s worth noting t h a t the f i n d - s p o t , K o r o p i , i s only roughly e q u i d i s t a n t from the deme Kephale (= modern K e r a t i a ) and from Athens (see P r i t c h e t t [above, n. 44^ 162; a l s o J.F. Crome, "H i p p a r c h e i o i Hermai", AM 60/1 [l935/6] 305. Crome's a r t i c l e remains d e f i n i t i v e ) . 46 K i r c h n e r and Dow (above, n. 43) 3. 47 The f a c t t h a t the herm-head was apparently attached s e p a r a t e l y caused K i r c h n e r and Dow some d i s q u i e t . E. H a r r i s o n , Athenian Agora, XI: Archaic  and A r c h a i s t i c Sculpture ( P r i n c e t o n , 1965) 143, however, noted t h a t a herm-head (Cat. No. 156), dated around 480-70, was attached s e p a r a t e l y to i t s s h a f t by means of a dowel. H a r r i s o n observed t h a t marble could thus be conserved - an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i f many herm-heads were manu-fa c t u r e d a t once. For re p r e s e n t a t i o n s of herms on stone'bases see J.D. Beazley, The Pan-Painter (Mainz, 1974) p i s . 4.1, 23.2, 30.1; see a l s o J . Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure Vases: The Arch a i c P e r i o d (London, 1975) i l l s . 278, 330, 364. 48 Kir c h n e r and Dow (above, n. 43) 3 and T a f e l 1.3. 49 Ki r c h n e r and Dow (above, n. 43) 2. 5 0 Cf. Beazley and Boardman (above, n. 47). 5 1 Peek (above, n. 44) 463 thought t h a t the herm from Koropi possessed only the hexameter verse, not the pentameter. That does not f o l l o w (see 57.. P r i t c h e t t (above, n. 44) 162. 52 Peek (above, n. 44) 463. 53 H a r r i s o n (above, n. 47) 112; l i t t l e f a i t h should be put i n the s o - c a l l e d "Solonian" law r e g u l a t i n g Hermai quoted by C i c e r o (De Leg. 2.64-5), since Hermai became profuse i n A t t i c a apparently only a f t e r Hipparchos' day. I t may be t h a t the "Solonian" law was invented by Demetrius of Phaleron as a precedent f o r h i s own law concerning the adornment of tombs CCic. De Leg. 2.66).. We note t h a t Hermai were not used i n b u r i a l s of the e a r l i e r C l a s s i c a l p e r i o d (see D. Kurtz and J . Boardman, Greek B u r i a l  Customs [New York, 197l] 90 and 241). Cf. a l s o H. Goldman, "The .Origin of the HermV, AJA 46 (1942) 58-68 and C. Trypanis, "The Epigrams of Anacreon on Hermae", CCj 45 (1951) 31. 54 Herodotos (II.51.7) does, however, say t h a t the Pelasgians of A t t i c a f i r s t l i v e d i n Samothrace before coming to A t t i c a , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the Athenians made themselves d i s t i n c t from t h a t group of P e l a s g i a n s . 55 Hdt. V I . 1.3%. 56 Cf. Hdt. II.51.7 on the Pelasgians and Samothracians; c f . A.W. Gomme, A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides, I (Oxford, 1956) 95-8. 57 H. Marwitz, Per K l e i n e Pauly ( S t u t t g a r t , 1967) 1065 £.v. ; c f . a l s o Trypanis (above, n. 53) and Page (above, n. 16) 140, 144-5, 255-9. 58 58 P a i n t i n g : Beazley (above, n. 47) p i . 23.2; Date: Beazley, 8. 59 Beazley (above, n. 47) 4, n. 21. 60 Beazley (above, n. 47) p i s . 1.2, 4.1. 61 Beazley (above, n. 47) 2. 62 J.D. Beazley, Athenian Red-Figure Vase-Painters (Oxford, 1963) 75, 59; Boardman (above, n. 47) p i . 74. Several cups by E p i k t e t o s are so i n s c r i b e d : Beazley, 72, 21; 73, 25, 29; 74, 37; 75, 60, 64; 76, 72 and p o s s i b l y 72, 17 and 74, 40. Of course, the Hipparchos of the i n -s c r i p t i o n might be other than the son of P e i s i s t r a t o s : see Beazley, 1584. 63 Cf. W.R. Paton, t r a n s . Greek Anthology (London, 1917) V. 254; a l s o Odys. XVI.471; see J . Chittenden, "Master q)f Animals", Hesperia 16 (1947) 94; W.K.C. Gu t h r i e , The Greeks and \ t h e i r 'Gods (Boston, 1950) 88; H a r r i s o n (above, n. 47) 113. 64 See L. F a r n e l l , The C u l t s of the Greek States (London, 1909) V. 18; M.P. N i l l s o n , Greek F o l k R e l i g i o n (New York, 1940) 8; Chittenden (above, n. 63) 91 and 94. 65 Guthrie (above, n. 63). 66 S. M i l l e r , "The A l t a r o f t h e S i x Goddesses", CSCA 7 (1974) 248-9. 59 H. Goldman (above, n. 53) l i n k e d the word €(0/•(.«*. w i t h "prop" or "support" i n s t e a d of "heap". Her views have not found much support. 67 Mykenaian: J . Chadwick, The Mycenaean World (Cambridge, 1976) 87, 89 and 95-6; Priapos: see below, n. 72. 68 N i l l s o n (above, n. 64); Chittenden (above, n. 63) 9 0 f f . ; H a r r i s o n (above, n. 47). 69 Chittenden (above, n. 63) 89, n. 2. 70 Goldman (above, n. 53) 67-8. 71 F a r n e l l (above, n. 64) 9; Chittenden (above, n. 63) 9 0 f f . and 102 suggested t h a t Hermes was both the guardian of f l o c k and of wayfarers and, t h e r e f o r e , the master of animals; S. Extrem, R-E 8, 696 s_.v_. hpus*c suggested t h a t herms were simply guards. 72 Beazley (above, n. 47) 2, n. The herm must be l i n k e d w i t h Priapos (Paton [above, n. 63] IV.7.8 and 9; esp. 8.3) and perhaps w i t h Pan (IV.10.11). I t could be t h a t Hermes' name most c l o s e l y matched what had been, under the P e l a s g i a n s , nameless heaps of stone w i t h daimon. 73 Cf. N.O. Brown, Hermes the Thief (New York, 1947) 106-37; a l s o Marwitz (above, n. 57). 74 Brown (above, n. 73). 60 75 J . Boardman, Athenian B l a c k - F i g u r e Vases (London, 1974) p i . 145, 1; Date: Boardman, 63. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t Pausanias (1.27.1) observes a wooden statue of Hermes could be found i n the temple of Athena P o l i a s , where the goddess' o l d e s t image r e s i d e d (Paus. 1.16.6). Pausanias f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t the sta t u e of Hermes was dedicated by Kekrops. 76 See below, s e c t i o n 3,C,2. 77 At 1. 394; see Brown (above, n. 73) 120, n. 18; a l s o Peek (above, n. 44) 461. 78 Cf. Brown (above, n. 73) 106-9. 79 Cf. Crome (above, n. 45) 306; H a r r i s o n (above, n. 47); a l s o M. Crosby, "The A l t a r -of the Twelve Gods", Hesperia Suppl. 8 (1949) 100. 80 Thuc. VI.54.6; see Appendix. 8 1 2 Hdt. I I . 7 ; IG I I 2640. 82 Cf. H a r r i s o n (above, n. 47) 113: "These road-marking herms, l i k e the A l t a r of the Twelve Gods i n the Agora which served as the zero milestone f o r measuring d i s t a n c e s out of Athens, must have been p a r t of the A t t i c road system set up by the t y r a n t s as w e l l as being d e d i c a t i o n s of obj e c t and c u l t . " 83 Brown (above, n. 73). 61 84 This view appears t o d e r i v e from H. C u r t i u s , "Zur Geschichte des Wegebaus b e i den Griechen" , Abhandlungen d'er K o n i g l i c h e n Akademie der Wissen- schaften zu B e r l i n aus dem Jahre 1854 (1855) 247ff. and has been followed ever since (see above, n. 82). The herms and the A l t a r by themselves do not c o n s t i t u t e proof of a new road system: Brown Cabove, n. 73) 119-20, to h i s c r e d i t , r e a l i z e d t h a t no r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between the herms and the A l t a r t h a t would have i m p l i e d t h a t they were j o i n t l y conceived. 85 See above, n. 45. 86 Crome (above, n. 45) 306; c f . Pindar, F r . 63.3: "...navel of Athens, f r a g r a n t w i t h i n c e n s e . . . v " -87 Crome (above, n. 45) 307. 88 See above, n. 47 (Harrison's o b s e r v a t i o n ) ; Hipparchos was not, however, adverse t o huge o u t l a y : see below, s e c t i o n B. 89 S t e i r i a and Kephale were l a r g e r demes (see J.S. T r a i l l , "The P o l i t i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of A t t i c a " , Hesperia Suppl. 14 [l975] 67). 90 Contra Crome (above, n. 45) 306. 91 See above, n. 18; c f . a l s o C u r t i u s (above, n. 84) 250ff. f o r a romantic view of the r e l a t i o n of demesman to c i t y . 92 Cf. F r i e d l a n d e r (above, n. 41) 125-6. 62 93 Ivan Margary, Roman Roads i n B r i t a i n (London, 1967) 502-3 notes t h a t , where i n s c r i p t i o n s appear on Roman mi l e s t o n e s , the laudatory t i t l e s of the r e i g n i n g emperor were more important than i n f o r m a t i o n about mileage, d e s t i n a t i o n or p o i n t of o r i g i n . Of course, Roman milestones were f a r more numerous and much more p r e c i s e than Hipparchos' herms. Distances i n A t t i c a , smaller and more well-known t o i t s i n h a b i t a n t s , were probably measured then as today i n time r a t h e r than p r e c i s e l y i n stades, a l a t e r development. 94 Cf. F a r n e l l (above, n. 64) 23. 95 P. F r i e d l a n d e r and H. H o f f l e i t , Epigrammata: Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s v i n Verse (Berkeley, 1948) 131. 96 Cf. Paton (above, n. 63) I I . 2b, 17, 26, 28, 198, 246, 316, 320, 337 e t c . 97 F r i e d l a n d e r (above, n. 95) 130. 98 F r i e d l a n d e r (above, n. 95) 87. 99 Cf. F r i e d l a n d e r (above, n. 98); c f . a l s o the monuments along the V i a Appia (G. Hindley, A H i s t o r y of Roads [London, 193l] p i . 2). 100 See R.E. Wycherley, Stones of Athens (Princeton, 1978) 255-60. 101 W.R. Lamb, t r a n s , [ p l a t o ] Hipparchus (London, 1927) 291 t r a n s l a t e s ^ t V ^ * as "memorial"; c f . P r i t c h e t t (above, n. 44) 161 who t r a n s l a t e s the word 63 ( a f t e r Shorey) as "rede"; c f . Pausanias' d e d i c a t i o n (Thuc. 1.132.2). 102 Cf. the d e d i c a t i o n of P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger (Thuc. VI.54.6); c f . a l s o Hipparchos' d e d i c a t i o n i n the P t o l o n (see below, s e c t i o n C). 103 Cf. Schol. Pind. Pyth. 7.9b (the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i are charged w i t h the burn-ing of A p o l l o ' s temple at D e l p h o i ) ; see a l s o How and W e l l s , II., 29-30. 104 Cf. M.L. West, E l e g i et Iambi Graeci (Oxford, 1972) II.47-8 ( K a l l i n o s ) ; 149ff. ( T y r t a i o s ) . 105 West (above, n. 104) 11.137-38 (Fr. 30). 106 Absolute proof of contemporary r e c o g n i t i o n of Solon's wisdom i s provided by the e x t r a o r d i n a r y commission bestowed on him by the Athenians t o r e -w r i t e the laws ( P l u t . S o l . 14). 107 P l u t . S o l . 31; according t o Herakleides of Pontikos ( P l u t . S o l . 1 ) , P e i s i s t r a t o s and Solon were r e l a t e d . 108 E. von S t e r n , "Hippias'Oder Hipparchos?" Hermes 52 (1917) 367, r e a c t i n g t o K.J. Beloch, G r i e c h i s c h e Geschichte (Strassburg, 1913) 1.2, 295; c f . Beloch's response t o von Stern i n "Hipparchos und Themistokles", Hermes 55 (1920) 311. 109 Diog. L a e r t . I I I . 7 ; see a l s o W. J u d e i c h , Topographie von Athen (Munich, 1905) 364. 64 110 P l u t . Thes. 32.3-4. I l l J . T r a v l o s , -A P i c t o r i a l D i c t i o n a r y of Athens—(London, 1970) 42; Wycherley (above, n. "100) 219-25. 112 See J.N. Coldstream, "Hero-Cults i n the Age of Homer", JHS 96 (1976) 16. 113 Paus. 1.30.1. 114 Kleidemos, F r G r H i s t 323, F r . 15; see a l s o n. 113, above. 115 Pausanias (above, n. 113) s t a t e s t h a t the epigram showed t h a t Charmos was the f i r s t t o dedicate an a l t a r to Eros. This must mean th a t the l i n e s quoted by Kleidemos (above, n. 114) were only p a r t of the i n s c r i p t i o n . On the epigram see F r i e d l a n d e r and H o f f l e i t (above, n. 95) 108-9 and Page (above, n. 16) 400-1. 116 At h . P o l . 22.4; see Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 2,D. 117 See above, n. 114; P l u t . S o l . 2.1; on Charmos see Davies, APF, 451-2; c f . a l s o Page (above, n. 16) 401. 118 Guthrie (above, n. 63) 319. 119 Paus. 1.30.2. 12 0 Hdt. VII.6; see F. S t o e s s l R-E 18, 1, 491-3 s_.v. '0VO^L<*K|OCTO 65 121 See T. Rzach, R-E 16, 1, 758-67, e s p e c i a l l y 765-6, s_.v. (AvetetCo^-122 See above, n. 115; c f . Sappho F r . 1 (LGS) ; Anakreon F r . 358 (PMG 13); on ttoLKiXo- see D.E. Gerber, Euterpe (Amsterdam, 1970) 162; on the date of P o l y k r a t e s ' death and, so, the terminus post quern f o r Anakreon's a r r i v -a l i n Athens see M.E. White, "The Duration of the Samian Tyranny", JHS 74 (1954) 36. 12 3 On P o l y k r a t e s c f . Strabo 14.368; Athen. 540.e; Apul. F l o r . 1.15.54; Stob. E e l . 4.21; A e l . V.H. 9.4; on Kimon P l u t . Kim. 4.6 -9 . 124 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t Eros i s d e s c r i b e d i n Anakreon F r . 358 (PMG 13) as "throwing a purple b a l l " , s i n c e throwing the sphaira was p a r t of the exer-c i s e regimen; a l s o Eros i s described by Anakreon F r . 396 as a boxer; but c f . Odys. VIII.372-3 f o r what may have been the model f o r Anakreon F r . 358, 1. 1. 12 5 Dem. 24.114; c f . Page (above, n. 16) 400. 126 P l u t . Thes. 32ff. 12 7 Cf. Wycherley (above, n. 1.00) 224; troAA* otv<*.^K°t<r«s cxvocXworotc.. . c o n f l i c t s w i t h Thucydides' assessment t h a t the tyranny's exactions were m i l d , not harsh or overburdensome. 128 Cf. P l u t . Kim. 13.8. 66 129 P l u t a r c h (above, n. 128) l i n k s Kimon's embellishment of the Akademy w i t h the P e r s i a n s p o i l s . 130 L. B i z a r d , " F o u i l l e s du P t o i o n (1903), I I . - I n s c r i p t i o n s " , BCH 44 (1920) 237-41; see a l s o J . Ducat, Kouroi du P t o i o n ( P a r i s , 1971) 251-8 and "La Confederation Beotienne et 1'Expansion Thebaine a l'Epoque Archalque", BCH 97 (1973) 66. 131 B i z a r d (above, n. 130) 238-9. 132 Cf. B.D. M e r i t t , "Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s " , Hesperia 8 (1939) 65, n. 1. 133 L.H. J e f f e r y , The L o c a l S c r i p t s of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961) 75, n. 3. 134 J e f f e r y (above, n. 133) 75; see a l s o Appendix; Ducat (above, n. 130) 66 dates the Hipparchos-dedication to 515, but see R. Buck, A H i s t o r y of  Boeotia (Edmonton, 1979) 118, n. 12. 135 Cf. the Alkmaionid i n s c r i p t i o n (Bizard (above, n. 130] 227-36; but c f . Ducat [above, n. 13(5] 242-51 and 65-6). 136 Cf. Hdt. 1.61. The shrine may have, however, belonged to A k r a i p h i a from 550 to 480 and not to Thebes (see P. S t i l l w e l l , ed. The P r i n c e t o n  Encyclopaedia of C l a s s i c a l S i t e s ^Princeton, 1976] 742, but see Buck (above, n. 134] 100 and 118, n. 12). 137 See Appendix; a l s o Buck (above, n. 134). 67 138 { p l a t o ] Hipp. 228d-e. 139 See above, n. 103. 140 See a l s o Thuc. III.104 (below, n. 145). 141 Herodotos (1.64.1-2) l i n k s the p u r i f i c a t i o n of Delos w i t h 1) r o o t i n g the tyranny f i r m l y i n Athens a f t e r P a l l e n e by means of revenue and e p i k o u r o i , and 2) r e t e n t i o n of hostages on Naxos, as i f the p u r i f i c a t i o n strengthened P e i s i s t r a t o s ' tyranny. 142 Thuc. 1.2.6; 12.4. 143 West (above, n. 104). I I , F r . 4a: 144 Cf. B. K e i l , Die Solonische Verfassung i n A r i s t o t e l e s Verfassungsges- s c h i c h t e ( B e r l i n , 1892) 39, n. 1. 145 Cf. Thuc. III.104.1: ov^ ocrroco-x v , a.\\' otrav krrb tow izpov e^ecopQne / 146 See J.S. Boersma, Athenian B u i l d i n g P o l i c y from 561/0 t o 405/4 B.C. (Groningen, 1970) 169; but c f . P. Bruneau and J i Ducat, Guide de Delos, ( P a r i s , 1965) 17 and 82. 68 147 See above, n. 146. 148 For the date of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' f i n a l r e t u r n see P.J. Rhodes, " P e i s i s t r a t i d Chronology Again", Phoenix 30 (1976) 219-33. 149 Cf. Thuc. III.104. 150 That i s i m p l i e d by P e i s i s t r a t o s ' a l l e g e d deposit of hostages on Naxos. 151 See W.A. Laidlaw, A H i s t o r y 'of Delos (Oxford, 1933) 57-8; H.W. Parke, " P o l y c r a t e s and Delos", CQ_ 40 (1946) 105-8. 152 t , Cf. Souda s_.v. TTv0l«* KOCL A""lAt<<. 153 On the date of P o l y k r a t e s ' death see above, n. 122; Parke (above, n. 151) puts P o l y k r a t e s ' a c t i v i t y a t Delos i n 523. 154 Commercially: P.N. Ure, The O r i g i n of Tyranny (Cambridge, 1922) 70-1. S t r a t e g i c a l l y : Parke (above, n. 151). 155 Cf. Hdt. I I I . 1 2 5 . 156 [ p l a t o ] Hipp. 228b; A e l . V.H. 8.2. 157 Strabo 14.638. 158 Cf. Ibykos (LGS 263, 47-8) 69 159 Cf. Him. 29.22 c o l . ; Max. Tyre 37.5; Athen. 12.540d. Cf. a l s o Paton (above, n. 63) I I . 24, 25, 29, 30. 160 Cf. above, n. 157; Hdt. III.121 i s s u s p i c i o u s as apocryphal, s i n c e the renowned a s s o c i a t e s , Anakreon and P o l y k r a t e s , are together at the f a t a l entrance of the messenger. On Ibykos and love c f . C i c . Tus. Disp. 4.33.71. 161 Ath.Pol. 18.1. 162 On Anakreon's poetry see D.A. Campbell, Greek L y r i c Poetry: A S e l e c t i o n  .of E a r l y Greek L y r i c , E l e g a i c and Iambic Poetry (London, 1967) 314-5; a l s o Gerber (above, ri. 122) 222-3. 163 Cf. Anakreon F r . 358 (PMG 13). 164 Ath.Pol. 18.1. 165 Cf. Campbell (above, n. 162) 379; Gerber (above, n. 122) 310-1?;." 166 Cf. ^>latOj] 228c; see above, n. 33. 167 / Hdt. VII.6; Dithyrambist: Souda s_.v. /\oicro$ • and Simonides: Ar. Wasps 1410-1; c f . a l s o Schol. Pind. Olym. 13.26b; P l u t . Mor. 530f; Athen. 8.338b-c; 9.455c. 168 Mart. Cap. 9.936 ; Souda _s.y_. /\*<rojj . 70 169 A.J. P o d l e c k i , " F e s t i v a l s and F l a t t e r y : The E a r l y Greek Tyrants as Patrons of Poetry", Athenaeum 68 (1980) 382, suggests t h a t Hipparchos might have a v a i l e d himself of Simonides' e x p e r t i s e to use on the herm-epigrams. 170 There i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t Anakreon i n f l u e n c e d Aeschylos (see P o d l e c k i [above, n. 169] 381, n. 27): see Epilogue. 171 Cf. Thuc. 1.14.3. 172 See above, n. 12 3. 173 Parke (above, n. 151) 108 considers t h a t , when Po l y k r a t e s d i e d and no other power asser t e d i t s e l f , Athens "was otherwise occupied". A c t u a l l y , Athens had n e i t h e r the power nor the i n c l i n a t i o n to become i n v o l v e d i n the maelstrom of the eastern Aegean a f t e r P o l y k r a t e s ' death. The pentekonter was only a gesture and the successors of P e i s i s t r a t o s may have ceded any r e a l pretensions to i n f l u e n c e i n the Cyclades at h i s death; c f . above, n. 171; c f . a l s o Bruneau and Ducat (above, n. 146) 17. 174 Cf. P l a t o 228c; a l s o c f . P l u t . Kim. 10.5 on the p r o v e r b i a l wealth of the Skopadai, the patrons of Simonides a f t e r Hipparchos' death (see P o d l e c k i [above, n. 169] 384); on the r e t e n t i o n of renowned poets see P l u t . Them. 5.2 (see E p i l o g u e ) . 175 Hdt. VII.6.3. 71 176 On the i n c i d e n t c f . a l s o Paus. 1.22.7; i n general see M.P. N i l l s o n , C u l t s , Myths, Oracles and P o l i t i c s -in Ancient Greece (New York, 1951) 130-1; a l s o J . K i r c h b e r g , Die Funktion der Orakel 1m Werke Herodots (Hypomnemata I I , Gottingen, 1965) 89. 177 • ( Bakis: Schol. Ar. Peace 1071; Souda s_.v./3<s<KL5 ; on Bakis see 0. Kern, R-E 2.2 2802 s_.v. &JLK.\.$ . I t i s important t h a t Herodotos ( V I I I . 96) l i n k s Bakis w i t h Musaios, s i n c e the l i n k g i v e s some substance t o t h i s testimony: Musaios t r a n s c r i b e d the o r a c l e s of Bakis (Hdt. IX. 43) and i t i s l i k e l y they were in c l u d e d i n the s t o r e on the A k r o p o l i s (see below, n. 178). Herodotos had great respect and reverence f o r them (cf. V I I I . 2 0 , 77). His reverence i s an important f a c t o r i n l i g h t of how the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i might have manipulated the o r a c l e s . On Amphilytos see Hdt. 1.62-3. 178 Cf. Hdt. V.72.3, 90.2; on the l i b r a r y of P e i s i s t r a t o s see Athen. 1.3. 179 Hdt. V.93; see Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 2,D. 180 Beloch (above, til 108)' 1.2, 294. 181 Von Stern (above, n. 108) 362-3." 182 This was suggested t o me by Pr o f . A.J. P o d l e c k i . 183 Cf. How and W e l l s , I I , 85. 184 Cf. N i l l s o n (above, n. 176). 72 185 Athens' entertainment of the Pelasgians of Lemnos (Hdt. VI.139) i s p a r t i a l l y i n d i c a t i v e of her d e s i r e to o b t a i n Lemnos. 186 M i l t i a d e s reminded the Pelasgians of Lemnos of the vow they had made him before the P y t h i a (Hdt. VI.140) , namely, t h a t i f Athens sent-ships on a voyage from A t t i c t e r r i t o r y i n one day by means of a north wind to Lemnos, the Pelasgians would g l a d l y hand Lemnos over t o Athens. M i l t i a d e s s t a r t e d from E l a i o u s i n the Thracian Chersonese, an Athenian foundation. Cf. J . Hart, Herodotos a'nd Greek H i s t o r y (London, 1982) 42. 187 What p a r t Onomakritos' o r a c l e played i n t h i s process i s hard to say but i t s connection w i t h Lemnos must bear upon P e i s i s t r a t i d i n t e r e s t i n the i s l a n d . 188 Or perhaps Onomakritos had been cont i n u o u s l y f o r g i n g o r a c l e s f o r the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and h i s mistake was to be discovered by Lasos. In t h a t case, t o save the c r e d i b i l i t y of the remaining o r a c l e s , Hipparchos had to e x i l e Onomakritos. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t Onomakritos was genuinely bent on treason a g a i n s t Athens, although i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i n f e r from t h i s o r a c l e . 189 MarkeL.', V i t . Thuc. 2-4; Euseb. Chron. 01.53.3; see Cadoux, 104. 190 Hdt. VI. 127.4-129; cf... McGregor (above, n. 21) 266-87. 191 Cf. H.W. Parke, F e s t i v a l s o f the Athenians (Ithaca, 1977) 34; but see a l s o J.A. Davison, "Notes oh the Panathenaea", JHS 78 (1958) 28-9. 73 192 Schol. A r i s t i d . Panathen. 189.4 (»W. Dindorf, A r i s t i d e s [ L e i p z i g , 1829} I I I . 3 2 3 ) . 193 „ Cf. Schol. Ar. Clouds- 970: O\IT:O5 5«. Soicii t Y p C - c c ^ K i © < * p i < r « c rr«.p Contra C. H i g n e t t , The H i s t o r y of the Athenian C o n s t i t u t i o n (Oxford, 1951) 326-31: i t does not f o l l o w t h a t the P h i l a i d a i and the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i co-operated because they i n h a b i t e d the same area i n A t t i c a (see Davison [above, n. 19lJ' 29) . 194 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Hdt. 1.60.3-5; see How and Wells 1.83. On the date of the Athena P o l i a s temple see J.S. Boersma (above, n. 146) 113. 195 See above, n. 21. 196 Cf. Hdt. VI.125.5. 197 See J . Boardman (above, n. 75) 36, 168; p i . 296, 1 and 2; see a l s o Davison (above, n. 191) 27 and P.E. Corbett, "The Burgon and Blacas Tombs", JHS 80 (1960) 56-8. The "Burgon" vase was apparently awarded f o r v i c t o r y i n the c h a r i o t - c o m p e t i t i o n (see Corbett, p i . 2). 198 Cf. Boardman (above, n. 75) 108, p i s . 207, 301.2 and 304.1. The "Burgon" amphora seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t the statue of Athena P o l i a s , from which i t may have been copied, was f l a t - f o o t e d , as were the k o r a i of the p e r i o d . 199 Contra J.S. Davison, " P e i s i s t r a t u s and Homer", TAPA 86 (1955) 12: a l -74 though the Panathenaia may never have developed into a truly panhellenic festival even in Athens' heyday, i t was undoubtedly not because the Athenians were attempting to confine i t . 200 Davison (above, n. 199) 10-13. 2 01 j i Hesychios J3.v. ftp<*vpto*t.oL§ ' zyV SXLKSOI. y}Jov ponf^ojSoc ev .202 Peisistratid connection with Philaidai: Plut. Sol. 10.2. Brauron's proximity to Philaidai: Schol. Ar. Birds 873. 203 Cf. Hesiod Erga 653-60. 204 This is the sense of €^ vrroA^y/fecoj € ^ e ^ " 7 S (see Davison [above, n. 199] 11) 205 Cf. Davison (above, n. 199) 19; cf. also Page (above, n. 16) 339. 206 Cf. Davison (above, n. 199). 207 Isok. Pan. 159 and Lyk. In Leok. 102 and Diog. Laert. 1.57 show that there was confusion about who instituted the Panathenaiac competitions. Plut. Per. 13.6 attributes the introduction of ^to\r<rcKrj^ at^u^/oc to Perikles. This attribution i s undermined by other ascriptions. 208 [plato] Hipp. 228b. 75 209 Hdt. V.56; Thuc. 1.20.3; Ath.Pol. 18.3. 210 Hdt. V.56; c f . How and We l l s , 11.25 who term the hexameters " r i d d l i n g " ; c ontra Macan 1.196: the l i n e s c o n s t i t u t e an o r a c l e , not an epigram. 211 Cf. Macan (above, n. 210) and How and Wells (above, n. 210). 212 Obscure: How and Wells (above, n. 210). Complimentary: G.W. Dyson, "AEONTA TEKEIN" , CQ_ 23 (1929) 187. 213 Dyson (above, n. 212) 188, n. 3; t h i s connection i s p a r t i c u l a r l y appeal-i n g i n view of Hipparchos' a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Onomakritos (see above, s e c t i o n 3,B), the chresmologos' connection w i t h Orphism and the s t r e s s on j u s t i c e i n the second l i n e of the hexameter (cf. P l a t o , Laws 715e; Dem. 2 5.11). 214 See above, n. 211. 215 Cf. H. Strassburger, "Herodot und das p e r i k l e i s c h e Athen", H i s t o r i a 4 (1955) 17; H. Immerwahr (above, n. 11) 125, n. 138; C. Fornara, Herodotus: an I n t e r p r e t a t i v e Essay (Oxford, 1971) 53-4. 216 Strassburger (above, n. 215). 217 How and We l l s , 1.74. 218 How and We l l s , 11.52. 76 219 Hdt. V.92e; c f . Immerwahr (above, n. 11) 155, n. 17. 220 Cf. the o r a c l e spoken t o Hippokrates, the f a t h e r of P e i s i s t r a t o s , by C h i l o n (Hdt. 1.59.2). 221 Cf. Herodotos 1 treatment of Kroisos (1.26-34). I t seems t o me t h a t Fornara (above, n. 215) f a i l s t o r e a l i z e t h a t Greeks l i k e Herodotos could f e e l strong opposing f e e l i n g s : Greeks who feared Athens and P e r i k l e s i n the f i f t h century could nevertheless admire her f o r her l e a d i n g p o s i t i o n and P e r i k l e s ' l e a d e r s h i p . 222 Compliment: How and W e l l s , 11.119. Ambiguous: F. Focke, Herodot a l s  H i s t o r i k e r ( S t u t t g a r t , 1927) 2 9 f f . Immerwahr (above, n. 11); Fornara (above, n. 215). 223 Cf. P l u t . Per. 3, 7, 13, 16. A Thuc. I I . 65.9: e^<-^Yit.P: re Aofu. ^KSV tS^p.oKpa.cf.oc, epftuj <5e vite " y t r \ > '/ vovvpuiTouocvSpof ^PX*)/ c f - p l u t - Per- 14. 225 Cf. Athens as t y r a n t : V. Hunter, "Athens Tyrannis: A New Approach to Thucydides", CJ 69 (1974) 120-6; W.R. Connor, "Tyrannis P o l i s " , Ancient  And Modern: Essays i n Honor of G.F. E l s e (Ann Arbor, 1977) 95-109. 226 How and Wells (above, n. 222). 227 L i o n of Chaironeia: Paus. 10.40.10; on the sema: Hdt. VII.228; c f . 77 How and W e l l s , II.230-1. 228 Cf. How and W e l l s , 11.230; c f . a l s o W.R. Paton (above, n. 63) I I . 344a, 344b and 426; D. Page (above, n. 16) 298-9. 229 Cf. Ar. Knights 1037; P l u t . A l k . 2.2. P l u t . Alex. 2.3. 230 Cf. C. Wolff, "A Note on Lions and Sophocles' Philoktet.es 1436", i n G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert and M.C.J. Putnam, edd. Arktouros: H e l l e n i c  Studies presented t o B.M.W. Knox on the Occasion of h i s 65th Birthday ( B e r l i n , 1979) 145: " U s u a l l y i n the I l i a d , l i o n s represent w a r r i o r s at the moment of t h e i r a r i s t e i a , t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l h e r o i c a c t i o n . Both are powerful, f a s t d r i v e n , r e l e n t l e s s and courageous - even t o the p o i n t of s e l f - d e s t r u c t i o n " Cf. Paton (above, n. 63) 426, 1. 2. 231 Cf. Odys. IV.447, 459; IX.435; X I . 1 8 K XVI.37); XVIII.135; XXIV.163; there i s one instance where i t i s used i n a bad sense XIX.100( 163). 232 Xerxes removed the statues of the t y r a n n i c i d e s i n 480: P l i n . Nat. H i s t . 34.17. 233 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 3,F. 234 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 2,D. 78 I I . THE SUCCESSION 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The t y r a n t P e i s i s t r a t o s d i e d an o l d man i n 528/7 B.C. during the archonship of Philoneos. He was succeeded by one or perhaps by both of h i s e l d e s t sons and P e i s i s t r a t i d r u l e of Athens continued without i n t e r -r u p t i o n u n t i l Hippias was e x p e l l e d i n 511. The t r a n s i t i o n of power from f a t h e r to son or sons was apparently smooth and the government bequeathed by P e i s i s t r a t o s sound enough to endure f o r another seventeen years only t o f a l l i n the end t o f o r e i g n i n t e r v e n t i o n . Our best sources - those nearest i n time t o the event - di s p u t e who he l d power a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s and seem to d i s r e g a r d the p o s s i b i l i t y of a j o i n t r u l e . The popular t r a d i t i o n , o l d e r than the date of composition of Herodotos' h i s t o r y and l i k e l y d e r i v e d from the Harmodios-skolia, h e l d t h a t Hipparchos succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s , p o s s i b l y because of the popular concep-t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e . Obviously, Hipparchos must have been t y r a n t , i f Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n murdered "the t y r a n t " . Thucydides argued against the view t h a t Hipparchos succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s by c i t i n g the r e l a t i v e p o s i -t i o n s of the names of P e i s i s t r a t o s , H i p p i a s , and Hipparchos on the s t e l e t h a t concerned the crimes of the t y r a n t s . He reasoned t h a t Hippias was the e l d e s t of brothers and succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s because h i s name appeared on the s t e l e r i g h t a f t e r h i s f a t h e r ' s . L i k e Herodotos, Thucydides emphasized t h a t the r u l e of tyranny at Athens was not stopped by the death of Hipparchos, but continued under Hippias f o r some four years. I t was the Spartans and the A l k m a i o n i d a i , not the Athenians, who put an end to P e i s i s t r a t i d r u l e . Not-79 withstanding these arguments, Athenians continued to b e l i e v e t h a t Hipparchos was t y r a n t when he was murdered and the pressure of these popular b e l i e f s may have r e s u l t e d i n e f f o r t s to r e c o n c i l e the controversy by combining the brothers i n a j o i n t power. An example of t h i s may be the account of the Ath.Pol. The polemic of our e a r l i e s t sources, however, can have s h i f t e d a t t e n t i o n away from the p o s s i b i l i t y of j o i n t r u l e i n f a c t . Most modern s c h o l a r s adhere to Thucydides 1 view on the subject of succession because the author i s a r e l i a b l e source and because the evidence t h a t he c i t e s seems s o l i d enough. The Achtungsstele, which i s described i n Thucydides, appears t o be primary evidence from the p e r i o d immediately f o l -lowing the e x p u l s i o n of Hippias and i t seems t o show t h a t Hippias d i d indeed succeed h i s f a t h e r because i t l i s t s h i s name f i r s t a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s ' . To t h a t evidence, some add the more r e c e n t l y discovered fragment of the Athenian a r c h o n - l i s t , which seems to corroborate Thucydides. For the a r c h o n - l i s t , which represents a p e r i o d i n the 520s, shows th a t Hippias held h i s eponymous archonship s h o r t l y a f t e r the death of h i s f a t h e r , a f a c t t h a t i s taken to i n d i c a t e t h a t Hippias wanted t o l e g i t i m i z e h i s r u l e by ho l d i n g the o f f i c e as soon as he could a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s ' death. Fewer scholars have accepted j o i n t r u l e ; very few b e l i e v e t h a t Hipparchos succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s . This chapter w i l l examine the major elements of the orthodox view of the succession t o determine, i f p o s s i b l e , reasons f o r the v a r i a n t v e r s i o n s . I t may thus be p o s s i b l e t o a r r i v e a t a b e t t e r understanding of the succession, e s p e c i a l l y i f the f a c t s of the matter can be viewed away from any controversy or polemic. I t should be s t a t e d p r o v i s i o n a l l y t h a t much of t h i s examination may seem negative i n tone because of the p a u c i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the per-i o d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there i s very l i t t l e to s u b s t i t u t e f o r questionable i n f o r m a t i o n without i n d u l g i n g i n s p e c u l a t i o n and o v e r l y c r e a t i v e h i s t o r i -ography. The archon-list is treated separately in an appendix. 81 1 2. The Stele concerning The Crime of The Tyrants A. Introduction c£fC<- S l i r p e a - O v T i x T o s COY Irrtrc<^ > ^ ^ e V , etd«>5 acHpL'JC&VGpo\/ eiAAWY laytt/pc£t>/u.<x.L.?^*OL-*J 6 <*Y K«C oiWC'-u* i <•< \ / / C cf /? x / '\ IS v \ ' —* £r^- / I i f > \ v. *T f\«<AA6oir rroxT Iircpo^cSair \yu^<vpo^ e^evovro" €t«.o$ y*p \ , f — « \ 1 _ •»» J / , •coV Vp&eFfjuT'CX.e) V TTfxuxoY ^iyiuu*-1~ . K ° f c ev Z y j °ltjx:jj crryArj _ / v \ / > c x ~ > / •' <TtA ro rrpecr/SecV T e cJ/r*«<ur<3i? >c<*k. T:U peivVedcn* c, . 9 "<wijp Poppo (In Ipsa... laplde VaJla): Ttpurc*) codd. Thucydides VI.55.1-2 The s t e l e concerning the crime (adikia) of the tyrants i s the strongest evidence adduced by Thucydides i n support of his assertion that Hippias suc-2 ceeded P e i s i s t r a t o s as the tyrant of Athens: f o r i t seems: to show that Hippias was the eldest and most p o l i t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' sons because i t l i s t s him f i r s t a f t e r h i s father. Thucydides must have thought that the s t e l e preserved s o l i d , primary evidence about the succession that should have been enough to undercut thoroughly popular Athenian notions about the succession. In f a c t , the s t e l e i s the firm foundation of Thucydides 1 argument for the succession and i t i s purs f or b e l i e v i n g that argument. 3 The s t e l e endorses our b e l i e f i n the v a l i d i t y of Thucydides' methodology. 82 Modern scholars generally accept Thucydides' conclusions, b e l i e v i n g 4 that he accurately records and i n t e r p r e t s the stele's information. The decree on the s t e l e i s thought to have provided for outlawry (atimia) of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and to have been set up on the Akropolis immediately 5 a f t e r Hippias' expulsion from Athens i n 511. Many have thus assumed that the s t e l e provides f i r s t - h a n d information about the succession. In f a c t , our f a i t h i n Thucydides i s so strong that his conclusions have r e a l l y never been s e r i o u s l y doubted. Few studies have explored the evidence of the s t e l e ; most of these have been cursory and any that might have cast 6 a doubt upon Thucydides' assertions have been brushed aside. I t seems remarkable that such an important document, the evidence for which i s almost e n t i r e l y i n Thucydides' h i s t o r y , should have escaped closer scrutiny, i f only to determine more p r e c i s e l y the exact contents of the s t e l e . A c t u a l l y , some studies have r a i s e d questions about the way Thucydides i n t e r p r e t s the s t e l e . For instance, some scholars have noted that the struc-tures on the Akropolis, where the s t e l e stood, were destroyed by the Persians 7 i n 480. Some of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i had accompanied the Persians to Athens as a l l i e s and i t seems most u n l i k e l y that they would have suffered such a prominent, offensive document as the s t e l e concerning the crimes of t h e i r forebears to survive. Again, i t has been noticed that Hippias' c h i l d r e n were named on the s t e l e , a f a c t that.: appears to contradict the charge of 8 tyranny implied by Thucydides: f o r i f Hippias was the tyrant, as Thucydides would have us believe, his sons, who obviously never became tyrants at Athens, cannot have shared the crime. The crime l i s t e d on the s t e l e may not have been tyranny. I f , on the other hand, a l l of Hippias' sons were con-sidered tyrants by the Athenians, then there i s no reason not to think that P e i s i s t r a t o s ' were as well, and thus Thucydides' plea for who was and was not 83 tyrant f a i l s . Thucydides 1 use of the document i s cause for some d i s q u i e t . Thucydides' primary inference was that Hipparchos cannot have been tyrant because the s t e l e showed that he had no sons. That i s a very weak inference p r i m a r i l y because several tyrants and powerful men of archaic Greece had no d i r e c t 9 h e i r s , but passed on t h e i r power to brothers or nephews. Thucydides deals with the most important evidence, that Hippias was named f i r s t a f t e r h i s father, only secondarily, as i f he were les s impressed by i t s merits. C l e a r l y , the s t e l e made no d i r e c t statement about the succession. Thucydides was unable to c i t e the s t e l e as the source of i r r e f u t a b l e proof, but was compelled to i n t e r p r e t the evidence offered by i t from l i k e l i h o o d . Yet, Thucydides' tone i n the d i g r e s s i o n concerning the murder of Hipparchos, 10 which forms the context of h i s r e v e l a t i o n of the s t e l e , i s polemical. This tone shows that Thucydides had set himself squarely against popular opinion about the succession, which held that Hipparchos succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s , and, because of that, Thucydides may have been disposed to construe the not unambiguous information from the s t e l e i n accordance with what he strongly believed about the succession. In short, Thucydides may have taken the evidence from the s t e l e for what i t seemed rather than for what i t was. Are there any grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g that Thucydides prejudiced the e v i -dence from the stele? F i r s t , i t must be remembered that the s t e l e on the Akropolis was equally accessible to a l l the Athenians, not j u s t Thucydides, and that the majority of them d i d not draw from i t the same conclusions as he d i d . Obviously, i f the s t e l e singled Hippias out as the tyrant of Athens, the deeply-rooted popular t r a d i t i o n about Hipparchos' status w i l l have been d e c i s i v e l y refuted and prominently so. Again, we would be compelled to ques-t i o n why Thucydides did not c i t e such information. I f the s t e l e recorded 84 c o n v i c t i o n s f o r the crime of tyranny, but d i d not s p e c i f y the t y r a n t a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s , Thucydides' argument concerning the succession i s i n c o n c l u s i v e : to any i m p a r t i a l reader of the s t e l e , a l l named upon i t w i l l have shared the power f o r which they were, before the viewer's eyes, sharing the blame and Hipparchos, whom the popular t r a d i t i o n made " t y r a n t " , could have been t y r a n t as w e l l as Hippias. But i f the crime on the s t e l e was other than tyranny, Thucydides was wrong to i n s i s t on the order of names as proof f o r h i s asser-t i o n s about the succession, s i n c e the offenders may have been ranked from most g u i l t y to l e a s t g u i l t y under the s p e c i f i c charge. The c l e a r e s t conclu-s i o n from a l l of t h i s i s t h a t the s t e l e could i n f a c t have allowed various i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s about the succession; i t o f f e r e d d e f i n i t e proof f o r no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Thus, i t seems t h a t Thucydides may have p r e j u d i c e d the 11 evidence from the s t e l e . I t i s of primary importance t o determine the content of the s t e l e ; e q u a l l y important i s the time when the s t e l e was f i r s t erected. For i f , as some have b e l i e v e d , the s t e l e was o r i g i n a l l y set up a f t e r 480 and the devas-t a t i o n of the A k r o p o l i s , i t need not have preserved an accurate record of P e i s i s t r a t i d s uccession, f o r t h a t was, by t h i s time, i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l . More curr e n t animosity d i r e c t e d a gainst the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i who had accompanied the Persians i n 480 can have i n f l u e n c e d the s t e l e ' s content, both crime and 12 punishment. For the same reason, a s t e l e set up before 480 but destroyed and replaced afterwards may not have been a f a i t h f u l copy of an e a r l i e r docu-ment. Perhaps Thucydides glossed over these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and misunderstood the s t e l e . There seem t o be ample grounds to j u s t i f y re-examination of the s t e l e and reassessment of i t s testimony. Above a l l , i t w i l l be necessary t o f i x the contents of the s t e l e without regard to Thucydides' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , then 85 to compare the content with what Thucydides says about i t . I f a substantial d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between what the s t e l e recorded and what Thucydides i n -ferred from i t , i t s c i t a t i o n cannot s e t t l e the issue of P e i s i s t r a t o s 1 successor. This examination w i l l c o n s i s t of four parts: reconstruction of the s t e l e ' s content, examination of the charge to be read on the s t e l e , exam-in a t i o n of the h i s t o r i c a l background a f f e c t i n g the s t e l e , and examination of Thucydides' inferences i n l i g h t of the previous three sections. B. Reconstruction To determine the content of the s t e l e , we must f i r s t begin with what Thucydides supplies: - The s t e l e concerned the a d i k i a of the tyrants. - The s t e l e contained the names of P e i s i s t r a t o s , Hippias, Hipparchos and Thessalos. - Hippias' name came f i r s t a f t e r h i s father's. - Five c h i l d r e n of Hippias were named, including at l e a s t 13 two males. - The s t e l e stood upon the Akropolis. Such are the "bare bones" offered by Thucydides. Our f i r s t consideration involves the word adik i a s : could Thucydides have a c t u a l l y read that upon the s t e l e or i s he paraphrasing for something else that he read? Many modern scholars have rejected the word adikias found i n Thucydides' text i n favour of atimias on the ground that the subject of the i n s c r i p t i o n cannot have been a d i k i a , which was neither a charge nor a 86 14 penalty. That i s true, but there i s no support from the manuscripts to emend the reading, and there i s good reason to believe that Thucydides 15 a c t u a l l y read the word adikias on the s t e l e . One piece of evidence i s the i n s c r i p t i o n on an ostrakon cast as a vote 16 against Xanthippos, who was o s t r a c i z e d i n 485/4. I t reads: )(<T»iV Qjitrrrov roSej <jt>$<riv «*A£ creyoSV 7TpV-c*v6iov co errp<* K£OV 'Appcj<j>povoj- tr-iiS« / * * £ V J i . « * T ' £SLKey Without mentioning the s p e c i f i c charge, the voter/author of the d i s t i c h has simply pronounced Xanthippos g u i l t y of wrongdoing. He has had done with charges and simply states his judgement. The case of M i l t i a d e s may shed a b i t more l i g h t upon t h i s type of pro-nouncement. According to Herodotos (VI.136), M i l t i a d e s was found g u i l t y of «<rraC"ti7 a f t e r he had f a i l e d to capture Paros as he had promised the Athenians. He would have been executed had not the people relented and fin e d him f i f t y t a l e n t s K«cr« XTJV rfcJiKc^/v . The o r i g i n a l charge against M i l t i a d e s was not f i x e d indisputably i n 18 a n t i q u i t y : Ephoros (Nep. M i l t . 7.5) reported the charge as treason. Both 19 Herodotos and Ephoros agree on the amount of the f i n e . I t seems l i k e l y then that part of the decree of conviction came down to the w r i t e r s , perhaps to wit: " . . . i n accordance with the crime, l e t M i l t i a d e s , the son of Kimon, 20 pay f i f t y t a l e n t s . " Perhaps the best evidence for b e l i e v i n g that Thucydides read adikias on the s t e l e also supports (at l e a s t p a r t i a l ) s u r v i v a l of a decree of conviction against M i l t i a d e s . ' Hipparchos, the son of Charmos, was ostracized i n 488/7 21 and at some l a t e r date (probably before 480) was convicted of prodosia. Since the Athenians could not procure him to execute, they voted to take down his statue from the Akropolis, melt i t and make of i t a bronze s t e l e on which 87 to i n s c r i b e the names of other ^Xtxyp^oc and rrpo<So t<* c . Lykourgos, who records t h i s information (1.117), appears to be quoting from a document: O \ * t ) ^* * •> A /-> \ I \ / not-*]o-^vrej-ercr^X^v ^ ^co-^co,,,,This example shows that a d i k i a was not a crime per se, but that i t denoted a crime, which i n Hipparchos 1 case was 22 prodosia. The crime of a d i k i a evolved l a t e r at Athens: the decree of Kannonos (Xen. H e l l . 2.7) made death the penalty for anyone "wronging" the Athenian demos. The charge appears to have been applied mostly from the 420s and 23 seems to be a l e g a l development of the l a t e r f i f t h century. P e r i k l e s , i t i s true, was charged with a d i k i a , but t h i s charge denoted alleged f i s c a l 24 malversation. We have no record of anyone po s s i b l y charged before P e r i k l e s except M i l t i a d e s . I t i s reasonable to conclude that Thucydides read adikias on the s t e l e denoting the pronouncement of g u i l t , not the charge. The crime i t s e l f must eith e r have been tyranny, as Thucydides implies, or stated vaguely enough 25 to allow i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as tyranny. This subject w i l l be explored f u l l y i n the following section. Before the examination proceeds, i t w i l l be necessary to consider the uneconomical prospect of multiple s t e l a i a f f e c t i n g the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . Thucydides stated that the l o c a t i o n of the s t e l e was upon the Akropolis, a place of great concourse at Athens where the most serious offenders were 26 proscribed upon s t e l a i . To a n t i c i p a t e f or a moment, the s t e l e concerning the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i undoubtedly provided for the gravest of punishments, which, although unnecessary i n the case of the dead, need not have been duplicated on other s t e l a i representing the r e s u l t s of further proceedings 88 a g a i n s t the f a m i l y . Once condemned, the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were e t e r n a l l y damned, so. t h a t the s t e l e d escribed by Thucydides was probably the so l e major 27 document p r e s e r v i n g the r e s u l t s of l e g a l a c t i o n a gainst the t y r a n t s . For Thucydides, i t was assuredly the most i n f o r m a t i v e concerning the f a m i l y of P e i s i s t r a t o s . I f the s i n g u l a r i t y of the document i s accepted, much more can be i n -f e r r e d about the s t e l e ' s content, both from the evidence d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to i t and by analogy. The s t e l e apparently i n d i c t e d P e i s i s t r a t o s and h i s f a m i l y and Hippias and h i s f a m i l y , f a c t s t h a t support the b e l i e f t h a t the 28 P e i s i s t r a t i d a i so l i s t e d were punished w i t h a t i m i a . I t i s , however, un-usual f o r i n d i v i d u a l members of the f a m i l y of men c o n v i c t e d t o be named. In the E r y t h r a i Decree, f o r example, the c h i l d r e n are described as TfKL&ts i / r 29 GK6\l[o . . m . In the M i l e s i a n Decree against subversives, the o f f s p r i n g of those c o n v i c t e d are c a l l e d eKV'ov'o^ . Both decrees date approximately 31 t o the m i d - f i f t h century. Another decree noteworthy because i t i s Athenian and extremely severe i n punishment dates from the end of the f i f t h century: "...and Archeptolemos and Antiphon are to be a t i m o i and t h e i r gene from them, both i l l e g i t i m a t e ( v o © o y y ) and l e g i t i m a t e (^••yertox-r^ ) . " Since i t had already been decreed t h a t the offenders be handed over to the Eleven f o r 33 execution, making them a t i m o i can only have been pro forma. F a m i l i e s of men made a t i m o i were probably not named s p e c i f i c a l l y because t h e i r g u i l t was only i n d i r e c t , as a r e s u l t of t h e i r a f f i n i t y w i t h the offenders; t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were named argues t h a t a l l l i s t e d were i n v o l v e d w i t h the crime charged on the s t e l e . The punishment i n f l i c t e d on Antiphon and Archeptolemos was both severe and unnecessary: w i t h the p r o v i s i o n f o r a t i m i a , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t the Athenians were "throwing the book" at them and using e a r l i e r models of severe 89 punishment to help guide them. Antiphon was charged with prodosia, one of the two most heinous crimes at Athens; Antiphon had committed his crime when 34 the enemy were at the very gates of the c i t y . But Antiphon was also the 35 guiding hand of the Four Hundred, the subverters of democracy i n 411. The greatest enemies of public security and the democracy throughout the f i f t h century had been and remained the (ghosts of the) P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and there can be no doubt that the Four Hundred were equally regarded i n the aftermath: f o r the f a l l of the oligarchs had occasioned passage of the Demophantos Decree, which contained both the "archaic" law concerning tyranny and a pro-v i s i o n f o r the murderers of would-be tyrants to be treated " j u s t l i k e 36 Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n and t h e i r descendants". For l i k e service to the state, s i m i l a r reward; for l i k e crime against the state, s i m i l a r punish-ment? As the worst enemies of the state, the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i w i l l undoubtedly have merited the harshest punishment, and, as time passed, that punishment w i l l have become the benchmark for harshness simply because i t was associated with them. The unnecessary outlawry of Antiphon and h i s heirs w i l l have been 37 modelled upon the provisions against the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . The punishment of Antiphon 1s i l l e g i t i m a t e h e i rs bears upon the s t e l e concerning the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . For P e i s i s t r a t o s too had i l l e g i t i m a t e sons and h i s were ac t i v e i n the a f f a i r s of Athens: Hegesistratos a c t u a l l y led a 38 body of Argives to f i g h t against the Athenians at Pallene. As r u l e r of Sigeion, he harboured the f u g i t i v e P e i s i s t r a t i d a i when they were expelled from Athens and provided them with a base for further i n t r i g u e s against the 39 new democracy. I t i s easy to see why such a dangerous i n d i v i d u a l as Hegesistratos would not have escaped the indictment brought against the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i at Athens. I t would thus appear l i k e l y that both the genesioi and the nothoi of 90 40 P e i s i s t r a t o s were l i s t e d by analogy with the punishment meted to Antiphon. I f that i s the case, we should expect that a d i s t i n c t i o n was made between legitimate and i l l e g i t i m a t e . Perhaps the most economical s o l u t i o n i s that the d i s t i n c t i o n was made by wife. If women were l i s t e d upon the s t e l e , i t 41 would help to explain how Thucydides knew so much about Myrrhine's lineage. The s t e l e may have named P e i s i s t r a t o s ' sons by h i s f i r s t wife and then h i s 42 sons by the Argive woman, Timonassa. There i s some controversy about whether the s t e l e named only male c h i l -dren of P e i s i s t r a t o s and Hippias or both male and female. Some have urged that the decree on the s t e l e need only have been concerned with those who were thought to co n s t i t u t e a threat to Athens, i . e . , the sons and p o t e n t i a l 43 successors of P e i s i s t r a t o s and Hippias. But that type of reasoning i s too l o g i c a l : the s t e l e was not completely f u n c t i o n a l , for P e i s i s t r a t o s and other 44 dead men were made atimoi. I f Myrrhine's name was on the s t e l e , the names 45 of other females may have been also. The names of the nothoi (and perhaps of the female P e i s i s t r a t i d a i ) show that the s t e l e was designed to encompass many. How f a r the names extended, i . e . , to what degree the punishment was e f f e c t i v e , i s d i f f i c u l t to say. The naming of Myrrhine's grandfather suggests that no less than two generations above Hippias' were named, provided, of course, Myrrhine her s e l f was 46 l i s t e d . Exactly how the names were l i s t e d on the s t e l e depends very much upon our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Thucydides: "...on i t , no c h i l d of Thessalos or of Hipparchos i s l i s t e d , but there are f i v e named of Hippias, born to him by Myrrhine, the daughter of K a l l i a s , son of Hyperochides...." and "...his name sc. H i p p i a s ' j comes f i r s t on the s t e l e a f t e r h i s father's...." I f we take Thucydides l i t e r a l l y , P e i s i s t r a t o s was followed on the l i s t by Hippias, who 91 was i n turn followed by h i s f i v e paides; then came Hipparchos and Thessalos 47 and f i n a l l y the c h i l d r e n of P e i s i s t r a t o s by Timonassa. That i s an un-a t t r a c t i v e arrangement, not only because i t leaves no room for the-names of wives, but more because i t disrupts P e i s i s t r a t o s 1 genos by interposing the genos of Hippias. The o r i g i n a l manuscript reading of the text concerning the p o s i t i o n of Hippias 1 name a f t e r h i s father's begins i-v xjj Trptozy a-vyjXyf (see above, p. 81). Most scholars accept Poppo's emendation without further comment on the ground that TTpcJcr^ i s nonsensical: Thucydides had been speaking about 48 only one s t e l e u n t i l that point. I t has been suggested that Thucydides r e a l l y meant to describe two s t e l a i here, one that l i s t e d the names of the 49 tyrants, and another that l i s t e d t h e i r crimes. That suggestion has drawn no support and to i t s c r i t i c i s m can be added that the word adikias i s c o l l e c -50 t i v e and shows that a l l named on the s t e l e were involved with one charge. There seems to be no other a l t e r n a t i v e than to accept V a l l a ' s t r a n s c r i p t i o n O f ipso ( i . e . , oi.y/X.-rf ). I t could be that a d i v i s i o n was made on the s t e l e between the genos of P e i s i s t r a t o s ( i . e . , the older generation) and the genos of Hippias (the younger generation). If that i s so, then, contrary to what Thucydides imputes, the arrangement of names seems to show only that Hippias' c h i l d r e n were involved i n the crime charged, not ne c e s s a r i l y that h i s brothers were 51 c h i l d l e s s . Indeed, there may be some reason to believe that the s t e l e was designed more to i n d i c t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i s t i l l l i v i n g and s t i l l threatening Athens than to punish the dead. The best evidence for t h i s comes from Aristophanes' Birds, 1074-75: yfv re caJv rf^ >«<Wu>v ct$ TLV«L ru)v r«rQvriKoxuiv <$irotcxec**}, r«<)i<*vroV Ao^^vfit/. The "joke" about k i l l i n g tyrants that are "already dead" f o l -92 lows upon mention of Diagoras the M e l i a n , who had been p r o s c r i b e d w i t h a bounty t o procure h i s apprehension f o r having revealed the Mysteries to the 53 u n i n i t i a t e d . According to Melanthios the Atthidographer (FrGrHist 326 F r . 3), Diagoras' name was w r i t t e n upon a bronze s t e l e w i t h the f o l l o w i n g : <5ft zt-s i/TOKreiV'^c &,L*^op<*</ civ A f ^ A t o * , A^/X& t v f e t V tXpfop/ou-cxAirctW * ZL$j^ujvz'x. c t ^ ^ T j t } \a.p.fc«YeLV Svia . Aristophanes probably saw both s t e l a i i n 54 the same area on the A k r o p o l i s . The bounty t h a t he mentions must a l s o have been on the s t e l e known t o Thucydides; of course, the words t w v t e 0 v y K O T t f ^ 55 were h i s a d d i t i o n s . There i s other evidence to i n d i c a t e t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were pro-s c r i b e d . The P a t r o k l e i d e s Decree (Andok. 1.77-79) provided amnesty from the demos f o r most offenders c o n v i c t e d before 405. I t was modelled by i t s author a f t e r an e a r l i e r decree issued before the P e r s i a n War t h a t provided f o r the r e c a l l of e x i l e s . P a t r o k l e i d e s moved t h a t a l l the names of those c o n v i c t e d be expunged, w i t h some important exceptions: ... T W W V orrotr<< ev €(TZ.L "»7 G<<*<*rro£ K<xx;e^vcJcr6y^ ->j' crtrS^^e:\scrt-V y ri /^oocvv'oiy • There were no s p e c i f i c c o n v i c t i o n s t h a t we know of before 405 on charges of tyranny and so t h i s p r o v i s i o n seems to be pro forma a restatement of an 56 e a r l i e r decree excepting those c o n v i c t e d as t y r a n t s . There i s no good reason t o doubt t h a t the P a t r o k l e i d e s Decree i s i n p a r t d e r i v e d from the amnesty of 480. That amnesty forbade the r e t u r n of " t y r a n t s who had been condemned t o death", - i . e . , the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i i n s c r i b e d upon the s t e l e . Of course, t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n has much wider s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the type of crime charged and t h a t w i l l be taken up i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . S t a h l contended t h a t the s t e l e Thucydides saw a l s o recorded a sentence 93 of p e r p e t u a l e x i l e f o r the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and t h a t o p i n i o n has been shared 58 by many. S t a h l based h i s b e l i e f on the t e x t of M a r k e l l i n o s ( V i t . Thuc. 32) where i t i s s t a t e d t h a t the Athenians r e c a l l e d t h e i r e x i l e s a f t e r the S i c i l i a n debacle i n 413: x.ouj gup 24. © v^"* to 1/5 K*QO6OV 6&<SUUK<[VO<.L rot's 0v^*<rt n)\-rjv ZOJV 77etcrtcrrp<xctefuj v . S t a h l was r i g h t to c i t e t h i s passage as evidence f o r e x i l e being imposed on the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , but perhaps wrong to i n f e r t h a t the Athenians had de-veloped the formal sentence of perpe t u a l e x i l e f o r s e c u l a r crime and t h a t i t 59 had been a p p l i e d t o the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . S u r e l y , by 413, the formulaic e x c l u s i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i from amnesty b i l l s w i l l have become r o u t i n e : continued e x e c r a t i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i was de r i g u e u r , i n so f a r as they symbolized the enemies of the democracy as much as the t y r a n t - s l a y e r s symbol-60 i z e d the democracy. We should remember i n conj u n c t i o n w i t h t h i s t h a t M a r k e l l i n o s d e r i v e d h i s i n f o r m a t i o n from a motion made i n 413, not before. Other evidence o f f e r s a b e t t e r p a r a l l e l f o r the type of e x i l e imposed upon the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , p r i n c i p a l l y because i t i s nearer i n time to t h e i r e x i l e and because i t i s l i n k e d w i t h a bounty. The M i l e s i a n Law s t i p u l a t e d f l i g h t f o r Alkimos and Kresphontes: IpVfiyVJ K<*c *I/TO5 L K < * J L fiK^oVo^ . K o t t o j « v r t v « c r o v r i u j ' K » c r \_*.J [ K t f e L v V j t ^ t K * r o v j e r x j o c r ^ p " ^ x u r w i Jfc^ff «ITO t w v The two must f l e e TCTJV en <xCtp.<*cc ^>\j^rfv . Rewards are o f f e r e d as i n c e n t i v e s f o r t h e i r s l a y e r s , a f a c t t h a t suggests t h a t the M i l e s i a n democrats wanted them dead, not a l i v e . The bounty shows t h a t Alkimos and Kresphontes had f l e d before the death-penalty could be imposed. N a t u r a l l y , t h e i r e x i l e 94 would have been "forever" (or as long as t h e i r opponents remained i n power at Miletos) since, i f they returned, they would be subject to ar r e s t and 61 execution. The same decree o f f e r s more evidence about what might have been on the st e l e described by Thucydides. In the Mi l e s i a n Decree, Nympharetos1 property i s confiscated and the proceeds from i t s sale are used to pay for the bounty on the heads of Alkimos and Kresphontes. Herodotos (VI.121) claimed that K a l l i a s , the son of Phainippos, alone of a l l the Athenians, had enough cour-age to purchase the property of P e i s i s t r a t o s when i t was made p u b l i c . What-ever the merits of the i n d i v i d u a l story, Herodotos preserves the memory of property-confiscation a f f e c t i n g the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , the l i k e l i e s t time for 62 which was when they had been proscribed upon the s t e l e . In f a c t , since pu b l i c sale of property occurred i n most cases for a c a p i t a l crime, i t would have been s u r p r i s i n g i f the P e i s i s t r a t i d property was not seized. So much can be concluded about the content of the s t e l e with any reason-able amount of ce r t a i n t y . I t w i l l be u s e f u l , before proceeding to consider the crime charged to the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , to r e c a p i t u l a t e the s t e l e ' s content: - The most important s t e l e concerning the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i was situated on the Akropolis. - I t recorded a judgement that included the word a d i k i a . - The names of the sons of P e i s i s t r a t o s and the sons of Hippias were l i s t e d ; the implication i s that a l l l i s t e d by name were subject to the charge. - The names of legitimate and i l l e g i t i m a t e sons were l i s t e d . - The names of women may have been l i s t e d . - Those charged were made atimoi; they were e x i l e d . 95 - They were condemned to death s p e c i f i c a l l y and a p r i c e was put upon t h e i r heads. - Their f a m i l y property was c o n f i s c a t e d . - The p r o v i s i o n s a f f e c t e d both the l i v i n g and the 63 dead. C. The Charge I t has been widely assumed t h a t the crime f o r which the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i 64 were p r o s c r i b e d upon the s t e l e described by Thucydides was tyranny. That assumption i s based i n p a r t on: a) Thucydides' b e l i e f i n the s t e l e as an accurate record of the succession (and, of course, our b e l i e f i n Thucydides' soundness), b) the order of names on the s t e l e , c) and perhaps most c o m p e l l i n g l y , the reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t the Athenians once f r e e d would condemn the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i f o r the despotism they had enjoyed. There are, however, c e r t a i n problems connected w i t h each t h a t r e q u i r e s o l v -i n g . Thucydides' b e l i e f i n the s t e l e may have been w e l l - i n t e n t i o n e d , but he seems to have disregarded an e v e n t f u l gap i n time between the end of the tyranny and the P e r s i a n War, a gap t h a t may have had profound i n f l u e n c e on the s t e l e ' s content. Again, the order of names on the s t e l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h regard t o the younger P e i s i s t r a t i d a i i n d i c t e d , ' may not i n d i c a t e any 96 order of succession a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s : indeed, the p r o v i s i o n on the s t e l e f o r bounty shows t h a t the younger P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were of great e r consequence to the Athenians who were a c t i v e l y pursuing them. The bounty i n d i c a t e s t h a t 65 the younger group, w i t h Hippias at t h e i r head, were more thr e a t e n i n g . For a) and b) , the date of the s t e l e i s a l l - i m p o r t a n t and w i l l be d e a l t w i t h i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . The l a s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n , c ) , i s perhaps most f o r m i -dable, since we know t h a t a n t i - t y r a n n y laws were i n e f f e c t at Athens Before 510. We want t o conceive t h a t the Athenians revenged themselves on the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i f o r the l o s s of t h e i r freedom. But i f the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the s t e l e ' s content has so f a r been accu-r a t e , the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i i n d i c t e d on the s t e l e w i l l not have been convicted of tyranny: f o r there i s a very great discrepancy between i t s punishments and those punishments meted out to c r i m i n a l s c o n v i c t e d under a n t i - t y r a n n y laws i n e f f e c t i n 510. I f the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were not convicted of tyranny, then the order of names on the s t e l e need r e f l e c t only a ranking i n order of degree of off e n s e , not succession, which of course i s i r r e l e v a n t i n such a case. A comparison of the s t e l e ' s punishments w i t h those p r e s c r i b e d f o r t y r a n t s w i l l i l l u s t r a t e my p o i n t . The o l d e s t tyranny law of Athens i s a s c r i b e d t o Solon (Ath.Pol. 8.4): K* <• 'cows € T T L K . « " o * . \ u c r e < _ T r o t r d>i/u.ov ffWtffr^tvowj This "law" i s disputed as regards i t s t o t a l v a l i d i t y , but, e s p e c i a l l y , f o r 66 the p r o v i s i o n s regarding e i s a n g e l i a . Great s u s p i c i o n attaches t o the phrase K*tix.Awc-sc rov 6~TJJ*.OV , s i n c e the c o l l e c t i v e noun demos as i n j u r e d 67 p a r t y can h a r d l y have a p p l i e d p o l i t i c a l l y before 510. Again, the word K'X'C^ Xu'o-cs seems t o have found a c e r t a i n vogue, perhaps because of i t s 68 use i n the Demophantos Decree against tyranny and s e d i t i o n . The "Solonian 97 69 law a g a i n s t t y r a n t s " g i v e s every i n d i c a t i o n of being an anachronism. There i s , however, another law regarding tyranny t h a t was l i k e l y i n e f f e c t during and a f t e r the P e i s i s t r a t i d tyranny. I t i s preserved best i n Ath . P o l . 16.10: 0gcryn-<-°<- t««fft *AOr^vat-Luiv eVtt #c»u. rr«Tpt-<*. rc/e_s f / e £ V ejTcivi.crc<2vT-<x-i.j^inX Tupocvvc<5cfj •YJ crv^K«QLCTX.^ K.'t'-S} r^v ru^* vv/efot, The same law i s repeated almost verbatim, but without purpose, i n the Demophantos Decree. Obviously, the ar c h a i c law was a symbol of the past and was i n c l u d e d i n the new law on t y r a n t s to i n s t i l l i n i t a long-recognized 70 v a l i d i t y . Demophantos noted no other law concerned w i t h tyranny and i t may be t h a t the ar c h a i c law was the only law d e a l i n g w i t h t y r a n t s i n e f f e c t be-71 f o r e the passage of the Demophantos Decree. The law described i n A t h . P o l . 16.10 has been termed " a r c h a i c " f o r two reasons, the word 0€a^u.i.o^ and the change of the verb number from p l u r a l 72 ( eTr^vcer^wvc* c ) to s i n g u l a r (erv^K«0io-zrry ). I t has been accepted as 73 v a l i d f o r the p e r i o d when the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were e x p e l l e d from Athens. Ostwald demonstrated where the passage of the law should be placed: he noted t h a t most of Drakon's laws were overturned by Solon's amnesty law (P l u t . S o l . 19.4). Solon r e - e n f r a n c h i s e d those who had been a t i m o i , except those who had been co n v i c t e d by the Areiopagos of murder, p o l i t i c a l massacre or f o r tyranny (eVc x o p c c w L t f t - ). Thus, Solon's amnesty law seems t o show t h a t an a n t i -tyranny s t a t u t e e x i s t e d before Solon passed h i s law and t h a t the a n t i - t y r a n n y 74 law made e x i l e punishment f o r those c o n v i c t e d of tyranny. Ostwald reasoned t h a t the author of the Ath . P o l . must have consulted a w r i t t e n source because the author quotes the ar c h a i c law d i r e c t l y . Ostwald thought t h a t the ar c h a i c 98 a n t i - t y r a n n y law must be a s c r i b e d to Drakon, who was the f i r s t t o w r i t e down the laws and who probably wrote the a r c h a i c law on tyranny as a r e s u l t of the 75 attempted tyranny of Kylon. Drakon's law was, f o r a time i n the s i x t h century, superseded by Solon's a n t i - t y r a n n y law, Ostwald b e l i e v e d , but was l a t e r r e s u r r e c t e d at the time of Hippias' e x p u l s i o n to be used ag a i n s t the 76 P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and, a short time l a t e r , against the f o l l o w e r s of Isagoras. Whatever we choose to b e l i e v e about the ar c h a i c law's a u t h e n t i c i t y , i t was not invoked against the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i a t the time of t h e i r e x p u l s i o n or t h e i r p r o s c r i p t i o n . For the punishment i n f l i c t e d by the ar c h a i c a n t i - t y r a n n y law was f a r exceeded by the punishment found upon the s t e l e . This punishment could not have been i m p l i c i t i n the o l d law, s i n c e i t would not have needed 77 s p e c i f i c a t i o n on the s t e l e . When the author of the Ath . P o l . wrote about the a r c h a i c a n t i - t y r a n n y law, he was prompted to remark about the mildness of the a r c h a i c laws on tyranny i n e f f e c t during the r u l e of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and he used the law t h a t he c i t e d as an example of th a t mildness. The word t h a t he used to de s c r i b e the laws, "Ttpf o t , has most f r e q u e n t l y been taken as 78 an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the author misunderstood the meaning of the word atimos. He apparently thought t h a t atimos meant only " l o s s of c i v i l r i g h t s " as i t meant i n h i s own day, r a t h e r than "outlawry" ( i . e . , " k i l l w i t h impunity") as 79 e a r l i e r . But h i s observation shows other important t h i n g s t h a t have been overlooked: a) the author was f a m i l i a r w i t h other a n t i - t y r a n n y laws (un-doubtedly the Demophantos Decree and the Law of Eukrates) t h a t were f a r harsher than the a r c h a i c law, and b) the a r c h a i c law, from the evidence he had before him, must have lacked conspicuously the s e v e r i t y of the other 80 laws. Obviously, the author of the At h . P o l . cannot have known anything to c o n t r a d i c t h i s pronouncement, si n c e t h a t would have made i t s i l l y ; the law he saw was r e a l l y a l l there was of i t : i t d i d not s t i p u l a t e anything as 99 harsh as death, since then the law would have been f a r from n-potoj . The a r c h a i c law, as the author records i t , must only have provided f o r a t i m i a , f o r otherwise the term rrp<<°<- makes no sense. The P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , we have seen, were subjected to f a r harsher p e n a l t i e s than mere a t i m i a . Their pun-ishment was s p e c i f i e d , not i m p l i c i t , which means t h a t such punishment cannot have been i n conformity w i t h a law t h a t p r e s c r i b e d a t i m i a . Again, the s t e l e cannot have set f o r t h the crime as tyranny and then have included such pun-ishment i f the author of the Ath . P o l . d i d not note i t , e s p e c i a l l y since i t a f f e c t e d the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and sin c e he knew about other a n t i - t y r a n n y laws. The only j u s t i f i a b l e c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were not convicted and p r o s c r i b e d f o r tyranny under the ar c h a i c a n t i - t y r a n n y law. I f the charge upon the s t e l e was not tyranny, what was i t ? A contempo-r a r y case i n v o l v i n g s e d i t i o n may shed some l i g h t . Kleomenes campaigned 81 a g a i n s t Athens w i t h some renegade Athenians em\ xop«.WLSc . A f t e r he had captured the A k r o p o l i s , he was besieged there w i t h h i s f o l l o w e r s and forced to come t o terms w i t h h i s besiegers. Kleomenes agreed to leave the A k r o p o l i s and A t t i c a i n exchange f o r f r e e passage out. When he had departed, "the Athenians took down the houses (sc. of the renegade Athe n i a n s ) , made p u b l i c t h e i r property and voted some the death penalty. And they wrote t h e i r names 82 83 upon a bronze s t e l e and placed i t i n the c i t y near the o l d temple." Punishment was i n f l i c t e d upon those abandoned t o t h e i r f a t e by Kleomenes and, 84 i n a b s e n t i a , upon those who were f o r t u n a t e enough t o have accompanied him. Whatever credence we wish to give the s t o r y , the punishment of those renegade Athenians was much graver than what the law p r e s c r i b e d f o r tyranny. In f a c t , the punishment i n f l i c t e d upon the Is a g o r i d s i s very s i m i l a r t o the punishment f o r prodosia. G e n e r a l l y , the charge of prodosia was i n c u r r e d e i t h e r f o r p l o t t i n g or f o r f i g h t i n g w i t h the enemies of one's country t o sub-100 85 due one's f e l l o w - c i t i z e n s . We compare the punishment i n f l i c t e d upon Antiphon and Archeptolemos, two l a t e r Athenian p r o d o t a i : "Let them be handed over to the Eleven and l e t t h e i r belongings be made p u b l i c property and l e t a ten t h be the goddess'; l e t t h e i r homes be demolished and a marker be placed i n the ground on which the words are w r i t t e n : (Land) of the T r a i t o r s , Antiphon and Archeptolemos. Let the demarch d i s p l a y t h e i r property and l e t them not be buried i n A t t i c a or i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Athenians. And l e t him be atimos, both himself and h i s genos, both i l l e g i t i m a t e and l e g i t i -86 mate." I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Antiphon, the ideologue of the Four Hundred, 87 was not charged w i t h subversion. The Four Hundred were o b v i o u s l y g u i l t y of subversion and Antiphon's defense was c a l l e d Ttep\ Tr}$ fjt.&x:«iTX-ita&t*>s : the charge of subversion must have been h u r l e d a t him by h i s accusers (see above, n. 37). The Demophantos Decree was the r e s u l t of the subversion of the Four Hundred. We presume t h a t Antiphon's accuser could o b t a i n an easy c o n v i c t i o n on t h a t charge, e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of the f e a r of subversion 88 rampant a t Athens a f t e r 415. Yet, Antiphon and Archeptolemos were not charged and co n v i c t e d under any a n t i - t y r a n n y or a n t i - s u b v e r s i o n law, but under the law concerning prodosia. There are at l e a s t two ways t o e x p l a i n t h i s : e i t h e r prodosia was thought a more se r i o u s crime than subversion or subversion d i d not al l o w f o r a punishment commensurate w i t h the g r a v i t y imputed to Antiphon's crime. The f i r s t p o s s i b i l i t y seems to be r u l e d out because Athenian f e a r of tyranny made the charge very s e r i o u s . But the a r c h a i c law, apparently the only a n t i -subversion law i n e f f e c t a t Athens u n t i l i t was superseded by the Demophantos Decree, had no t e e t h : i t s p e c i f i e d only a t i m i a as punishment; the Demophantos Decree provided much more. Although there may have been some precedents t h a t u n i t e d the crime of subversion w i t h the punishment of a t i m i a 101 (e.g., the Kylonians), they were probably misunderstood because, by the end of the f i f t h century, atimia was understood only i n i t s milder sense of d i s -franchisement. The Demophantos Decree was obviously deemed necessary i n order to tighten up the punishment f or subversion and so e x p l i c i t l y to set out what was to be the l o t of convicted subverters. Thus, no cle a r - c u t precedent involving d r a s t i c punishment for tyranny or subversion was a v a i l -able f o r use i n Antiphon's case. That state of a f f a i r s w i l l account f o r the 89 charge of prodosia, rather than subversion, brought against Antiphon. A f t e r 410, however, the p i c t u r e r a p i d l y changes: i n one case, a man whose crime was c l e a r l y treason was also charged with subversion. Aristarchos, a general of the Athenians, was t r i e d , convicted and undoubtedly 90 executed on a combined charge of k a t a l y s i s and prodosia. His conviction shows that even marginal cases could now be linked to k a t a l y s i s , perhaps be-cause the Athenians, with t h e i r fears increasing, were also i n c r e a s i n g l y com-bining the two crimes. The Demophantos Decree provided the l e g a l means to obtain convictions f o r subversion and punishments that were harsh. Events of the l a t e f i f t h century support the conclusion reached by the author of the Ath.Pol.: anti-tyranny laws of old were mild; they lacked the harshness of the l a t e r laws. The Demophantos Decree, an ex post facto law, was designed to q u e l l any further attempts at subversion by bringing the punishment f or the crime up to date. The archaic anti-tyranny law was c i t e d i n the Demophantos Decree to strengthen the new law with i t s long-standing v a l i d i t y . There was no other law that could be invoked i n Antiphon's case to punish him properly f o r the crime of subversion. A f t e r the passage of the Demophantos Decree, convictions f o r s e d i t i o n could be obtained even though the defendant was only marginally implicated. Before the passage of the Demophantos Decree, the archaic anti-tyranny 102 law was i n force and the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i would have come within i t s scope had they been t r i e d f o r tyranny. Yet even a glancing comparison of the p r o v i -sions made f o r the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i upon the s t e l e and the archaic anti-tyranny law shows conclusively that the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were punished under another, far harsher law. Otherwise, we are forced to p o s i t an anti-tyranny law a f f e c t i n g the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i on the s t e l e used e s p e c i a l l y f o r them, but not others l i k e Antiphon, about which neither we nor the author of the Ath.Pol, nor apparently Demophantos know anything and which makes the pronouncement of the author of the Ath.Pol, about the mildness of the laws i n e f f e c t during the time of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i sheer nonsense. On the following page (Table 1), a comparison i s shown between the pun-ishments prescribed for the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and those i n f l i c t e d on the Isagorids and Antiphon together with those set f o r t h i n the M i l e s i a n Decree. Only those punishments that are a c t u a l l y independently attested f o r the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i or reasonably to be i n f e r r e d from the independent sources are compared. That comparison shows that the punishments for the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i are very s i m i l a r to those i n f l i c t e d on Antiphon and Archeptolemos f o r prodosia. The l i s t that should o f f e r the greatest s i m i l a r i t y both because of the crime and the time, i . e . , the l i s t of punishments a f f e c t i n g the Isagorids, i s again l i k e that f or Antiphon with the notable exception that the names of the Isagorids were to be ins c r i b e d upon a s t e l e that was to be 91 set up on the Akropolis. On the basis of t h i s comparison, we must conclude that the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were charged not with tyranny, but with prodosia. This conclusion i s not as i l l o g i c a l as might seem the case at f i r s t , for several factors support the b e l i e f that the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were in d i c t e d f o r treason. F i r s t , Hippias 1 c h i l d r e n are named, i n d i c a t i n g that they too were g u i l t y of the crime. Unlike P e i s i s t r a t o s ' c h i l d r e n who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the TABLE 1: CHART COMPARING PUNISHMENTS P e i s i s t r a t i d a i 1 a) death penalty/bounty 2 b) f l i g h t c) property c o n f i s c a t e d d) d e n i a l of b u r i a l i n 4 A t t i c a e) s t e l e w i t h names on A k r o p o l i s 5 f) progeny condemned g) -I I . Isagorids a) death penalty b) -c) property c o n f i s c a t e d d) -e) s t e l e with names on A k r o p o l i s f) -g) houses to be demol-ished I I I . M i l e s i a n Decree a) death penalty/bounty b) f l i g h t c) property c o n f i s c a t e d d) -e) -f) progeny condemned g) -IV. Ant iphon/Archeptolemos a) death pe n a l t y b) -c) property c o n f i s c a t e d d) d e n i a l of b u r i a l i n A t t i c a e) names w r i t t e n on h o r o i f) progeny condemned g) houses to be demol-ished Ar. B i r d s 1074-5 Hdt. V.96.2; Markel. , V i t . Thuc. 32 Hdt. VI.121 i n f e r r e d from indictment of the dead i n f e r r e d 104 establishment of t h e i r f a t h e r ' s tyranny, the c h i l d r e n of Hippias d i d not: 92 H i p p i a s ' tyranny d e r i v e d s o l e l y from h i s f a t h e r . Second, the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i a c t u a l l y l e d f o r e i g n enemies t o A t t i c a t o f i g h t a g a i n s t t h e i r 93 former countrymen i n 490 and accompanied the Persians once more i n 480. Helping the Persians a g a i n s t the Athenians w i l l s u r e l y have earned them the great hatred of the Athenians. In f a c t , i t i s impossible to b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s treason d i d not have r e a l impact on the Athenians, e s p e c i a l l y i n view 94 of t h e i r renewal of the plundered tyrannicide-group i n 477. That renewal s u r e l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t a consciousness survived about the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , which expressed i t s e l f triumphantly and d e f i a n t l y . I t i s t h e r e f o r e s i g n i f i -cant t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i a c t u a l l y committed treason a g a i n s t the Athenians and t h a t the s t e l e d e s c r ibes punishments f o r treason. There i s good reason to b e l i e v e on separate grounds t h a t the c l i m a t e of intense h o s t i l i t y i m p l i e d by the punishments on the s t e l e was not present at Athens u n t i l a f t e r Marathon, w e l l a f t e r Hippias was e x p e l l e d ( t h i s w i l l be taken up i n the f o l -lowing s e c t i o n ) . These f a c t o r s combine t o suggest t h a t the s t e l e may indeed have recorded punishments f o r prodosia and may have been set up f i r s t a f t e r 490. Perhaps i t w i l l be argued t h a t a crime more recent than tyranny cannot have a f f e c t e d the long-dead members of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i who had not been 95 p a r t y to i t . But whatever crime was charged to the f a m i l y w i l l have had to accommodate the long-dead anyway and a r e t r o a c t i v e charge of treason can have done t h a t . For P e i s i s t r a t o s , too, had introduced f o r e i g n enemies onto 96 A t t i c s o i l to f i g h t the Athenians at P a l l e n e . The same crime under s i m i l a r circumstances i n roughly the same r e g i o n of A t t i c a was committed l a t e r by Hippias when, i n 490, he brought the Persians to land at Marathon. The mem-ory of P a l l e n e stood long i n the minds of the Athenians and the p a r a l l e l 105 97 nature of the treason w i l l not have escaped t h e i r notice. Again, the Athenians were adept at dredging up charges well a f t e r the f a c t of the o r i g -98 i n a l crime to deal with more current malefaction when i t f i t t h e i r needs. Thus, i n sum, prodosia could f i t the older generation of P e i s i s t r a t i d a i ; tyranny could not f i t the younger. D. H i s t o r i c a l Considerations Two periods stand f o r t h as the l i k e l i e s t ones f o r the Athenians to have vented t h e i r h o s t i l i t y on the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i i n the way indicated by the se v e r i t y of the punishments on the s t e l e : a) 510 or shortly thereafter, i n the wake of Hippias' expulsion from Athens, or b) around 490 when the Persians threatened Athens. Strong presumption has heretofore been the f a s t a l l y of the f i r s t period, for we assume that the Athenians acted to r i d them-selves of t h e i r tyrants and that, once free , they would turn t h e i r pent-up wrath on the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i with f u l l force. The s t e l e that condemned them w i l l have r e s u l t e d from the r e a p p l i c a t i o n of the archaic anti-tyranny law 99 that was allowed to lapse during the P e i s i s t r a t i d regime. But even aside from the f a c t that the punishment on the s t e l e i s too harsh to have res u l t e d from the anti-tyranny law, events at the time of Hippias' expulsion do not provide reasons to believe that the Athenians were h o s t i l e to the deposed tyrants. For not only were the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i allowed to evacuate the c i t y ; they were also allowed to take some of t h e i r belongings, a f a c t that seems to c ontradict the s t e l e . Indeed, men who could be i d e n t i f i e d with the i n t e r -ests of the tyrants and who l a t e r suffered by the i m p l i c a t i o n survived the 106 e x p u l s i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and even prospered u n t i l a f t e r the b a t t l e of 100 Marathon. Th e i r a c t i v i t y , indeed t h e i r s u r v i v a l , w o u l d s u r e l y have been precluded by the Athenians had they been extremely h o s t i l e to the f a m i l y e a r l y on. I f the s t e l e was not p a r t of the aftermath of Hippias' e x p u l s i o n from Athens, but the r e s u l t of some l a t e r a c t i o n by the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , i t o b v i o u s l y need not have r e f l e c t e d an accurate r e c o r d of the succession or even had anything t o do w i t h i t . We have seen t h a t the punishment on the s t e l e was s i m i l a r t o t h a t given f o r prodosia; the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i a c t u a l l y committed t h a t crime when Hippias l e d the Persians t o Marathon. This s e c t i o n w i l l be d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s : f i r s t , the events sur-rounding the e x p u l s i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i w i l l be examined and compared wi t h a c t i o n s taken a g a i n s t the s i m i l a r , n e a r l y contemporary s e d i t i o n of the I s a g o r i d s i n order t o show t h a t s p e c i a l r e s t r a i n t was accorded the thoroughly defeated P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . In c o n t r a s t w i t h the punishment p r e s c r i b e d on the s t e l e f o r the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , t h i s r e s t r a i n t must be taken as an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the h o s t i l i t y i n evidence on the s t e l e d i d not yet e x i s t i n 510. For the s t e l e shows c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t the Athenians wanted the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i dead, while the events of 510 show t h a t , although the Athenians had the fam-i l y completely i n t h e i r power, they spared them and even allowed them t o r e -101 move some of t h e i r own property. Second, some of the events of the decade f o l l o w i n g Marathon w i l l be discussed to show t h a t t h a t p e r i o d was f a r more conducive to an Athenian hatred of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and f o r a charge of prodosia than a f t e r 510. The charge of treason was a common one during the 480s and a f f e c t e d Hipparchos, the son of Charmos, and perhaps other s o - c a l l e d 102 " f r i e n d s of the t y r a n t s " . The charge of treason at Athens during the 480s must be construed c h i e f l y i n l i g h t of P e r s i a n aggression a g a i n s t Athens and the t h r e a t , a f t e r 490, of renewed i n v a s i o n , d e s t r u c t i o n , and p o s s i b l e depor-107 103 t a t i o n of s u r v i v o r s i n t o the i n t e r i o r of A s i a . The P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were the agents of the P e r s i a n t h r e a t and so the 480s are f a r l i k e l i e r t o have seen the charge l e v e l l e d a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i than the year 510. A f t e r Anchimolios had been defeated by the T h e s s a l i a n c a v a l r y under Kineas, King Kleomenes of Sparta l e d a new, much l a r g e r f o r c e against the 104 P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , but t h i s time by land i n s t e a d of by sea. We r e c a l l t h a t the Spartans had f i n a l l y given way to the recommendations of the P y t h i a , who 105 urged them t o f r e e Athens. Kleomenes' f o r c e encountered no t r o u b l e w i t h 106 the Thessalians and put them t o r o u t w i t h l o s s . Kleomenes then advanced on Athens w i t h those who, according to Herodotos, "wished to be f r e e " , i . e . , 107 the A l k m a i o n i d a i and others who had been e x i l e d by the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . We note t h a t i t i s Herodotos' d e s i g n a t i o n and t h a t the record of the A l k m a i o n i d a i c o n t r a d i c t s t h a t d e s i g n a t i o n : Megakles, the son of Alkmaion, had a c t u a l l y formed an a l l i a n c e w i t h P e i s i s t r a t o s t h a t enabled him t o r e t u r n 108 t o Athens from e x i l e and take power again. Although the f a m i l y may have been opposed t o the r e i m p o s i t i o n of P e i s i s t r a t i d r u l e i n 546 and may have fought a g a i n s t them at P a l l e n e , c e r t a i n r e c o n c i l i a t i o n was achieved by the 109 mid-520s: K l e i s t h e n e s ' eponymous archonship followed a f t e r H i p p i a s 1 . K l e i s t h e n e s had been e x i l e d i n the wake of Hipparchos' murder and he was r e -110 t u r n i n g w i t h Kleomenes t o s e t t l e the score. The f a m i l y ' s record shows t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i were o p p o r t u n i s t i c and changeable r a t h e r than i d e a l i s -t i c and Herodotos' d e s i g n a t i o n of them i s f l a t t e r i n g , but i n a c c u r a t e . Once again the A l k m a i o n i d a i were being o p p o r t u n i s t i c , f o r i t was a safe bet t o r e t u r n from e x i l e to Athens i n the company of a Spartan army w i t h a Spartan 111 King at i t s head. The P e i s i s t r a t i d a i had a n t i c i p a t e d Kleomenes' advance and had p r o v i -112 sioned the A k r o p o l i s f o r siege. P o s s i b l y , t h e i r s t r a t e g y was simply to 108 hold out as long as possible i n the b e l i e f that the besieging army would soon 113 t i r e of the siege and abandon i t . But the capture- of the c h i l d r e n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i shows that t h e i r condition on the Akropolis was not good, f o r they had deemed i t better to r i s k sending t h e i r c h i l d r e n away from the siege than to have them remain on the Akropolis with them. If we were to believe what Herodotos says about the siege, the resolve of the Spartans was also fading, and they were on the verge of breaking the 114 siege o f f when the c h i l d r e n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were taken. But Herodotos may have lessened the Spartan resolve here i n order to detract from 115 them as l i b e r a t o r s of Athens. At any rate, when the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i heard of the capture of t h e i r c h i l -dren, t h e i r plan of resistance (whatever i t may have been) was ruined. In order to obtain the release of t h e i r c h i l d r e n from danger, they agreed to abandon t h e i r p o s i t i o n s on the Akropolis and to leave A t t i c a i n f i v e days 116 with t h e i r moveables. Considering the f a c t that, once they were away from the Akropolis and i t s defences, the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were completely i n the power of the Athenians, the terms they received were extremely generous. Hippias and h i s followers crossed to Sigeion i n the Troad, a c i t y that 117 was held by Hippias' half-brother, Hegesistratos. Thucydides claimed that Hippias began to look about for a l l i e s a f t e r Hipparchos was murdered because 118 he knew that trouble was brewing at Athens. Consequently, Hippias arranged a marriage-alliance with Hippoklos, the tyrant of Lampsakos, g i v i n g h i s daughter i n marriage to Hippoklos' son, Aiantides. But the p a r t i c l e govs/ that introduces the information about the marriage of Archedike shows that Thucydides i n f e r r e d there was trouble at Athens (because l a t e r there 119 was) that caused Hippias to cast about for a l l i e s . The arrangements made with the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were not l i k e those made 109 w i t h other defeated p a r t i e s , and events t h a t f o l l o w e d the siege of the Isa g o r i d s on the A k r o p o l i s o f f e r an important case i n p o i n t . A f t e r Hippias had been e x p e l l e d and K l e i s t h e n e s and Isagoras had engaged i n s t a s i s t o determine p o l i t i c a l primacy a t Athens, Isagoras summoned h i s a l l y , Kleomenes, to a s s i s t him. Kleomenes returned t o Athens to help c o n s o l i d a t e Isagoras' power a f t e r K l e i s t h e n e s had withdrawn. Kleomenes and Isagoras, however, were for c e d onto the A k r o p o l i s where they were besieged by the Athenians en masse. A f t e r two days, the p a r t i e s came t o an agreement whereby the Spartans, Kleomenes and Isagoras could withdraw from A t t i c a i n peace, but the other Athenians and f o r e i g n e r s who had j o i n e d them were t o be l e f t behind t o t h e i r 120 f a t e . These l a t t e r were executed and t h e i r crime must have been prodosia. I t seems l i k e l y t h a t the Spartans were allowed to depart p r i m a r i l y be-cause the Athenians feared r e p r i s a l s . S t i l l , the Spartan f o r c e was s m a l l , 121 but may have seemed formidable enough not to challenge i n combat. At any r a t e , Kleomenes r e t a i n e d f o r c e enough t o be able to extend h i s s h i e l d e f f e c -t i v e l y over the c h i e f t r a i t o r , Isagoras, the l o g i c a l t a r g e t of the g r e a t e s t 122 Athenian wrath. The question a r i s e s : Why, i f the Athenians were so harsh w i t h the I s a g o r i d s , were they so l e n i e n t w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i ? For when the younger P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were taken and the others f o r c e d from t h e i r defensive o p o s i t i o n s on the A k r o p o l i s , the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were e f f e c t i v e l y d i v e s t e d of a l l of t h e i r bargaining power. Then both e l d e r and younger could have been k i l l e d , i f t h a t was what the Athenians wanted. Instead, they granted the f a m i l y not only t h e i r l i v e s , but a l s o t h e i r possessions. C l e a r l y , the Athenians were not desirous of k i l l i n g the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i when they came down from the A k r o p o l i s and when they were h e l p l e s s . Fear of r e p r i s a l cannot have been a f a c t o r i n t h i s case. No army stood 110 poised on the border to move q u i c k l y to the rescue of the f a m i l y ; and even l a t e r , when Thebes and C h a l k i s invaded A t t i c a , they d i d so not i n concert w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i w i t h a view t o r e e s t a b l i s h i n g them a t Athens, but obv i o u s l y from s e l f - i n t e r e s t . Anyway, when the Athenians e j e c t e d the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , they d i d so w i t h the Spartans and need have feared no 123 r e p r i s a l . Three groups were a c t i v e i n the overthrow of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i : the Spartans, the e x i l e s ( i n c l u d i n g the A l k m a i o n i d a i ) , and the r e s t of the Athenians. Now the e x i l e s , whom Herodotos c a l l s "those who wanted t h e i r freedom", would want the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i spared l e a s t of a l l , f o r they had 124 s u f f e r e d l o s s and e x i l e from Hippias. In t h e i r f o r e f r o n t were the A l k m a i o n i d a i , who were not averse from the summary execution of t h e i r p o l i t i -c a l enemies: they had a c t u a l l y slaughtered the f o l l o w e r s of Kylon, who were not personal enemies, and probably sanctioned the execution of the I s a g o r i d s 125 who were unlucky enough to be l e f t behind by Kleomenes. But whatever the Alk m a i o n i d a i and other e x i l e s may have held a g a i n s t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , they e i t h e r r e s t r a i n e d themselves or were forced t o y i e l d t o the others who were determined on r e s t r a i n t . Perhaps Kleomenes and the Spartans comprised the r e s t r a i n i n g f o r c e . Hippias was a proxenos of the Spartans and Kleomenes may have extended h i s 126 p r o t e c t i o n t o Hippias and h i s f a m i l y as he d i d l a t e r t o Isagoras. This means t h a t the Athenians themselves played a f a r l e s s prominent r o l e i n t h e i r own l i b e r a t i o n than we have accepted, being r e a l l y no more than bystanders t o 127 what was happening around them. I t remains a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the Athenians were a c t u a l l y a p a t h e t i c t o t h e i r own l i b e r a t i o n , although t h i s seems d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e . I f the Athenians took a more a c t i v e r o l e i n t h e i r own l i b e r a t i o n , i t I l l w i l l have been by t h e i r consent t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i obtained such gener-128 ous terms. Herodotos' d e s i g n a t i o n of the A l k m a i o n i d a i and e x i l e s as "those who wished to be f r e e " i n d i c a t e s t h a t there were some at Athens who were e i t h e r p a s s i v e to the whole business or opposed to the endeavours of the Spartans and e x i l e s . There i s good reason to b e l i e v e t h a t many of the Athenians of good standing i n the community were not at a l l i l l - d i s p o s e d t o -ward the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , f o r most o f f i c i a l s owed t h e i r p o s i t i o n s to the 129 patronage of the f a m i l y . I t has even been argued t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were given such generous terms because the Areiopagos, under whose j u r i s d i c -130 t i o n they w i l l have come i f t r i e d f o r tyranny, refused t o c o n v i c t them. The Athenians allowed t h e i r former "oppressors" to leave Athens without punishment. The punishment p r e s c r i b e d f o r the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i on the s t e l e w i l l not match the events of Hippias' e x p u l s i o n from Athens. For the s t e l e ' s p r o v i -sions are s t e r n : death i s d e s i r e d and a bounty i s set t o o b t a i n i t , the purport being t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i are out of the grasp of Athenian law. I t i s absurd to imagine t h a t , i f the Athenians held the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i so t o t a l l y i n t h e i r power and so p o w e r f u l l y wished them dead, they would have allowed the f a m i l y t o depart from A t t i c a w i t h i n a generous span of f i v e days and t o take w i t h them some of t h e i r own property. That seems f l a t l y t o con-t r a d i c t the evidence of the s t e l e . C l e a r l y , the a t t i t u d e of the Athenians had not yet hardened t o the p o i n t of wanting the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i dead. They wanted them out, yes; but the Athenians spared t h e i r l i v e s and granted them t h e i r possessions. In f a c t , there i s other evidence to suggest t h a t a number of supporters of the f a m i l y remained i n Athens and even amounted t o a p o l i t i c a l f o r c e i n the c i t y . Hipparchos, the son of Charmos, was a °~uXX6Vl1S °^ P e i s i s t r a t o s 112 131 and was s t y l e d leader of t h i s f a c t i o n . According to the A t h . P o l . (22.4), the <$L^OL rojv Tup<<vvujv were allowed t o stay on at Athens because they were not i m p l i c a t e d i n the p o l i t i c a l upheavals. Hipparchos became eponymous archon i n 496/5 and, whether or not h i s s t a t u s as leader of the f a c t i o n was i n f e r r e d from l a t e r events, h i s connection w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i may have 132 depended on h i s a f f i n i t y t o them. N a t u r a l l y , i t would have been out of the question f o r Hipparchos, the son of Charmos, to o b t a i n the s t i l l d e s i r -able o f f i c e of archon i f the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were i n a s t a t e of e x e c r a t i o n 133 such as i s i m p l i e d by the s t e l e . Most of the r u l i n g f a m i l i e s of Athens a f t e r 510 w i l l , a t some time during the course of the l a t e r s i x t h century, have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and those e x p e l l e d w i t h Hippias may have been only the immediate f a m i l y . C o l l a t e r a l r e l a t i v e s were spared 134 e x i l e , although i t i s impossible t o know t o what degree. Hipparchos, the son of Charmos, survived w i t h others ( l i k e Hippokrates, son of Anaxileos?) on the favourable side of the l i n e of demarcation to become important men and leaders of the community. We must accept t h a t a c e r t a i n ambiguity of f e e l i n g e x i s t e d at Athens i n regard t o the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . On the one hand, the Athenians c l e a r l y wanted an end t o tyranny and the departure of the f a m i l y ; but,on the other hand, the Athenians were u n w i l l i n g t o harm the members of t h a t f a m i l y . Some surv i v e d the e x p u l s i o n who were t i e d t o the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i by blood and who made themselves f e l t p o l i t i c a l l y l a t e r . This l a c k of i l l - w i l l toward the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i may have been rooted i n t h e i r long tenure of power and the r e s u l t a n t patronage they e x e r c i s e d , which earned f o r them debts of g r a t i t u d e from those they promoted. Any ambiguity of f e e l i n g toward them, however, r e -solved i t s e l f i n t o open animosity when i t became abundantly c l e a r t o the Athenians from Hippias' involvement i n the P e r s i a n campaign of 490 t h a t he 113 was ready to harm them and t h e i r c i t y to r e g a i n h i s r u l e and t o o b t a i n ven-geance. When compared w i t h the harsh i n j u n c t i o n s on the s t e l e , the a t t i t u d e of the Athenians immediately a f t e r the e x p u l s i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i was m i l d indeed. There i s thus no good reason to t h i n k t h a t any h o s t i l e a c t i o n was taken a g a i n s t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i then, f o r i t appears as i f they were not t r i e d at a l l . Only a continued l a c k of i l l - w i l l toward t h e i r r e l a t i v e s (and perhaps others who were designated " f r i e n d s of the t y r a n t s " ) can account f o r 135 the success i n p o l i t i c s of Hipparchos, the son of Charmos. Any t a i n t on the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i w i l l s u r e l y have redounded, as i t d i d l a t e r , to those i d e n t i f i e d w i t h them and t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a t Athens. There i s no r e l i a b l e r ecord of Hippias' p r e c i s e a c t i v i t y before 490, although every account suggests t h a t he was promoting h i s r e t u r n t o Athens from the time of h i s e x p u l s i o n . Thucydides (VI.59.4) seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t Hippias moved r a t h e r r a p i d l y from S i g e i o n t o Lampsakos, and then t o Sousa without any delay; from Sousa, he came to Marathon. Herodotos d e s c r i b e s two occasions when Hippias could have earned the charge of treason f o r him-s e l f and h i s f a m i l y ; both appear suspect. At S a r d i s , Hippias i s described by Herodotos (V.96) as t r y i n g to buy favour w i t h Artaphrenes, and, when the Athenians came t o thwart Hippias' plans (whatever they were), Artaphrenes t o l d them t h a t i f they wanted t o be saved they must take Hippias back. Thucydides apparently knew of no such v i s i t of Hippias t o Sardis t o Artaphrenes, nor could Hippias have hoped t o accomplish anything s u b s t a n t i a l 136 by t a r r y i n g a t S a r d i s . The episode may have been constructed a f t e r the event to j u s t i f y Athens' r e a l l y unprovoked a t t a c k on Sardis i n 498: we remember th a t Dareios took no r e a l n o t i c e of Athens u n t i l a f t e r the burning 137 of S a r d i s . The second episode i n v o l v i n g Hippias occurred a t the Isthmian 114 congress (Hdt. V . 9 1 ) , when plans were afoot to restore Hippias to power at Athens by means of the Peloponnesian League. The Spartans had summoned their a l l i e s and Hippias to the Isthmos and a debate was held in which the Korinthians opposed restoring Hippias in a speech that i s reported verbatim 1 3 8 in Herodotos. Sparta's a l l i e s were swayed by that speech and voted not to aid Hippias. When he did speak, Hippias did not petition for assistance, but prophesied that a day would come for the Korinthians (not the Peloponnesians) when they would greatly desire that the Peisistratidai had been restored. Thus, Hippias' entire function in the debate is simply to for e t e l l a day of rueing for Korinth, no more. Hippias was reputed to know the oracles better than any living man and i t is therefore not unreasonable that he should appear at the Isthmos to utter fateful words: Korinth came to hate Athens in the later f i f t h century, the time of Herodotos' writing, and rooting that hatred in the debate and resultant prophesy of Hippias 1 3 9 introduces drama and irony to the situation. The episode seems doubtful because i t i s d i f f i c u l t to believe that Hippias would attend to the c a l l of his late adversaries and because Thucydides knew of no such sojourn; i t does, however, make entertaining reading. Dareios was provided with a casus b e l l i against the Athenians when they participated in the burning of Sardis. According to Herodotos ( V . 1 0 5 ) , Dareios was so incensed by the burning that he commanded a servant to remind him three times daily of the Athenians. It was only from that point that Dareios turned toward Athens vengefully and listened to Hippias: for i t was Dareios' practice to employ ex-tyrants as puppets for his ends, not they to 1 4 0 use him. The conflict at Marathon between the Persians and the Athenians is to be traced to the Athenian action at Sardis; the Athenians had only 1 4 1 themselves to blame for Hippias 1 return. 115 When Hippias landed at Marathon, he repeated the t a c t i c used by h i s f a t h e r more than f i f t y years i n the past when P e i s i s t r a t o s landed at Marathon 142 from E r e t r i a . Hippias undoubtedly wanted to r a l l y what support he could 143 from the D i a k r i a , the r e g i o n of h i s f a m i l y ' s g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e . But he had l e f t behind him at E r e t r i a a f e a r f u l example of what the Persians were 144 about and h i s support d i d not m a t e r i a l i z e . With a few exceptions, the Athenians u n i t e d against him and defeated the n u m e r i c a l l y s u p e r i o r Persians not f a r from t h e i r s h i p s . Old and broken, Hippias l e f t Marathon, never t o 145 r e t u r n t o A t t i c a . Herodotos (VI.124.2) s t a t e s t h a t a s h i e l d - s i g n a l was made to the 146 ' Persians at Marathon w i t h treasonous i n t e n t . J u s t what was the nature of the s i g n a l and i t s p r e c i s e meaning have never been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y explained, 147 but the s h i e l d must have s i g n i f i e d some show of support f o r Hippias. Some s t i l l remained at Athens who were e i t h e r l o y a l t o the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i or o p p o r t u n i s t i c i n view of the l a r g e P e r s i a n army: common re p o r t h e l d the 148 A l k m a i o n i d a i r e s p o n s i b l e . Whoever was r e s p o n s i b l e must have reckoned the 149 Persians a f a r b e t t e r bet than the g r e a t l y outnumbered Athenians. I t was s u r e l y not by coincidence t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i were accused of treason at Marathon and t h a t members of the f a m i l y were o s t r a c i z e d as " f r i e n d s of the t y r a n t s " during the 480s. Megakles, the son of Hippokrates, 150 was the second v i c t i m of ostracism a f t e r Hipparchos, the son of Charmos. 151 A t h i r d v i c t i m , probably an Alkmaionid, was o s t r a c i z e d f o l l o w i n g Megakles. S u s p i c i o n of c o m p l i c i t y w i t h the Persians must have played a l a r g e p a r t i n 152 earning these men t h e i r e x i l e s . L a t e r i n the decade, Hipparchos, the son of Charmos, was c o n v i c t e d of treason. The very time of h i s c o n v i c t i o n together w i t h h i s f a m i l y t i e s u n i t e to form a very i n c r i m i n a t i n g s u s p i c i o n t h a t Hipparchos medized a f t e r h i s 1 1 6 ostracism. A s t e l e was made from h i s statue to commemorate his treason and that of others and i t may well be that the designation "friends of the tyrants" was earned by those l i s t e d on the s t e l e as men who had gone over to 1 5 3 the Persians and the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . Possibly these "friends of the tyrants" disregarded the r e c a l l of the e x i l e s i n 4 8 0 , p r e f e r r i n g to bank upon the success of the overwhelming force that the Persians could muster. Hipparchos 1 conviction f or prodosia must be viewed as the very end of the process that brought about the demise of those implicated as "friends of the tyrants". The demise was predetermined by the f a i l u r e of Hippias at Marathon: afterwards, the Athenians c l e a r l y equated medism with the 1 5 4 tyrants. The f a c t i o n ( i f that i s what i t was) was "cleaned out", begin-ning with the most v i s i b l e reminder of the former tyranny and the most v i s -1 5 5 i b l e leader of the f a c t i o n , Hipparchos, the son of Charmos. We note that intense hatred of the tyrants and the Mede began apparently only a f t e r 4 9 0 . By that time, Hippias and h i s partisans - the perpetrators of the s h i e l d -s i g n a l - had revealed themselves as men ready to harm the Athenians for t h e i r 1 5 6 own ends. I t was surely too much f o r the Athenians, who had now experi-enced twenty years of freedom, to think of subjection, e s p e c i a l l y under f o r -eign dominators. The Athenians responded to the threat (and may have exor-c i s e d t h e i r dread) by s e t t i n g up a s t e l e condemning Hippias and h i s c h i l d r e n and, r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y , his father and brothers. For now the Athenians wanted to execrate the e n t i r e family. H i s t o r i c a l l y , i t i s to t h i s period of fear and anger ( i . e . , a f t e r 4 9 0 ) that the harsh injunctions of the s t e l e belong. Hippias' crime and the crime of h i s sons was treason - taking up arms to f i g h t with a foreigner against one's countrymen. Not unreasonably, the Athenians vented t h e i r anger also by purging the c i t y of the tyrants' friends and suspected f r i e n d s . Since the 117 Athenians could not procure the persons of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i to execute, they proscribed them and placed a bounty on t h e i r heads. The Athenians now wanted a l l the l i v i n g tyrants dead and with them the spectre of further harm. E. Thucydides and The Stele What e f f e c t s do these arguments have upon Thucydides' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the stele? None at a l l , i t could be argued, f o r , although the crime may not have been tyranny and the charge l a i d many years a f t e r Hippias' expulsion, i t need not follow that Thucydides' inferences are i n v a l i d . Valeton remarked that, i n any case, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine that Hipparchos would have been 157 named a f t e r Hippias on the s t e l e i f he had ruled before him. The s t e l e s t i l l seems to show that P e i s i s t r a t o s and Hippias alone held places of impor-tance and the presence of only Hippias' c h i l d r e n s ' names seems to e s t a b l i s h him and h i s c h i l d r e n as the tyrant and tyrant-family of Athens a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s . Thus, regardless of the crime written upon the s t e l e , i t w i l l s t i l l have shown Hippias as the tyrant. Perhaps, too, Thucydides was aware of the lag i n time between the expulsion of Hippias and the erection of the s t e l e , but regarded the s t e l e as valuable anyway: his unspoken confidence 158 i n the document should cancel our doubts. But the f a c t of the matter i s that i f the s t e l e d i d not concern i t s e l f with the crime of tyranny per se but something more recent, i t obviously need not have been r e f l e c t i v e of the succession, now so many years i n the past and i r r e l e v a n t to the s t e l e ' s purpose. The decree on the s t e l e was concerned more with procuring the deaths of the l i v i n g , s t i l l threatening members of 118 the f a m i l y than i t was w i t h e x e c r a t i o n of the dead: i n c e n t i v e s were provided to o b t a i n t h a t end. The Athenians were concerned with e l i m i n a t i n g the agents of the P e r s i a n s and, i n those circumstances, i t was much more important t o l i s t the prime malefactors - H i p p i a s , Hippias' sons and Hippias' f a t h e r -than i t was t o s t a t e an accurate record of a succession t h a t was not an i s s u e . Beloch puts i t q u i t e s u c c i n c t l y : " . . . e i n Achtungsdekret i s t doch 159 keine Stammtafel." Thucydides' prime in f e r e n c e from the s t e l e i s o b v i o u s l y f a l s e . The f a c t t h a t the s t e l e held the names only of Hippias' c h i l d r e n proves only t h a t h i s c h i l d r e n were co n v i c t e d of the charge on the s t e l e , not t h a t Hipparchos or Thessalos had no c h i l d r e n or t h a t , because they had no c h i l d r e n , they could not have he l d power. No one, f o r i n s t a n c e , would argue t h a t Stesagoras, the son of Kimon Koalemos, d i d not r u l e i n the Chersonese 'because he had no c h i l d r e n , u n l e s s , of course, the arguer had no b e t t e r i n f o r m a t i o n about him. Thucydides' i n f e r e n c e shows t h a t he grasped at the s u p e r f i c i a l evidence of the s t e l e and t h a t he weighted i t much too h e a v i l y . I t seems to show t h a t Thucydides was already convinced about the succession and was'"superimposing h i s conclusions onto evidence t h a t was only p a r t i a l l y "accommodating to them. The main stre n g t h of what Thucydides a l l e g e s about the succession i s t h a t H i p p i a s 1 name f o l l o w s f i r s t a f t e r h i s f a t h e r ' s . Thucydides i n f e r s t h a t t h a t must mean t h a t Hippias succeeded h i s f a t h e r as the e l d e s t son. But, aside from the o b j e c t i o n s I have already l a i d out, there are other o b j e c t i o n s t o t h i s i n f e r e n c e . For even i f , f o r the. moment, we admit the a g e - d i f f e r e n c e and t h a t Hippias was e l d e s t , i t does not guarantee t h a t Hippias succeeded h i s f a t h e r . The succession of Periander i l l u s t r a t e s the p o i n t (Hdt. I I I . 5 3 ) : when Periander grew o l d , he wanted h i s younger son, Lykophron^to succeed him as t y r a n t of K o r i n t h . Periander passed over h i s e l d e s t son who seemed t o him 119 unfit. There are other cases in which brothers, obviously older and younger, 160 shared the tyrannical power equally. Thucydides appears unable to admit the possibility of shared rule, per-haps because he argues polemically in the digression concerning the murder of Hipparchos (see Chapter III). In answer to the common view that Hipparchos was the tyrant of Athens, Thucydides publishes the opposite opinion, undoubt-edly engendered in him by the knowledge that Hippias was the tyrant when Athens was liberated and that Hipparchos was k i l l e d for private, not patri-otic reasons. These conceptions-were then superimposed by him on some un-yielding facts, resulting in implausibilities and contradictions. It is possible that Thucydides allowed the imperfections in his account to stand because he thought that the evidence of Hippias' tyranny and the failure of the tyrannicides to free Athens was totally compelling, irrefutable, and com-161 pletely undermining of the popular view of Hipparchos as tyrant. Yet the f r a i l t y of his inferences shows that Thucydides was struggling with a void of secure information about the succession. The stele does not show conclusively who was the tyrant of Athens after Peisistratos: Thucydides inferred i t . He also inferred that Hippias must have been in con-t r o l of the city when Hipparchos was murdered, for otherwise the transition of power could not have been so smooth - a completely intellectual deduc-162 tion. This inference, which is contradicted even in Thucydides, proves that no record of precisely who controlled the city after Peisistratos existed for Thucydides to consult. Thucydides cited the stele, undoubtedly known to a l l Athenians who visited the Akropolis, for what i t seemed to show and thus for what i t seemed to support, namely that Hippias was the most significant of Peisistratos' sons. The fact of the matter i s , however, that i t did not say so outright. 120 Thucydides was not g u i l t y of dishonesty or of manipulating evidence t o s u i t h i s purposes, but he may have been g u i l t y of grasping too r e a d i l y a t the apparent. He seems to have i n f e r r e d too much from too l i t t l e , r e l y i n g on TO fetxos to- supplement i t s i n f o r m a t i o n . A l a c k of c l e a r - c u t evidence on the subject forced Thucydides t o r e c o n s t r u c t . He introduced the s t e l e , perhaps t h i n k i n g t h a t i t was the u l t i m a t e proof f o r h i s a s s e r t i o n s . But i t i s not the proof Thucydides thought i t was, f o r i t does not designate the crime l i s t e d as tyranny or Hippias as the t y r a n t ; these f a c t s would have f l a t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d the popular t r a d i t i o n about the succession. In t h i s l i g h t , i t may be asked how, i f the s t e l e was erected i n the e a r l y p a r t of the f i f t h century and was i n f a c t a record of succession t h a t was a v a i l a b l e to a l l Athenians on the A k r o p o l i s from a t l e a s t 480, could the popular n o t i o n t h a t Hipparchos and not Hippias was t y r a n t ever have gained the wide-spread c r e -163 dence i t had i n the f i r s t place? I t seems t h a t Thucydides may have over-looked or underestimated the Athenians who set the s t e l e up. 121 3. L i t e r a r y T r a d i t i o n A. Introduction There are two ascribable accounts written before Thucydides 1 polemical one that p e r t a i n to the problem of succession: Herodotos' and that which i s generally assigned to Hellanikos of Lesbos, the Atthidographer. There i s also an important t h i r d story that may have influenced the author of the Ath.Pol. when he wrote h i s version. Herodotos i s not concerned with the issue of succession, but with the l i b e r a t i o n of Athens. He stresses that the tyrannicides d i d not l i b e r a t e Athens when they murdered Hipparchos, but aggravated the tyranny. Thus, he i m p l i c i t l y denies that Hipparchos was tyrant. This incomplete den i a l -Herodotos says nothing with any firmness - has most generally been taken as an a n t i c i p a t i o n of Thucydides' complete r e f u t a t i o n of the "popular" or 164 " o f f i c i a l " account. Herodotos, however, avoids the issue of succession ( i f i t were an issue) and i s seemingly unaware of the age-difference between 165 Hippias and Hipparchos so much stressed by Thucydides. Herodotos dir e c t e d his e f f o r t s against the information l i n k i n g the death of Hipparchos with Athens' freedom from tyranny. Hellanikos i s considered responsible for the information found on the 166 Parian Marble (Ep. 45). I t i s against the equation made on the Parian Marble (or one very much l i k e i t ) that Thucydides d i r e c t e d h i s attack. Both the evidence of the Parian Marble and the equation c r i t i c i z e d o b l iquely by Herodotos appear to have found t h e i r common source i n the Harmodios-skolia. For i t i s f i r s t i n the s k o l i a that the death of Hipparchos and the day of Athens' freedom are linke d . 122 Yet another account, a t l e a s t as o l d as Thucydides' w r i t i n g (and perhaps Herodotos'), may have conceived of the tyranny as a j o i n t one. This account o b v i o u s l y made f a r l e s s of an issue of the d i s t i n c t i o n between Hippias and Hipparchos than e i t h e r H e l l a n i k o s or Thucydides d i d . I t could be tha t the author of the A t h . P o l . preserves t h i s account, although i t seems c l e a r t h a t he has added other i n f o r m a t i o n to i t . B. Herodotos VI.123.2 V.55 /AT>€A«Wo^cevoj ce o f\pcO-JKH^O prj^ e K r r j j z^n<xpvrj 5 >fte €S r < *S / ^ © T ^ V W J yevoyutsV"<5 xopivvaiv £<Se IXeoGeptj, i.7re\ Cj^nrr<<pAu>V T ^ V A C * e-TupecWevoYrra 'AQTXVVLLOL. en'eire* -ceotr&pu. oo&e.v -fjo-mv V.62.1-2 d*€t tfe fpK°S TOUTOLCTL. «tx ^ vwAec^ecV r o / K n r 5 * ^ ^ "T^01 A e J ^ v Xofi-oY} u*s TIZ/OKKVCUV' iXzu&e.p<£&?jo-btv ^d>j^t«t . cf(A toy XT7-7TO^OJ^ ov 0«<v«rov /AX«/<.e<*Jv'i<$"<><c-^  "tfevo§ KTX. K W L tfUrco ^ \ & i j V « ^ oi5c<Jc £.SC. o £ A\kp-6u>vlo'eLL~J TjarotV OL. 123 ro«/5" v/roXoi-n-ovj TTe.Lcco-cp'^irtS'&cov lTrrrotp^ov «<7roicre4— Herodotos argues s p e c i f i c a l l y a g a i n s t t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e d e a t h o f Hipparchos»brought an end t o P e i s i s t r a t i d t y r a n n y and freedom t o Athens. The p l a i n t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r was t h a t H i p p i a s r u l e d f o r t h r e e more y e a r s o a f t e r H i p p a r c h o s was k i l l e d and was f i n a l l y d r i v e n o ut by t h e Sp a r t a n s and th e A l k m a i o n i d a i . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t Herodotos does not argue t h e ca s e 167 more s t r o n g l y . T h e r e i s one i n s t a n c e where Herodotos might be d e n y i n g t h a t H i p p a r c h o s was t y r a n t (V.55.1): efr«c "Xrrrr^p^oV r o V TTeLcrcorcp^oxr^^TTtTTc^cO Tupxvv&rf *.£e\ 0 eoV.... Many s c h o l a r s have t a k e n t h i s sentence t o be sure p r o o f t h a t Herodotos knew t h a t H i p p a r c h o s was not t y r a n t , but s i m p l y t h e 168 b r o t h e r o f H i p p i a s , t h e r e a l t y r a n t . Indeed, Herodotos p l a c e s t h e i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n p r o m i n e n t l y , a t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f h i s a c c o u n t o f Athens' l i b e r a -t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g perhaps t h a t he i s t a k i n g i s s u e w i t h t h e p o p u l a r d e s i g n a t i o n of H i p p a r c h o s as t y r a n t . (The t h r e a d o f t h i s emphasis i s p i c k e d up a g a i n a t V.62.2: IITTTCZUJ zop^YVe^oyco^ K«L €/UTTIKP«LVO^U.6 VO%J AkjyjY«Lotcr/_ dt« r o v , , , / « T o / . ) But t h i s " a t t a c k " on Hi p p a r c h o s ' s t a t u s i s e x t r e m e l y o b l i q u e and, i n f a c t , does not c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l t h a t H i p p a r c h o s was a t y r a n t . F o r n a r a o b s e r v e s t h a t t h e word •ct/f>xvv<W a t V.65.1 i s not e a s i l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e c o n c e p t o f s i n g l e r u l e f o r H i p p i a s and t h e r e a r e o t h e r passages i n Herodotos 169 t h a t do not s u p p o r t t h e co n c e p t o f s i n g l e r u l e . Indeed, Herodotos a c t u -a l l y c o n t r a d i c t s h i s e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e t y r a n n i c i d e a t V.55 i n a speech g i v e n t o M i l t i a d e s t o d e l i v e r t o K a l l i m a c h o s on t h e eve o f t h e b a t t l e o f Marathon (VI.109.3) : 'kv croc Vi/V, K«AA cyU.<x^6 , €a~ci ~$ K*r<* cfol/A QITUL /^0^V<<5 -yj 124 l\e\/6jp*5 •noLyer^vT-x. f^vfj^ioauvov Aine<r&<*<- • • . otov ouSe 'App-oScoj xe..... Here, Herodotos acknowledges t h a t Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n have l e f t behind them 170 an undying memory f o r making Athens f r e e . As the speech of M i l t i a d e s i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o i t s context, so, too, i s the l a b e l of Hipparchos as the brother of Hippias i n i t s context: Herodotos i n s e r t s the reference at V.55 to support the claims of the A l k m a i o n i d a i t h a t they were the t r u e l i b e r a t o r s 171 of Athens. Herodotos' p o i n t i s t h a t the t y r a n n i c i d e s f a i l e d t o l i b e r a t e Athens by . f a i l i n g t o end the tyranny. The inf o r m a t i o n t h a t he .deemed f a l s e here l i n k e d Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n w i t h Athenian freedom - the same equation found i n , 172 the Harmodios-skolia: 3.o €V jJLMpToxr K\«6C TO ^L^O$ fioprycru) uj&frep n | 0 y u o d £ O 5 K«t Hp<.<xx:ofl*.L-cuiv o r e T O V T i / p « c v / o v ' ^ w v s c ^ v AT > > j -- V / " > T i i ^ t t c o-puuV K . A e o j GtrareV'CL K<=LZ <^L^\/ ficXT^B^ ^/IppLoJce KU). ^picrzoj-etz-tdV.«• „. The l a s t two l i n e s of both s k o l i a show what Herodotos seems to be t r y i n g t o r e f u t e . Isonomia i s u s u a l l y taken to mean "democracy", although here i t 173 might mean simply "no longer r u l e d by t y r a n t s " . At any r a t e , i n the s k o l i a , Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b r i n g i n g tyranny at Athens t o an end, thereby f r e e i n g the c i t y . That i n f o r m a t i o n i s wrong and Herodotos knew i t , but, as has been shown, Herodotos makes the t y r a n n i c i d e s paragons of Athenian democracy. The weight of the t r a d i t i o n t h a t Herodotos opposes at V.55 and l a t e r at VI.123.2 a c t u -a l l y r e v e a l s i t s e l f i n Herodotos' account of Athens' l i b e r a t i o n . For 125 Herodotos places the murder of Hipparchos before h i s extensive account of the Spartan-Alkmaionid l i b e r a t i o n , f o r him the t r u e s t o r y . This p o s i t i o n i n g seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t others who made the t y r a n n i c i d e s Athens' l i b e r a t o r s compelled Herodotos to set the record s t r a i g h t by denying the r e l a t i v e worth of the t y r a n n i c i d e (I) as a preface to h i s own t r u e s t o r y of the l i b e r a t i o n 174 (II) . The most i n t e r e s t i n g aspect of Herodotos 1 treatment of the t y r a n n i c i d e i s i t s b r e v i t y . In c o n t r a s t t o the very considerable and v i v i d s t o r y i n Thucydides, Herodotos disposes of the murder i n only one sentence (V.56.2): The author appears much more i n t e r e s t e d i n the premonitive dream of Hipparchos on the n i g h t before h i s death and i n the o r i g i n of the Gephyraioi than he was i n the murder or i t s causes. U n l i k e Thucydides, Herodotos 175 avoided any mention of the m o t i v a t i o n of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t Herodotos reported a minimum about the t y r a n n i c i d e i n order 176 t h a t i t not d e t r a c t from the t r u e s t o r y of the l i b e r a t i o n . C. H e l l a n i k o s The f i r s t spokesman f o r the view t h a t Herodotos contested i n e f f e c t u a l l y 177 was apparently H e l l a n i k o s the Atthidographer. I t should not cause wonder t h a t H e l l a n i k o s chose to ignore Herodotos' weak and unconvincing views i n favour of the "popular" account, which was r e i n f o r c e d by the t y r a n n i c i d e -statues of some age and by the y e a r l y s a c r i f i c e s and honours o f f e r e d to the 178 martyrs. But H e l l a n i k o s appears to have a l t e r e d the basic i n f o r m a t i o n 126 of the Harmodios-skolia,(Marmor Parium Ep. 45): cT[».4.J<f [o^joV K ° t L ^ A S v ^ V c U O l - p Vfe C X ~ J V] tTc< V X < S U $ "C<-< The equation is more strongly stated in favour of the Athenians as well as being chronologically in error: not only is Hipparchos labelled successor to Peisistratos, but the Athenians, not the Spartans or the Alkmaionidai, are 179 credited with their own liberation. The emphasis is now not upon the singular act of the tyrannicides, but more on the Athenians collectively as agents of their own freedom. This altered equation appears to be what Thucydides contested (VI.53.3): y e V o / t t v ^ v *<«•<- irpocrext ova v p e<*vvi*>v ><<*L. npf<oo Lax* K ° T < * \ v &eL-CratV o<AV V7TO r*2v A°<<€ 6~'*-LfjLOVCcO V K z \ . The passage is most revealing, for not only does i t link the Athenians with the tyrannicides in the new way, but i t also shows that the Athenians believed that the tyranny was held, whether jointly or consecutively, by the 180 sons of Peisistratos after his death. The issue was unresolved by 181 Herodotos, who nevertheless acknowledged i t ; Hellanikos, however, attempted to resolve i t by calling Hipparchos the tyrant after Peisistratos, 182 overlooking the chronological problem. Thus, a change occurred between the time of Herodotos' writing (c. 425) 127 and the time of H e l l a n i k o s ' w r i t i n g (,c_. 406/5) i n which the t y r a n n i c i d e was perceiv e d d i f f e r e n t l y . Herodotos apparently knew only of the s i n g u l a r a c t of two men, which was erroneously l i n k e d t o Athens' freedom; H e l l a n i k o s made the Athenians r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f r e e i n g Athens a f t e r Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n k i l l e d Hipparchos. We can perhaps a t t a c h the reemphasis of the events of the l i b e r a t i o n , which i n v o l v e d e x cluding the Spartans from a share i n the l i b e r a -t i o n , t o p o l i t i c a l circumstances a t Athens i n the l a t e f i f t h century. I t i s easy to imagine t h a t , during the course of the Peloponnesian War, i t be-came i n c r e a s i n g l y odious to the Athenians to apportion any share of t h e i r own l i b e r a t i o n to t h e i r enemies, the Spartans. The a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of H e l l a n i k o s ' equation f o r c h a u v i n i s t i c Athenians i s obvious: they and t h e i r heroes were 183 r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own l i b e r a t i o n , not the Spartans. P e r i k l e s , an Alkmaionid h i m s e l f , seems to have endorsed the t y r a n n i c i d e s by moving the 184 Prytaneion Decree f o r the maintenance of t h e i r o f f s p r i n g . I t i s not d i f -f i c u l t t o see i n t h i s a c t a p o l i t i c a l move to separate himself from any slanders about cooperation w i t h the Spartans and to reap the b e n e f i t s of the 185 p o p u l a r i t y of such a decree. D. Athenaion P o l i t e i a I . 18.1 -y^ertv £e Ki/pioL. ^ .ev frp«y^c«<rUJV r« £c%)cJof-'*T<x K « * \ 128 I I . 19.6 ... pvtjoe.o"u>K<<v ^KpotToXcv r-oCj /4©»7V«<f co<_5 &rti €7TX"</t«<t<r6K< KxA-The f i r s t testimonium has been considered a compromise between the 186 Thucydidean v e r s i o n of the tyranny and the "popular" v e r s i o n . Indeed, the i s s u e of a g e - d i f f e r e n c e i s p r o p e r l y taken up and Hippias i s d e s c r i b e d as the e l d e r of the brothers. On the other hand, we f i n d Hipparchos described as Tr**t£i<*j§ris and <f>*A<y<«>u<x©£ . There i s no apparent reason to doubt t h a t the author of the A t h . P o l , has attempted t o r e c o n c i l e the divergent accounts of the succession. But there i s evidence i n Thucydides (see above, p. 126) and l e s s d e f i -, r n i t e i n f o r m a t i o n i n Herodotos (n. 181) to i n d i c a t e t h a t the concept of j o i n t r u l e was not at a l l new at the time of t h e i r w r i t i n g , c e r t a i n l y not at the time of the composition of the A t h . P o l . I t could be t h a t the author of the A t h . P o l . d i d not o r i g i n a t e the concept of j o i n t tyranny by compromising accounts, but t h a t he enhanced an o l d e r v e r s i o n to take i n t o account the 187 polemics of H e l l a n i k o s and Thucydides. The second testimonium seems to a l l u d e t o a j o i n t tyranny t h a t included another son of P e i s i s t r a t o s (Thessalos?) who was l i v i n g and r e i g n i n g at the time of the siege of the A k r o p o l i s by Kleomenes. Although i t could be con-t e s t e d t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were described c o l l e c t i v e l y here because no " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " p o s i t i o n about the succession was being d i s p u t e d , other evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t there i s more to the appearance of the c o l l e c t i v e (see below, s e c t i o n E). 129 E. Thucydides 1.20.2 /^GujywtoiV ^OVY tt> r>A^ © 0 5 ^ T r r r o c y o ^ o y ©tovevc. '/ApftaScoxi AfOtcrxo^&CT.6tfo<> wp^VVoyf oYt«. ^TTo — © £ < y f f « : A o j oiS&X^joL -^<nxv a avoir • VI.54.2 OVK JCrm-atp^o^ ufcrrrep of JTOXXOV OJLOYT-<.C. 3 «cXX ' Cy / a ' >) v \ -> / Irrrri-oi^ wp€-a-Oiszx.zro^ U>Y ecrye. x . y °^/°^(V y -VI. 55.1 ot<. °& Trpecruisp*Tro£ u>v J-Trtr^ex.^ ~r?^> £ev ecoujj ^c&v v i . 55.4 CI-rrfr* UJ 188 Thucydides i n t i m a t e l y l i n k s h i s case f o r Hippias' primacy t o h i s age. He had apparently deduced t h a t , as the e l d e s t , Hippias must have been the t y r a n t of Athens a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s . Thucydides cannot, however, a l l o w f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y of j o i n t r u l e (VI. 55.3): o\f p^V oxfS'^Y K^C^O-^L^/ fj.01. c fo« fcc -TT»T«. ^Trtfr^s r ° F R °*/ > 0 S < r , 7 / t - o C / 0 £ < ^ * ' S ^P^YYCSOC ec C^frrr«p^o^ fit* &• (Both men cannot have been t y r a n t a t the same time.) But there are serious i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n what Thucydides says about Hipparchos. In ex p l a n a t i o n of Hipparchos' d e s i r e to respond to the s l i g h t of 130 Harmodios without using f o r c e and to o b t a i n vengeance c o v e r t l y , he says (VI. 54.5): ovSe. T.T}V «X\*iV *px^? v ^TT^X^S *iv *S r o ^ 5 rto\\oo^ 7 2t\)? I(V€TTL^> Qovctb^ K o t x ^ f f t ^ o - ^ T O * K«V eWfef >y fSei/tTetv4 erri rrXeta-v aV Sy rupoc\/y/oi_ KJX. The subject of the verb T\V i s Hipparchos; the sentence i n d i c a t e s t h a t Hipparchos r u l e d . Three explanations have been advanced to deal w i t h t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i n Thucydides: a) Let Hippias be the subject of the verb . But the p a r t i c l e e x p l a i n s Thucydides' l a s t a s s e r t i v e sentence, the subject of which i s Hipparchos. The two sentences are l o g i c a l l y l i n k e d ; to have i n -serted Hippias as the subject of the second sentence ( e s p e c i a l l y without n o t i c e t o the reader) i s wholly 189 i l l o g i c a l . b) Emend: read erw^Qfets -^truv... Kecceorcjicrocvto or x«- *XX«<- y\ ^ f X T ^rraiX^^S ^v' . But there i s no good ground from the manuscript t r a d i t i o n to emend and so emen-190 d a t i o n i s u n j u s t i f i e d . » 1 c) Understand a d i f f e r e n t sense f o r ^ PX"*! ( i . e . , i n s t e a d of " r u l e " , something l i k e " i n f l u e n c e " ) . But Dover p o i n t s out t h a t , i n t h i s context, Thucydides i s very c l e a r about the meaning of rf/PX"*? ( c f- VI. 55. 3). There i s r e a l l y no reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e but to accept the t e x t and, w i t h i t , the i n c o n s i s t e n c y , t a k i n g Hipparchos as the subject. Thus, Thucydides apparently c o n t r a d i c t s h i s own views on Hipparchos' power. There i s another d i f f i c u l t y : an a l l u s i o n to j o i n t power - the very con-cept t h a t Thucydides wished to c o r r e c t (see above, p. 126) - at VI.56.1: 131 Both Hipparchos and (apparently) Hippias are made r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the outrage perpetrated against Harmodios' s i s t e r that cost Hipparchos h i s l i f e . Dover s t a t e s that "the p l u r a l verbs represent a n a t u r a l way of d e s c r i b i n g a c t i o n 192 taken by Hippias on the i n s t i g a t i o n of Hipparchos". But t h i s avoids the main problem, which i s the same as i n the sentence where Thucydides describes Hipparchos' ojpy^yj '• Thucydides muddies h i s own case by conveying i n c o n s i s -tency to h i s reader. P l u r a l or s i n g u l a r verbs denoting an e x e r c i s e of power by anyone other than H i p p i a s , but e s p e c i a l l y Hipparchos, oppose Thucydides' argument that Hippias was the r u l e r of Athens. (There are other i n c o n s i s -t e n c i e s i n v o l v i n g the e x e r c i s e of power that I s h a l l examine i n the next chapter of t h i s t h e s i s . ) Thucydides could not accept here the p o s s i b i l i t y e i t h e r of j o i n t r u l e or 193 succession by b r o t h e r s . Examples of j o i n t r u l e have been given; one example of succession of brothers i n v o l v i n g v i o l e n c e occurs i n Herodotos (VII.154.1): Kleandros of Gela was succeeded by h i s b r o t h e r , Hippokrates, a f t e r Kleandros was murdered. Presumably, Hippokrates had the support of the 194 doryphoroi l e d by the f u t u r e usurper, Gelon. Succession on the i n s t a n t by sons or brothers was more common than r a r e , but Thucydides disregards i t , a pparently because he was more committed to making p o i n t s i n h i s argument than to record f a c t s . But the polemic that excluded t a k i n g such evidence i n t o account must be viewed i n l i g h t of Thucydides' wish to combat the r e a l l y g l a r i n g e r r o r about the succession t y p i f i e d by the equation found on the Marmor Parium. Somehow, Thucydides has overlooked the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n h i s account 132 t h a t weaken h i s argument. I t may be th a t the excursus we have was borrowed i n the main from the account of another and t h a t t h i s account, when combined 195 w i t h Thucydides 1 views, produced the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . In th a t case, the excursus may be i n an u n f i n i s h e d s t a t e , not yet " f i n e - t u n e d " , or i t may be th a t Thucydides was so thoroughly convinced about the r i g h t n e s s of h i s argu-ment t h a t he was unimpressed by the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . A prime candidate f o r th a t other account i s t h a t followed and embellished by the author of the A t h . P o l . , s i n c e t h a t account accepted j o i n t r u l e . I f Thucydides used the "popular" account a g a i n s t i t s e l f to t r y t o prove h i s own case about Hipparchos, i t would go a long way t o help e x p l a i n why Thucydides overlooked the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n h i s account: Thucydides may have stopped the e f f o r t when he had proven the "popular" account fundamentally wrong. Use of the account of another w i l l a l s o help e x p l a i n Thucydides' m a g i s t e r i a l approach to the e r r o r s he proposed to c o r r e c t (see Chapter I I I ) . F. Harmodios-Skolia Apparently, the Harmodios-skolia parented the view about Athens' l i b e r a -t i o n t h a t Herodotos and Thucydides wanted t o r e f u t e . The s k o l i a o b v i o u s l y predate Herodotos' w r i t i n g , the date of which provides a terminus ante quern 196 f o r t h e i r composition and impact. But what they o f f e r i s mis i n f o r m a t i o n : Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n d i d not f r e e Athens by k i l l i n g Hipparchos. How d i d such m i s i n f o r m a t i o n a r i s e to compete w i t h the t r u t h i n the f i r s t p lace? Jacoby thought t h a t the in f o r m a t i o n contained i n the s k o l i a came from f o r c e s h o s t i l e to the A l k m a i o n i d a i , the true l i b e r a t o r s of Athens, t h a t were 133 intent upon depriving the family of the c r e d i t for a c t u a l l y making Athens 197 fr e e . The misinformation about the tyrannicides won the day among the masses because the Alkmaionidai pursued an ambiguous public p o l i c y from 510 198 to 490. . Jacoby traced authorship of the s k o l i a to the " c i r c l e s of reac-tionary n o b i l i t y ; such persons as Isagoras (connected by marriage to the 199 P h i l a i d s ? ) and the c l a n of the Gephyraioi". Ehrenberg, however, con-tended that, when the statues of the tyrannicides were f i r s t erected 200 (c_. 510) , the Alkmaionidai were s t i l l a l l i e d with the agathoi kai 201 eupatridai . ,The Athenians could not accept a " l i b e r a t i o n " by e x i l e s and so Kleisthenes, i n an e f f o r t to promote h i s reforms, backed away from claim-ing the c r e d i t for freeing Athens and instead advanced the c u l t of the tyran-n i c i d e s . The claim that the Alkmaionidai were the true l i b e r a t o r s of Athens was r a i s e d l a t e r "when the part played by the Alcmaeonidae throughout the 202 years had become a matter of serious p o l i t i c a l dispute". Podlecki d i s -carded Ehrenberg's a t t r i b u t i o n of the d r i v i n g force behind the c u l t to Kleisthenes, arguing that the Alkmaionidai "could point proudly to t h e i r r e a l expulsion of Hippias i n 511, and so would have vehemently opposed anyone who 203 put forward the claims of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n to tyrannicide". Podlecki a t t r i b u t e d both the c u l t of the tyrannicides and the p o p u l a r i z a t i o n of the s k o l i a to Themistokles and l i n k e d them both to the reestablishment of 204 the statue-group of the tyrannicides i n 477. Themistokles cunningly moulded the dubious claims of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n i n t o weapons to use against the Alkmaionidai and i n so doing made the two symbols of the democ-racy. Ostwald, however, pointed out that t h i s explanation f a i l s to take proper account of the tyrant-slayers group of Antenor, which preexisted the reestablished group of K r i t i o s and Nesiotes, and shows that from that time the claims of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n were taken s e r i o u s l y by the 134 205 Athenians. Ostwald believed that the c u l t was established soon a f t e r the expulsion of Hippias by men who gave c r e d i t to Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n as l i b e r a t o r s because t h e i r martyrdom had sustained the e x i l e s i n t h e i r d i f f i -c u l t i e s . The c u l t was h e a r t i l y accepted at Athens because the Athenians wanted to suppress the f a c t that the l i b e r a t i o n was a c t u a l l y due to Spartan 206 arms. The murder of Hipparchos was the f i r s t blow struck against the 207 tyranny; the s k o l i a were generated sh o r t l y a f t e r Athens was l i b e r a t e d . Obviously, the s k o l i a must have been composed a f t e r the death of Hipparchos i n 514, but when? Bowra placed t h e i r composition a f t e r 510, when the tyrants had been driven from the c i t y , since the s k o l i a describe isonomia 208 as f a c t . Ostwald linked isonomia more p r e c i s e l y with Kleisthenes' reforms 209 and so put the s k o l i a a f t e r 507. Podlecki put them l a t e s t of a l l , i n 477, 210 using Bowra's lower l i m i t f o r composition. Unfortunately, there i s noth-ing i n the poems to help to date them, but i t i s reasonable to consider t h e i r composition i n l i g h t of the statue-groups of the tyrannicides. For the ear-l i e r we date the statue-group of Antenor, the l i k e l i e r the assumption that 211 the s k o l i a were composed ear l y . The statues ind i c a t e that the act of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n was already perceived as a l i b e r a t i o n . P l i n y (Nat. H i s t . 34.17) dates Antenor's group "eodem anno quo et Romae reges p u l s i " , that i s , 510/09. Pli n y ' s dating i n s p i r e s no confidence because i t c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y p a r a l l e l s the establishment of democracy at Athens and the 212 Republic at Rome. Nor i s there any merit i n attempts to confine Antenor's work to the l a s t quarter of the s i x t h century: a r t i s t s such as Anakreon and Simonides who were employed by the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i before 514 were l o n g - l i v e d 213 and a c t i v e well i n t o the f i f t h century, Simonides into the t h i r d decade. There i s no good reason to preclude any date for Antenor's group from 514 to 480. 135 H i s t o r i c a l l y , however, there i s some reason to date the group a f t e r 490 and so, too, the s k o l i a . I t has already been argued t h a t a p o l i t i c a l ambi-g u i t y i n respect of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i e x i s t e d at Athens a f t e r 510 which 214 f i n a l l y r e s o l v e d to u n b r i d l e d animosity a f t e r Marathon. U n t i l 490, how-ever, men connected to the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , such as Hipparchos, the son of 215 Charmos, became prominent and even high o f f i c i a l s . I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t the Athenians would f o s t e r a c u l t of t y r a n t - s l a y e r s and, at the same time, promote such men as Hipparchos t o high o f f i c e . T h i s , of course, i s not to say t h a t the Athenians would p o l i t e l y r e f r a i n from p u b l i s h i n g s k o l i a and e r e c t i n g statues of the t y r a n n i c i d e s i n deference to Hipparchos, but r a t h e r t h a t h i s s e l e c t i o n as archon seems to preclude h o s t i l i t y on the p a r t of the Athenian e l e c t o r a t e . We remember, too, t h a t there must have been many i n f l u -e n t i a l men a t Athens, men who would be instrumental i n sponsoring such a 216 c u l t , who owed much to the departed P e i s i s t r a t i d s . A f t e r Marathon, how-ever, the p i c t u r e changes: Hipparchos' f a l l from the p o l i t i c a l scene s i g n a l s t h i s change; other s o - c a l l e d " f r i e n d s of the t y r a n t s " were o s t r a c i z e d i n quick order through the 480s and i t seems t h a t during t h a t decade the Athenians were r e a c t i n g a g a i n s t the attempt of Hippias to r e t u r n to power. I t i s easy t o see why the Athenians would t u r n from the t r u t h of t h e i r " l i b e r a t i o n " i n 510 and accept the t y r a n n i c i d e s as t h e i r l i b e r a t o r s a f t e r 490. Some of the A l k m a i o n i d a i , who were r e s p o n s i b l e i n f a c t f o r Athens' l i b e r a t i o n , were c l a s s e d as " f r i e n d s of the t y r a n t s " 'and'were o s t r a c i z e d ; they had a h i s t o r y of s e l f - s e e k i n g anyway: they were now not good candidates 217 f o r heroes. The t y r a n n i c i d e s , on the other hand, were e n t i r e l y Athenian and probably unknown before t h e i r a c t : they were the p e r f e c t candidates f o r 218 heroes. The statues were created as a symbol of defiance to the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and the Persians and renewed i n 477 as the hallmark of 136 219 Athenian democracy vaunting i t s e l f over the old order. I t i s reasonable to assume that Antenor's statues i n s p i r e d poets i n the same way as those of 220 K r i t i o s and Nesiotes i n s p i r e d painters of pottery l a t e r . The s k o l i a , thus i n s p i r e d by the statue-group, perhaps r e s u l t e d as p a t r i o t i c songs that were 221 i n f a c t an element of the r e v i s i o n of the l i b e r a t i o n . Such a state of a f f a i r s w i l l help to explain the falseness of the equa-tions made i n the s k o l i a , both reckoning the tyrannicides as l i b e r a t o r s of Athens and designating Hipparchos as the tyrant of Athens. For the s k o l i a d e f i n i t e l y l i n k the murder of Hipparchos with Athens' l i b e r a t i o n . Hipparchos had to be the tyrant f or the equation to function, since Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n k i l l e d only one P e i s i s t r a t i d . Yet Hipparchos also had to have been recognized as s i g n i f i c a n t enough p o l i t i c a l l y f o r the act of the tyran-nici d e s to matter at a l l and not be the r e s u l t of the mere love-quarrel 222 alleged by Thucydides. Hipparchos was i n f a c t the most v i s i b l e of the P e i s i s t r a t i d s before h i s death and could e a s i l y have been reckoned "tyrant" 223 on that basis. Thus, the s k o l i a , composed probably about twenty-five years a f t e r the event, w i l l not by any means s e t t l e the issue of succession, since t h e i r purpose was other than accurate r e c o l l e c t i o n . G. The Archedike-Epigram One piece of evidence may bear upon the succession question (Thuc. VI.59.3): ^Avdjoos o<pc<rc€.i/<rocvro5 iv 137 •y^ ir<*Tpoj t e KO(1 ecv&pos «Se\<fiujiV r* over* Tup£.vvu)\f Tt*ii£u>V T.' o U K v/p&^l V o v y 65 *x:<«r 6WAt?jV, This epigram was composed for the sema of Archedike, the daughter of 224 Hippias. Hippias had betrothed h i s daughter to Aiantides, the son of Hippoklos of Lampsakos, i n order to strengthen h i s grasp on the family hold-ing of Sigeion i n the Troad and perhaps also to improve his t i e s with 225 P e r s i a . Apparently, Archedike died i n Lampsakos a f t e r seeing her c h i l d r e n 226 succeed t h e i r father. The date of the epigram i s determined i n part from i t s d e s c r i p t i o n of Hippias. The p a r t i c i p l e etpiarzeuaixYTo^ and the words T**>V e<p €*XOTO\S show that his era was bygone, i . e . , that Hippias was no longer a l i v e ; f or i t would be 227 very odd to describe Hippias i n t h i s way i f he were s t i l l l i v i n g . Hippias was a very old man when he returned to Marathon i n 490 and there was a report 228 that he died on the return voyage to Sigeion. At any rate, i t i s u n l i k e l y that he survived for very long a f t e r Marathon and so i t i s possible to say 22 9 that the epigram for Archedike was composed a f t e r 490. The l i k e l i e s t patrons of the poet who wrote the epigram were Hippias' sons or, at l e a s t , h i s r e l a t i v e s : for Hippias' prominence i n the epigram i s extraordinary and glowing. The heirs of Aiantides and Archedike are excluded as patrons on that basis, e s p e c i a l l y since there i s no balance i n the epigram of praise for the Hippoklids. The surviving P e i s i s t r a t i d a i on the other hand could derive a c e r t a i n amount of self-enhancement from the g l o r i f i c a t i o n of 230 t h e i r own forebear, Hippias. The important thing about the epigram for the question of succession, however, i s that the sons of Hippias and indeed t h e i r nephews are described c o l l e c t i v e l y as "tyrants". No d i s t i n c t i o n i s made i n the epigram between 231 the sons of Hippias or the sons of Archedike. This seems to be primary 138 evidence t h a t Hippias' l i v i n g sons conceived of themselves as a c o l l e c t i v e 232 u n i t , i . e . , the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . I t i s p o s s i b l e that Hipparchos and Hippias conceived of themselves i n the same way. For l a t e r generations l o o k i n g backward, the l a c k of d i s t i n c -t i o n between them could have enabled e i t h e r of the sons of P e i s i s t r a t o s to 233 be construed as the t y r a n t . The need to make a d i s t i n c t i o n was based on the p o l i t i c a l d i s t o r t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e - c u l t . During the p e r i o d before the murder of Hipparchos and a f t e r the death of P e i s i s t r a t o s , no d i s t i n c t i o n was made or was necessary. I f t h a t i s the case, then the search f o r P e i s i s t r a t o s ' successor, even an " u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " one, i s a f a l s e pur-234 s u i t . There are, however, other c r i t e r i a i n v o l v e d t h a t bear, upon how the Athenians per c e i v e d P e i s i s t r a t i d r u l e a f t e r 528: these were, of course, the appearances of tyranny already o u t l i n e d . H. Conclusions The d i s p u t e about who succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s i s r e a l l y the product of l a t e r r e a c t i o n s t o the erroneous b e l i e f s of the Athenians about i t . Herodotos wanted t o combat the b e l i e f t h a t the t y r a n n i c i d e s l i b e r a t e d Athens from the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and th a t denied the obv i o u s l y b e t t e r claims of the Al k m a i o n i d a i ; Thucydides wanted t o quash the no t i o n t h a t Hipparchos was t y r a n t when he was k i l l e d . He thus argues t h a t Hippias succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s because he was ol d e r than Hipparchos and because the t y r a n n i -c i d e s were p e r s o n a l l y , not p o l i t i c a l l y , motivated to murder Hipparchos (see Chapter I I I ) . Thucydides aimed h i s remarks a t popular o p i n i o n , the spokesman 139 for which was Hellanikos. Popular opinion equated the tyrannicide with Athens' l i b e r a t i o n , but also designated the Athenians as the agents for t h e i r own freedom. Herodotos was more concerned to refute the account of s i n g l e -handed l i b e r a t i o n of Athens by the tyrannicides as described i n the Harmodios-sko1ia. He d i d not attack the status of Hipparchos d i r e c t l y . The b e l i e f attacked by Thucydides must have been grounded u l t i m a t e l y i n the s k o l i a that were composed early i n the f i f t h century for p o l i t i c a l , not h i s -t o r i c a l purposes. For the tyrannicide to be p o l i t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , Hipparchos simply had to be tyrant; f or Thucydides, however, i t was equally important i n combatting t h i s b e l i e f that Hippias be tyrant. Thucydides' account possesses many inconsistencies that undermine the force of h i s argu-ment: he acknowledges that Hipparchos exercised a c e r t a i n power, the very thing he seeks to deny. These inconsistencies do not promote confidence i n the h i s t o r i c a l accuracy of Thucydides' report. The Athenians may a c t u a l l y have thought that both P e i s i s t r a t o s ' sons succeeded P e i s i s t r a t o s and thus may have been of two minds about Hipparchos. Thuc. VI.53.3 seems to show that the Athenians believed that power was shared by Hippias and Hipparchos a f t e r the death of t h e i r father. The author of the Ath.Pol. (17.3) divided the r u l e equally between P e i s i s t r a t o s 1 sons and so, although i t i s c l e a r that he embellished the concept of j o i n t r u l e by neatly c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the brothers (18.1) to compromise e a r l i e r divergent accounts, he may preserve the t r a d i t i o n acknowledged both by Herodotos and by Thucydides. The evidence of the Archedike-epigram lends weight to the b e l i e f that the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i at l e a s t conceived of themselves c o l l e c t i v e l y as tyrants. 140 4. Conclusions I t seems c l e a r t h a t the question of succession to the t y r a n n i c a l power of P e i s i s t r a t o s became c o n t r o v e r s i a l i n the l a t e r f i f t h century and t h a t Thucydides' views are p a r t of t h a t controversy. Thucydides' primary asser-t i o n about the succession was t h a t Hippias as the e l d e s t son must have suc-ceeded P e i s i s t r a t o s . In support of t h a t a s s e r t i o n , Thucydides adduced the evidence of the s t e l e a d i k i a s of the t y r a n t s , which seemed to show t h a t Hippias f o l l o w e d P e i s i s t r a t o s because i t l i s t e d h i s name f i r s t a f t e r h i s f a t h e r ' s . The s t e l e apparently i n d i c a t e d t o Thucydides how the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i ranked themselves or were ranked by the Athenians a f t e r they had been e x p e l l e d from Athens. In support of Thucydides, some modern s c h o l -ars have introduced a fragment of the Athenian a r c h o n - l i s t from the mid-520s t h a t shows t h a t Hippias held the o f f i c e of eponymous archon s h o r t l y a f t e r the death of P e i s i s t r a t o s . I t i s g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t Hippias used the o f f i c e to mark the beginning of h i s r e i g n . In c o n t r a s t t o Thucydides' argument (but a l s o supportive of t h a t argument because of t h e i r patent f a l s i t y ) are the l i t e r a r y sources t h a t l i n k Hipparchos 1 death with Athens' l i b e r a t i o n . The main s t r e n g t h of Thucydides' argument remains the s t e l e . The s t e l e , however, i s incapable of bearing the weight of evidence t h a t Thucydides would accord i t . The crime on the s t e l e was apparently not t y r -anny, but p r o d o s i a , and the charges were l a i d w e l l a f t e r the e x p u l s i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i from Athens. The evidence of the s t e l e shows t h a t i t was con-ceiv e d more to d e a l w i t h the l i v i n g , t h r e a t e n i n g P e i s i s t r a t i d a i than i t was w i t h the dead t y r a n t s . I t i s thus not a r e l i a b l e r ecord of succession. Thucydides may have taken the evidence at face value because i t supported h i s own b e l i e f s about the succession and the r e l a t i v e ages of Hippias and 141 Hipparchos. Indeed, the s t e l e o b v i o u s l y d i d not s t a t e i n any c e r t a i n terms who was and was not t y r a n t a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s , but was ambiguous. I t cannot be used to prove Thucydides' argument about the succession. Thucydides d i d not use the a r c h o n - l i s t i n h i s argument. Although he knew the a r c h o n - l i s t i n some form, Thucydides d i d not see i t s evidence as v a l u a b l e f o r what he was attempting t o prove (see Appendix). A s i g n i f i c a n t delay occurred between P e i s i s t r a t o s ' death and Hippias' archonship, which shows t h a t the archonship was not an important aspect i n the t r a n s i t i o n of power. These f a c t s t e l l a g a i n s t the modern in f e r e n c e from the l i s t t h a t Hippias wished t o commence h i s r e i g n by ho l d i n g the eponymous archonship as soon as he could a f t e r h i s f a t h e r ' s death. Thucydides' argument about the succession i s i n c o n s i s t e n t f o r he a l l u d e s to Hipparchos' power and t o a j o i n t power he l d by P e i s i s t r a t o s ' sons. He argues t h a t Hippias must have been t y r a n t and e x e r c i s e d long-standing c o n t r o l over the doryphoroi because otherwise he would not have been able t o master the c i t y so q u i c k l y a f t e r Hipparchos' death. Again, Thucydides i n f e r s t h a t Hippias was e l d e s t because h i s c h i l d r e n alone were named on the s t e l e . These inf e r e n c e s i n d i c a t e t h a t Thucydides used l o g i c and deduction where f a c t s o b v i o u s l y f a i l e d . Perhaps convinced of the m e r i t s of h i s own argument and the a b s u r d i t y of the popular view, Thucydides used the account of another who b e l i e v e d t h a t Hipparchos h e l d some power. That would help to e x p l a i n some of Thucydides' i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and perhaps some of h i s deductions based on "Co « t K 8 S -Evidence f o r the b e l i e f i n j o i n t tyranny i s found i n Thucydides and i n the A t h . P o l , where i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y conceded t h a t power was he l d by both Hippias and Hipparchos. The c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of Hippias and Hipparchos found i n the A t h . P o l , may have been based on e a r l i e r accounts, but i t cannot 142 be s a i d w i t h c e r t a i n t y i f the concept of j o i n t r u l e was a l s o a r a t i o n a l com-promise e s t a b l i s h e d e a r l y and then r e i t e r a t e d by the author of the A t h . P o l . or i f i t described an a c t u a l s t a t e of a f f a i r s before the death of Hipparchos. Herodotos' account i s , however, r e p l e t e w i t h references to c o l l e c t i v e power among the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and the Archedike-epigram o f f e r s some evidence f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i conceived of themselves c o l l e c t i v e l y . The Harmodios-skolia (and H e l l a n i k o s ' i n f o r m a t i o n , which seems to be d e r i v e d from them) do not e x p l i c i t l y deny t h a t Hippias was c o n j o i n t l y t y r a n t . Hipparchos must, however, have been s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i t i c a l l y f o r the s k o l i a to make any sense. Although the equation of the s k o l i a makes Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n both murderers of the " t y r a n t " and l i b e r a t o r s of Athens and i s c l e a r l y f a l s e , i t must a l s o show t h a t Hipparchos was s i g n i f i c a n t of the tyranny, not a mere bystander without any power. Hipparchos' s t a t u s , which made the t y r a n n i c i d e p o l i t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , can have been i n f e r r e d from h i s high v i s i b i l i t y before h i s death. To l a t e r generations of Athenians, e s p e c i a l l y t o those who composed the s k o l i a c e l e -b r a t i n g the t y r a n n i c i d e , Hipparchos w i l l have appeared to be the t y r a n t be-cause he comported himself as t y r a n t s d i d : p u b l i c l y , l a v i s h l y . But, i n s p i t e of these appearances, the evidence of the Archedike-epigram could i n d i -cate t h a t no d i s t i n c t i o n was made among the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i themselves u n t i l Hipparchos' murder l e f t Hippias alone of h i s generation to r u l e . We conclude t h a t there was a s i n g u l a r l a c k of s o l i d evidence about the succession, which allowed authors i n t e r e s t e d i n the subject t o b e l i e v e what they would. No r e l i a b l e evidence s p e c i f i c a l l y named the t y r a n t a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s ; no r e l i a b l e evidence i n d i c a t e d what government r u l e d . The popular b e l i e f made Hipparchos t y r a n t ; Thucydides 1 l o g i c made Hippias t y r a n t . A j o i n t tyranny can, i n f a c t , have e x i s t e d and appears l i k e l i e s t . 143 Notes 1 I t i s g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t the decree w r i t t e n upon the s t e l e provided f o r a t i m i a ( i . e . , o u t l a w r y ) , hence the term Achtungsstele (cf. F. Schachermeyr, " P e i s i s t r a t i d e n " , R-E XIX, 1, 152-4). 2 / Obviously, the i n s c r i p t i o n s of P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger on the a l t a r s of A p o l l o P y t h i o s and the Twelve Gods prove nothing about the succession (cf. Dover, HCT, 333). On the «*KOT\ see Dover, HCT., 323; Jacoby, A t t h i s , 342, n. 69. The author's confidence i n h i s o r a l source i s not t r a n s f e r r e d t o h i s reader through any proofs or e l a b o r a t i o n and thus can count f o r nothing i n the argument about the succession. 3 Cf. K. K i n z l , "Zu Thukydides liber d i e P e i s i s t r a t i d a i " , H i s t o r i a 22 (1973) 505: "Die S t e l e . . . i s t solche makellose Evidenz, d i e unter a h n l i c h e n Umstanden auch e i n moderner H i s t o r i k e r vorzufuhren s i c h n i c h t scheuen d u r f t e " ; a l s o Dover, HCT, 333: "...the s t e l e i s the e s s e n t i a l evidence". 4 Cf. G. B u s o l t , G r i e c h i s c h e Geschichte (Gotha, 1895) 11.398, n. 2; A.E. Raubitschek, "The O r i g i n of Ostracism", AJA 55 (1951) 225; H.-P. S t a h l , Die S t e l l u n g des Menschen i n g e s c h i c h t l i c h e n Prozess (Munich, 1966) 4-5; H. Berve, Die Tyrannis b e i den Griechen (Munich, 1967) 1.73; L.H. J e f f e r y , A r c h a i c Greece: The C i t y - S t a t e s , 700-500 B.C. (New York, 1976) 95; J . S i e b e r t , Die ftolitische F l u c h t l i n g e und Verbannten i n d i e  g r i e c h i s c h e n Geschichte (Darmstadt, 1979) 1.17 and 11.419, n. 96; see a l s o below, n. 5. 144 5 J.B. Bury and R. Meiggs, A H i s t o r y of Greece t o the Death of Alexander (New York, 1975) 135: "...Hippias was blockaded on the A c r o p o l i s . When h i s c h i l d r e n , whom he was sending s e c r e t l y i n t o s a f e t y abroad, f e l l i n t o the hands of h i s enemies, he c a p i t u l a t e d and undertook to leave A t t i c a i n f i v e days on c o n d i t i o n t h a t they were given back. He and a l l h i s house departed t o Sigeum, and a p i l l a r was set up on the A c r o p o l i s , r e c o r d i n g the sentence which condemned the P e i s i s t r a t i d s t o perpetual d i s f r a n c h i s e -ment ( a t i m i a ) . " See a l s o H. Swoboda, "Arthmios of Z e l e i a " , A rchaeologisch - E p i g r a f i s c h e M i t t h e i l u n g e n 16 (1893) 60; H. F r i e d e l , Der Tyrannenmb'rd i n Gesetzgebung und Volkmeinung der Griechen ( S t u t t g a r t , 1937) 25, n. 63 and 39; C. Hign e t t , A H i s t o r y of the Athenian C o n s t i t u t i o n (Oxford, 1951) 162; J . Holladay, "Medism i n Athens, 508-480 B.C.", G&R 25 (1978) 189-90. J.M. S t a h l , "Uber athenische Amnestie Beschlusse", RhM 46 (1891) 265-7, n. l i n k e d a t i m i a w i t h the s t e l e ' s decree. 6 The e a r l i e s t work concerning the content of the s t e l e t h a t I know of i s St a h l ' s (above, n. 5). More e x t e n s i v e , but s t i l l incomplete, was the work of Swoboda (above, n. 5) 57 and 60-1, and P. U s t e r i , Achtung Und  Verbannung i n g r i e c h i s c h e n Recht ( B e r l i n , 1903) 40-1. Other s i g n i f i c a n t work i s t h a t of M. Val e t o n , "De Harmodio et A r i s t o g i t o n e " , Mnem. 46 (1917) 23-30; E. von Stern, "Hippias oder Hipparchos?" Hermes 52 (1917) 358ff.; K.J. Beloch, "Hipparchos und Themistokle", Hermes 55 (1920) 312-3; A. Sch o l t e , "Hippias ou Hipparque?" Mnem. 5, Ser. 3 (1937) 71-2; D. Loenen, "The P i s i s t r a t i d e s , A Shared Rule", Mnem. 1, Ser. 4 (1948) 81-9; Dover, HCT, 324-25 o f f e r s a u s e f u l summary. 7 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, A r i s t o t e l e s und Athen ( B e r l i n , 1893) 114; 145 Va l e t o n (above, n. 6) 26; von Stern (above, n. 6) 360. 8 S t a h l (above, n. 5) 266, n.; M. Lang, "The Murder of Hipparchus", H i s t o r i a 3 (1954/55) 401, n. 4. 9 Periander had no d i r e c t h e i r s i n the end ( A r i s t . P o l . 1315b, 26) ; Stesagoras, the son of Kimon Koalemos, and Solon had no o f f s p r i n g . Cf. Va l e t o n (above, n. 6) 23; Beloch (above, n. 6) 31; Scholte (above, n. 6) 71. 10 On Thucydides' p o l e m i c a l a t t i t u d e see H. Munch, Studien zu den Exicursen  des Thukydides (Heidelberg, 1935) 7 2 f f . ; see a l s o Jacoby, A t t h i s , 158; Dover, HCT, 323. 11 Jacoby, A t t h i s , 337, n. 43 observes: "A t r a d i t i o n about the form of t y r -anny a f t e r the death of P e i s i s t r a t u s d i d not e x i s t : Thucydides 6.55 shows t h a t q u i t e c l e a r l y . . . . " F. C o r n e l i u s , Die Tyrannis i n Athen (Munich, 1929) 7 9 f f . f i r s t r a i s e d the p o i n t t h a t tyranny was not an o f f i c i a l p o s i -t i o n and so seeking the successor of P e i s i s t r a t o s was a f a l s e p u r s u i t . Schachermeyr (above, n. 1) approved t h i s idea as d i d Loenen (above, n. 6) 88-9. (Dover, HCT, 318 and Holladay [above, n. 5] 189 dismiss C o r n e l i u s ' p o i n t out of hand.) One might a l s o suggest t h a t Thucydides need never have gone i n t o the m o t i v a t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s i f the s t e l e o f f e r e d s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d proof f o r h i s a s s e r t i o n s . 12 Cf. B u s o l t (above, n. 4); V a l e t o n (above, n. 6) 2 4 f f . ; Beloch (above, n. 6) 313-4; Holladay (above, n. 5) 190 considers the s t e l e seen by 146 Thucydides a r e p l i c a of the o r i g i n a l . 13 Cf. Thuc. VI.59.3. 14 M. van Heerwerden, "De L o c i s N o n n u l l i s Thucydideis e L i b r i s V I - V I I " , Mnem. 8 (1880) 156: "...sed non d i f f i t e o r male me habere i l l u d quae commemorari quidem p o t u i t i n p u b l i c o monumento sed i n s c r i p t i o n i s argumentum sese non p o t u i t quae p r o c u l dubio continebat p o p u l i scitum quo P e i s i s t r a t i d i s omnibus c i v i t a t e m ademptem esse c r e d i d e r i m ...quam ( • ( r t ^ i x j ) vellem hoc quoque servatum esset ut c e r t i u s etiam hoc de se i u d i c a r i posset." Some who have f o l l o w e d van Heerwerden i n emending are Swoboda (above, n. 5); J . Toepffer, "Die Soehne des P e i s i s t r a t o s " , Hermes 29 (1894) 465, n. 1; J . Carcopino, L'ostracisme Athenien ( P a r i s , 1935) 32, n. 2; Hignett (above, n. 5) 162, n. 2; Berve (above, n. 4); R. Thomsen, The O r i g i n of  Ostracism (Copenhagen, 1972) 20, n. 53. 15 M. Ostwald, "The Athenian L e g i s l a t i o n a gainst Tyranny and Subversions", TAPA 86 (1955) 109, n. 29; Dover, HCT, 333. 16 A t h . P o l . 22.6. 17 A f t e r Meiggs and Lewis, 42; on the d i s t i c h see R. Merkelbach, "Das D i s t i c h o n tiber den Ostrakismos des Xanthippos", ZPE 4 (1969) 201-2. 18 "accusatus ergo p r o d i t i o n i s , quod, cum Parum expugnare posset, a rege corruptus i n f e c t i s rebus d i s c e s s i s e t . " P l a t o , Gorg. 515d i m p l i e s t h a t M i l t i a d e s broke Kannonos' law (see E.R. Dodds, P l a t o . Gorgias jjDxford, 1 4 7 1 9 5 9 ] 3 5 9 and below, t e x t ) . 1 9 Ephoros (Nep. M i l t . 7 . 6 ) : "causa c o g n i t a c a p i t i s absolutus pecunia multatus e s t , eaque l i s quinquaginta t a l e n t i s aestimata e s t , quantus i n classem sumptus f a c t u s e r a t . " 2 0 See below, n. 2 5 ; on M i l t i a d e s and the P a r i a n a f f a i r see R. D e v e l i n , " M i l t i a d e s and the P a r i a n E x p e d i t i o n " , AC 4 6 ( 1 9 7 7 ) 5 7 1 - 7 . A u s e f u l summary of the t r i a l can be found i n M.H. Hansen, E i s a n g e l i a : The  Sovereignty of the People's Court i n Athens i n the Fourth Century B.C.  and the Impeachment of Generals and P o l i t i c i a n s (Odense, 1 9 7 5 ) 9 6 , Catalogue No. 2 . 2 1 Lyk. Leok. 1 1 7 ; Hansen (above, n. 2 0 ) 6 9 - 7 0 , n. 5 c r i t i c i z e s the view t h a t Hipparchos earned the charge of treason by medizing a f t e r h i s o s t r a -cism (cf. Bus o l t (above, n. 4 J 1 1 . 6 6 0 , n. 1 ) : the phrase ovj( xjnofLZLV-« V T « * v. » . Kptfft- V seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t Hipparchos returned a t some time t o Athens, but departed again before judgement was rendered (cf. a l s o Holladay [above, n. 5 ] ) ; see below, t e x t . 2 2 On prodosia see D.M. MacDowell, The Law i n C l a s s i c a l Athens (London, 1 9 7 8 ) 1 7 6 - 9 . 2 3 Cf. Ar. E k k l . 1 0 8 9 - 9 0 et s c h o l i a (also R.G. Ussher, Aristophanes. E c c l e s - iazusae f o x f o r d , 1 9 7 3 ] 2 2 4 ) ; MacDowell (above, n. 2 2 ) 1 8 0 - 1 . Th. Thalheim, s.v. ©totKioV R-E 1 . 1 . 3 6 2 . 148 25 My reasoning i s along the l i n e s suggested by Dover, HCT, 324: " P o s s i b l y a l s o the preamble [sc. t o the decree on the s t e l e a d i k i a s ^ gave reason f o r t h i s a c t i n general form (e.g. 'These men i n f l i c t e d great wrongs upon the Athenian p eople.'), enough to j u s t i f y Thucydides' d e s c r i p t i o n of the s t e l e as 'about the wrongdoing of the t y r a n t s ' . " 26 The I s a g o r i d s CSchol. ad Ar. L y s i s . 273; c f . Wilamowitz [above, n. f] 115; Ostwald (above, n. 15] 109; see a l s o below, t e x t ) ; Arthmios of Z e l e i a (Swoboda [above, n. 5} 4 9 f f . ; R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire [Oxford, 1972] 508-12; c f . a l s o N. Robertson, "The Sequence of Events i n the Aegean, 408 and 407 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 29 [l98o3 293-301, although h i s views on the l a t e n e s s of Arthmios' c o n v i c t i o n are not at a l l c o n v i n c i n g ) ; other s t e l a i l i k e l y on the A k r o p o l i s , those of Hipparchos, son of Charmos, Diagoras the Melian (see below, n. 53) and Phrynichos (Krateros F r G r H i s t 342 F r . 17; Lyk. Leok. 112-3; P l u t . Mor. 843b). Most s c h o l a r s , beginning w i t h S t a h l (above, n. 5) 266, n. have considered i t so. 28 The a r c h a i c a n t i - t y r a n n y law (see below, t e x t p. 97); other crimes, such as treason, c a l l e d f o r a t i m i a (see below, t e x t p. 100); c f . a l s o P a t r o k l e i d e s ' Decree (.see below, t e x t p. 92); see a l s o F r i e d e l (above, n. 5) 20ff.,- Dover, HCT, 324. IG 1 14; Meiggs and Lewis, 90, l i n e s 34-5; on the E r y t h r a i Decree see L. Higby, The Eryt'hrae Decree K l Lo B c i h e f t 36 (1936); - N. Schaefer, " D i e : A t t i s c h e Symmachie i n zweiten Jahrzehnt i h r e s Bestehens", Hermes 71 (1936) 149 129-50. 30 3 SIG 1 58; Meiggs and Lewis, 105, l i n e 3; on the M i l e t o s Decree see,, most r e c e n t l y , H.-J. Gehrke, "Zur Geschichte M i l e t s i n der M i t t e l des 5. Jahrhunderts von C h r i s t " , H i s t o r i a 29 (1980) 17-31. 31 E r y t h r a i : Meiggs and Lewis, 92-3; M i l e t o s : Meiggs and Lewis, 106. 32 P l u t . Mor. 834a. 33 P.J. Rhodes, "Bastards as Athenian C i t i z e n s " , CQ 28 (1978) 89 detects a d i f f i c u l t y i n the sentence of Antiphon: "The l a s t phrase sc. d e a l i n g w i t h a t i m i a j i s not found i n s i m i l a r contexts elsewhere, and I imagine i t i s meant s e r i o u s l y and has been added because one of the condemned was known to have i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n . " Rhodes i s , of course, concerned w i t h whether the i l l e g i t i m a t e could be d i s f r a n c h i s e d . The problem a r i s e s from t a k i n g the formulae too s t r i c t l y : o b v i o u s l y , a t i m i a could h a r d l y have substance i f the accused were to be handed over to the Eleven anyway; the p r o v i s i o n a g a i n s t nothoi was pro forma. Cf. S t a h l (above, n. 5) 266, n.; c f . a l s o the p r o v i s i o n s of the Demophantos Decree (see below, n. 70). I i n f e r t h a t prodosia was, w i t h h i e r o s u l o s , one of the two worst crimes at Athens from Xen. H e l l . 1.7.22: (Euryptolemos suggests to the Athenian E k k l e s i a t h a t the accused generals of A r g i n o u s a i be t r i e d separately:) t h a t the punishment i n f l i c t e d f o r the crime i s the index of i t s s e r i o u s -34 150 ness. 35 Thuc. VIII.68. 36 Andok. 1.97 (see D.M. MacDowell, Andocides. On the Mysteries {oxford, 1962J 136; Ostwald [above, n. 15] 112). The p r o v i s i o n i m p l i e s t h a t the subverters of 411 were deemed as e v i l as the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i because the punishers of f u t u r e subverters would be honoured l i k e the punishers of the t y r a n t s ( i . e . , the t y r a n t - s l a y e r s ) . 37 I t should be noted here t h a t Antiphon was charged w i t h p r o d o s i a , but t h a t the t i t l e of h i s apology was rrcpL r ^ j ^ ter<*ff"r°"r€^  £ (Harp. s_. v. tt^crcujz:*! 5 ) . The fragment of i t t h a t i s preserved shows th a t Antiphon's accuser, A p o l e x i s , t r i e d to slander Antiphon by connecting h i s grandfather w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , a l l e g i n g that the man was a doryphoros of the t y r a n t s . This seems to be a good i n d i c a t i o n t h a t p a r a l l e l s were being drawn - between Antiphon's subversion and tyranny and the tyranny of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . A s i m i l a r slander seems to be c a s t by Aristophanes i n L y s i s . 64 (see J.D. Bing, "Lykopodes: A C o n t r i b u t i o n to Athenian M i l i t a r y H i s t o r y from P e i s i s t r a t o s to K l e i s t h e n e s " , CJ 72 [l977] 308-16); c f . a l s o Ar.sKnights 448-9). 38 Hdt. V.94; Ath.Pol. 17.4. 39 Hdt. V.94; Thuc. VI.59.4. 40 Hippias had no known n o t h o i . 151 Thucydides d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s Kleidemos (FrGrHist 323 F r . 15), who says t h a t Myrrhine was the daughter of Charmos. Other sources designate Myrrhine as the daughter of P e i s i s t r a t o s or h i s w i f e (see Davies, APF, 450). The compelling t h i n g about Thucydides' testimony i s t h a t he knew the name of K a l l i a s ' f a t h e r ; Kleidemos, on the other hand, may have l i n k e d Hippias w i t h Charmos because the two were otherwise a s s o c i a t e d as l o v e r s by him (see Chapter I , s e c t i o n 2,B). The presence of women's names on the s t e l e would not mean t h a t the women were he l d l e g a l l y accountable, but r a t h e r t h a t they were a t t a i n t e d and a t t a i n t i n g , along with t h e i r f a t h e r s and brothers: c f . Thuc. VI.59.4; c f . a l s o the case of Lycidas' w i f e (Hdt. IX . 5 ) , who was stoned to death along w i t h her c h i l d r e n because L y c i d a s had proposed t h a t the Athenians accept Mardonios' o f f e r . 42 P e i s i s t r a t o s ' f i r s t w i f e i s g e n e r a l l y thought to have been an Athenian woman (cf. Wilamowitz [above, n. 7} 111; Schachermeyr [above, n. l} 151), but t h a t i s only deduced from the st a t u s of Hi p p i a s , Hipparchos and Thessalos as g e n e s i o i . On Timonassa see Ath . P o l . 17.3-4; see a l s o Davies, APF, 449-50. On Myrrhine see Davies, APF, 450. 43 K i n z l (above, n. 3) 506, n. 18; Berve (above, n. 4); S i e b e r t (above, n. 4) 1.16 and 11.419, n. 95; Holladay (above, n. 5) 189. 44 I take i t t h a t the dead were i n d i c t e d so t h a t t h e i r bones could be dug up and c a s t beyond the borders of A t t i c a : c f . Thuc. 1.126.12; see a l s o be-low, t e x t p. 100. 152 45 Cf. Schachermeyr (above, n. 1) 154; Davies, APF, 450-2. 46 Cf. Hignett (above, n. 5); Holladay (above, n. 5) 189. 47 Cf. von Stern (above, n. 6) 361; Davies, APF, 450; see a l s o P. B i c k n e l l , "Studies i n Athenian P o l i t i c s and Genealogy", H i s t o r i a E i n z e l s c h r i f t e n 19 (1972) 67, n. 32. 48 Dover, HCT, 334. 49 F. M u l l e r , ed. L. Herbst, Zu Thukydides ( L e i p z i g , 1898-1900) 2 5 f f . Contra F r i e d e l (above, n. 5) 40, who suggests ^LKrj^cod-cot . 51 Not a l l P e i s i s t r a t o s ' r e l a t i v e s were i n d i c t e d : see A t h . P o l . 22.4. 52 See W.W. Merry, Aristophanes. The B i r d s (Oxford, 1904) 58. 53 On Diagoras the M e l i a n see Diod. XII.6.7; see a l s o L. Woodbury, "The Date and Atheism of Diagoras the M e l i a n " , Phoenix 19 (1965) 178-209. 54 I.e., the area reserved f o r enemies of the s t a t e (see above, n. 26); we note t h a t there i s space i n the agora reserved f o r the great f r i e n d s and benefactors of the c i t y (near the t y r a n n i c i d e - g r o u p ) : c f . Dem. XX.70; 2 see a l s o IG 1 646 and Diod. XX.46.2; Dio Cass. 47.20.4. 55 I t i s r i g h t t o construe Aristophanes' joke about the t y r a n t s "long dead" 153 as a jab at the t y r a n t h y s t e r i a sweeping Athens i n the l a t e f i f t h century (cf. Woodbury [above, n. 53^ 180ff.; MacDowell [above, n. 2 2 ] 175). Per-haps t h i s jab was sharpened by the recent amnesty f o r e x i l e s t h a t excluded the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i (Markel., V i t . Thuc. 32; see below, t e x t p. 93) . But the joke can have p o i n t only i f the s t e l e r e a l l y e x i s t e d and the decree on i t provided rewards f o r the deaths of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . 56 The p r o v i s i o n a f f e c t i n g would-be t y r a n t s i s s i m i l a r to the p r o v i s i o n s ex-c l u d i n g c e r t a i n offenders i n the "Solonian" amnesty law (see below, t e x t p. 96). This may mean t h a t P a t r o k l e i d e s c i t e d the Solonian amnesty law or t h a t the amnesty of 480 was i n p a r t pro forma a restatement of the Solonian law o r , as i s more l i k e l y , the amnesty law of 480 was the o r i g -i n a l (see p. 96-7). We note that the Solonian law s p e c i f i e s the crime ( e n c Tu^xx^vtoc), while the P a t r o k l e i d e s Decree s p e c i f i e s those convicted o r , perhaps, those c o n v i c t e d under some law who were ex post f a c t o deemed t y r a n t s ( T i ^ o ^ v v o t ^ ) . Thus, the proposer of the amnesty law of 480 may have s p e c i f i c a l l y excepted the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , but not n e c e s s a r i l y gener-a l l y "those c o n v i c t e d of tyranny". Cf. D.M. MacDowell (above, n. 36) 118. 57 , / i l ^ r r t 3 \ c.l d -? ) *j> r ^ / Andok. 1. 77: •y-v}f>t.cr*«ra<xL. tov 6>J/J.OV X ^ O J T : ^ <*ncp ore -yjV T<* / ^ r j d c . 58 See above, n. 5. 59 , There seems t o be a good deal of f l e x i b i l i t y i n the sentence of °*€t^ v^ ie£ : i t was passed as a sentence upon some who were going to d i e anyway ( P l u t . Mor. 834b) and t h a t notable genos, the A l k m a i o n i d a i , who nevertheless r e -turned t o Athens t o l i v e ( c f. Thuc. 1.126.12; Ath.Pol. 1). P o s s i b l y , the 154 formal sentence evolved a f t e r i t was observed t h a t e x i l e s l i k e the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and Themistokles l i v e d and d i e d outside of A t t i c a and could not be b u r i e d there once they had d i e d . O r i g i n a l l y , t h e i r f l i g h t may have been l i k e t h a t of the outlawed M i l e s i a n s - tTr'^tyu^ct. , i . e . , to r e t u r n was t o d i e i n s t a n t l y (cf. CIG 2008; Lyk. Leok. 93). For those who were so condemned, s a f e t y l a y w i t h the enemies of one's country and r e t u r n home could only be achieved by cooperating t r e a c h e r o u s l y w i t h those enemies, the e x i l e ' s benefactors. 60 The importance of the t y r a n n i c i d e s f o r the Athenian s t a t e i s shown by the 3 Prytaneion Decree (IG 1 131), which was passed probably no l a t e r than 430 (see W.E. Thompson, "The Prytaneion Decree", AJP 92 |l9 7 l ] 226-37); c f . a l s o Thuc. VI.53.3; Ar. L y s i s . 631-4; At h . P o l . 58.1. 61 Cf. n. 59, above. 62 Davies, APF, 255-6 terms t h i s s t o r y an "obvious convenience f o r the f a m i l y image". Perhaps i t was devised as a way t o help combat h o s t i l e s t o r i e s about the a c q u i s i t i o n of K a l l i a s ' f a m i l y ' s wealth (Ath.Pol. 6.2; P l u t . S o l . 15), since t h i s anecdote purports to show how K a l l i a s , the son of Phainippos, acquired h i s wealth at the expense of the t y r a n t s . 63 I t i s p o s s i b l e , even l i k e l y t h a t two other p r o v i s i o n s were upon the s t e l e , although there i s no d i r e c t proof: the bones of the dead were to be dug up and c a s t beyond the borders of A t t i c a (see above, n. 44) and the houses of the offenders were to be demolished (see below, t e x t p. 100). I t may be, too, t h a t the m a t e r i a l of the s t e l e was of bronze ( F r i e d e l [above, 155 n. 5] 40; Dover, HCT, 333). 64 Cf. G. B u s o l t and H. Swoboda, G r i e c h i s c h e Staatskunde (Munich, 1920-26) 1.233-4, n. 1; Ostwald (above, n. 15) 109; Berve (above, n. 4); Dover, HCT, 324. 65 Cf. Beloch (above, n. 6) 313. 66 See P.J. Rhodes, " E i s a n g e l i a a t Athens", JHS 99 (1979) 103-14; M.H. Hansen, " E i s a n g e l i a a t Athens: A Reply", JHS 100 (1980) 89-95; Ostwald (above, n. 15) 104 and 113, n. 113; c f . a l s o P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on  the A r i s t o t e l i a n Athenaion P o l i t e i a i (Oxford, 1981) 156 and 524-5. 67 Ostwald (above, n. 15) 104; Rhodes, E i s a n g e l i a (above, n. 66) 104; Hansen (above, n. 66) 91. 68 See LSJ s^.v. K°<t04X*m- $ • Thucydides uses the word to d e s c r i b e subversion (cf. 1.107.6; VI.27.3 and 28.2; VII.26 and 49). 69 For a d i f f e r e n t view see M. Gagarin, "The Thesmothetai and the E a r l i e s t Athenian Tyranny Law", TAPA 111 (1981) 75-6, who n e v e r t h e l e s s • s i d e s t e p s the q u e s tion of the law's v a l i d i t y ; c f . a l s o Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 156. 70 Cf. Andok. 1.95 (MacDowell [above, n. 36] 120); c f . Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 220-2. 156 71 Ostwald (above, n. 15) 109ff.; MacDowell (above, n. 22) 178. 72 Ostwald (above, n. 15) 106; Gagarin (above, n. 69) 74, n. 20 challenges Ostwald's emphasis upon the change of number; c f . Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 222-3. 73 Dover, HCT, 325; MacDowell (above, n. 22) 28-9. 74 c f Ostwald (above, n. 15) 106ff.; Herodotos' language at V.71.2 (vrre^vov^ TTA-VJV 8<xv<To\r ) seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t due-process was granted the Ky l o n i a n s , which of course argues f o r a pre-Solonian l e g a l mechanism f o r d e a l i n g w i t h tyranny (see How and W e l l s , 11.38). Ostwald (above, n. 15) 105, however, t h i n k s t h a t what was promised t o the Kylonians was makeshift and t h a t no law e x i s t e d a t Athens to be used to t r y subverters. Gagarin (above, n. 69) 7 4 f f . challenges Ostwald, arguing t h a t , t o the c o n t r a r y , l e g a l means were a v a i l a b l e to t r y the Kylonians. The is s u e does not bear upon t h i s study; c f . a l s o Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 223. Drakon enacted h i s laws i n 621 B.C. (see R.S. Stroud, Drakon's Law on See above, n. 74; Swoboda (above, n. 5) 57-60 puts the law's enactment £. 556/5 a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s ' f i r s t attempt at tyranny, during h i s f i r s t e x i l e . See M.H. Hansen, Apagoge, E n d e i x i s and Ephegesis against Kakougoi, Ati m o i  and Pheugontes (Odense, 1976) 78-9, who tr a c e s a change i n meaning of 75 76 77 157 atintos and suggests t h a t , by 490, the word had already come to be known i n i t s m i l d e r sense. Symptomatic of t h a t change are a d d i t i o n a l words i n im-pr e c a t i o n s l i k e TToXeyw.<-os (Dem. IX.42); see a l s o Gagarin (above, n. 69) 76, n. 24. 78 See Raubitschek (above, n. 4) 228, n. 21; Dover,- HCT, 325; MacDowell (above, rt. 22) 28-9; Hansen (above, n. 77) 78; . Rhodes,.Athenaion (above, n. 66) 222. 79 See F r i e d e l (above, n. 5) 25, n. 63; Hansen (above, n. 77); c f . Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 222. 80 On the Law of Eukrates see B.D. M e r i t t , "Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s " , Hesperia 21 (1952) 355-9. Gagarin (above, n. 69) 75, n. 22 suggests t h a t the author of the At h . P o l . was perhaps c i t i n g only one of a number of p r o v i s i o n s i n an a n t i -tyranny law. In any case, a l l the laws were, by comparison, m i l d e r i n h i s op i n i o n . 81 Schol. ad Ar. L y s i s . 273; c f . a l s o Hdt. V.72ff.; Contra Ostwald (above, n. 15) 109: t/rc r u ^ v / t i c must r e f e r grammatically only to Kleomenes, not the renegade Athenians. This i s the same type of ch a r a c t e r -d e n i g r a t i o n of Kleomenes as the crime of h i e r o s u l o s (see above, n. 34) charged i n Herodotos (V.90.2; see a l s o V.72.3). We note t h a t Herodotos r e p o r t s no Athenians with Kleomenes when he came i n t o A t t i c a the second time (V.72.3) nor i s there any t a l k of t y r -anny, but, the next time Kleomenes came ( V . 7 4 f f . ) , he wanted to set 158 Isagoras up as t y r a n t of Athens;" he got only as f a r as E l e u s i s , however -one of the f o c a l p o i n t s of the s c h o l i a s t ' s s t o r y . The whole s t o r y appears t o be a c o n f l a t i o n from a l a t e r date. I t i s , however, outside the scope of t h i s study t o challenge and, sin c e i t i s accepted as v a l i d by many sch o l a r s ( cf. How and Wel l s , II.40-1; Ostwald [[above, n. 15^ 109; B i c k n e l l [above, n. 47] 85, n. 10), I s h a l l deal w i t h i t as a u t h e n t i c . 82 Wilamowitz (above, n. 7) 115, fol l o w e d by Swoboda (above, n. 5) 63, r i g h t l y puts t h i s s t e l e on the A k r o p o l i s : c f . Thuc. II.15.6; Paus. 1.26.6. 83 Schol. ad Ar. L y s i s . 273. 84 Herodotos (V.72.4-73.1) i n d i c a t e s t h a t execution was summary. 85 Cf. MacDowell (above, n. 22) 178-9. 86 P l u t . Mor. 834b. 87 Noted by Ostwald (above, n. 15) 111 and MacDowell (above, n. 22) 178. 88 There i s a good treatment of t h i s h y s t e r i a i n J . DeRomilly, Thucydides and  Athenian Imperialism (Oxford, 1963) 217ff.; see a l s o Woodbury (above, n. 53). 89 Contra Ostwald (above, n. 15) 113: t h i s must mean th a t Demophantos de-t a i l e d f a r more than what was inherent i n the a r c h a i c a n t i - t y r a n n y law. 159 'for Antiphon would s u r e l y have been charged w i t h subversion i f punishment had been harsh enough to match how s e r i o u s a crime the Athenians thought i t was (see above, n. 37). 90 Xen. H e l l . 1.7.28; Lyk. Leok. 115; see a l s o Hansen (above, n. 20) 83, Catalogue No. 63. 91 The bronze markers a f f e c t i n g Antiphon and Archeptolemos could have been an i n n o v a t i o n f o r them, but c f . above, t e x t p. 99-100. 92 Hippias and Hipparchos were w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r at P a l l e n e (Hdt. 1.63), as was Hege s i s t r a t o s (Ath.Pol. 17.4). 93 Marathon: Hdt. VI.107; the A k r o p o l i s - b u r n i n g : Hdt. V I I I . 5 2 . 94 The plunder of the tyran n i c i d e - g r o u p and i t s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to Sousa ( P l i n . Nat. H i s t . 34.70; Paus. 1.8.5) by Xerxes could be taken as a good i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the King wanted to make a show f o r the Athenian enemies of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i : why go t o a l l the t r o u b l e of shipping the statues to Sousa? And, i n the same v e i n , why leave untouched a s t e l e p r o c l a i m i n g the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i enemies of Athens? Together w i t h the d e s t r u c t i o n of the s t r u c t u r e s on the A k r o p o l i s where the s t e l e stood, t h i s seems to suggest t h a t the s t e l e a d i k i a s d i d not s u r v i v e the P e r s i a n s ' "rough wooing" of Athens. But replacement of the plundered statue-group by the Athenians a l s o argues t h a t the s t e l e , another symbol of d e f i a n c e , was replaced (cf. B u s o l t [above, n. 4J). Whether a d d i t i o n s were made so t h a t the crimes of the younger P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were emphasized i s impossible to say. 160 95 Cf. V a leton Cabove, n. 6) 24. 96 Hdt. 1.61. 97 See below, n. 142; MacDowell (above, n. 36) 212 t h i n k s t h a t Andok. 1.106 r e f e r s to a b a t t l e a t P a l l e n e between the Athenians and the fo r c e s of the t y r a n t s during the ex p u l s i o n e f f o r t i n 511/10 ( i . e . , a f t e r the f i n a l defeat of the Thessalians by Kleomenes, but before the siege of the A k r o p o l i s ) . Needless t o say t h a t i s d i f f i c u l t to b e l i e v e : there i s abso-l u t e l y no evidence f o r such a b a t t l e and Herodotos might f a i r l y have been expected t o say something about i t i n order to minimize f u r t h e r the Spartan c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the l i b e r a t i o n . (Cf. below, n. 114 and s e c t i o n 3,B.) Andokides probably mistakes the b a t t l e fought i n 546, which was a l o s s f o r the a n t i - t y r a n n i s t s and t h e r e f o r e the democracy, w i t h a v i c t o r y f o r those f o r c e s , o r , perhaps, the democracy had changed the defeat i n t o a v i c t o r y . 98 See above, n. 44. 99 Cf. Gagarin (above, n. 69) 77,. 100 Cf. A t h . P o l . 22.4; Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 271-2. 101 Hdt. V.65.2; Moveables: A t h . P o l . 19.6. We note t h a t Herodotos says t h a t the terms of surrender were l a i d down by the Athenians. On the seriousness of the c h i l d r e n being captured c f . the r a t h e r 161 forced inference of Seth Benardete, Herodotean Studies (The Hague, 1969) 145. 102 On Hipparchos see above, text p. 86. Many of those ostracized in the 480s were charged on the ostraka with treason (e.g. Kallixenos, an early vic-tim, was called rTpoSox:y\^^E. Vanderpool, Hesp. 19 (1950) 376-9oJ; Menon was e K K TTpo[d*oruJr] |yanderpool, 379, n . J ; Aristeides was called ^ ( O t s T -f t c J e v j r o v A»c[xcoojjio"e\<fe,\ovj JMeiggs and Lewis, 42^ ); [[above, n. 14] 139ff. and below, n. 151). Whether or not the charges on the ostraka were true or merely libellous, they show that suspicion of treason was in the minds of the Athenian voters and could have been ex-ploited by a clever pol i t i c i a n : cf. n. 151 below. 103 See Stanley M. Burstein, "The Recall of the Ostracized and the Themistocles Decree", CSCA 4 (1971) 108-9. 104 Hdt. V.63.3ff. 105 In fact, Kleomenes, according to Herodotos (VI.66), may have manoeuvered himself into the position of being able to strike at Athens with some sort of sanction: cf. R. Sealey, "The Pit and the Well: The Persian Heralds of 491 B.C.", CJ 72 (1976) 17-8. On bribery see Hdt. V.90. 106 It i s interesting to note that the Thessalian cavalry constituted Hippias' only apparent long-distance line of defense (cf. A.J. Podlecki, The Life  of Themistocles [Montreal, 1975] 5; see also Berve [above, n. |] 71 and 162 How and Wells, 11.30). 107 Hdt. V.64.2; 'contra R.W. Macan, Herodotus, the Fourth, F i f t h and S i x t h  Books (London, 1895) 1.204: t h i s d e s c r i b e s those w i t h Kleomenes, not a p a r t y already at Athens. 108 Hdt. 1.60. 109 See Appendix. 110 Hdt. V.66.1. I l l T h i s p o i n t i s best d e a l t w i t h by W.G. F o r r e s t , "Themistokles and Argos", CQ 54 (1960) 233ff. 112 Hdt. V.65.1; c f . Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 238-9. 113 Apparently, time favoured the besieged (cf. Hdt. V.65.1; Thuc. 1.126.7-12; c f . a l s o Hdt. V I I I . 5 2 ) . 114 Cf. Macan (above, n. 107) 1.204: "How Herodotos knows so w e l l t h a t but f o r an accident the Lacedaimonians would have f a i l e d , does not appear." 115 See below, n. 183. 116 See above, n. 101. 163 117 Hdt. V.65.3, 94.1; Thuc. VI.59.4; on S i g e i o n see J.M. Cook, The Troad (Oxford, 1973) 178-88. 118 Jacoby, A t t h i s , 335, n. 26 suggests t h a t Thucydides could have de r i v e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n from Charon of Lampsakos (see a l s o Dover, HCT, 324), but i t i s more l i k e l y t h a t Thucydides deduced what Hippias planned (see below t e x t and n. 119). 119 Thuc. VI.59.3. Cf. J.D. Denniston, The Greek P a r t i c l e s (Oxford, 1959) 451-2, who c i t e s t h i s i n s t a n c e : "Much the commonest use of ' yovV i s to introduce a statement which i s , pro' t a n t o , evidence f o r a preceding s t a t e ment." On Thucydides-' r e c o n s t r u c t i v e tendencies' rsee W.EV Thompson/ " I n d i v i d u a l M o t i v a t i o n i n Thucydides", CSM 30 (1969) 166-7. 120 Cf. Table 1. 121 Cf. Thucydides VII.81.5, who describes the r e l u c t a n c e of the Syracusans to come to g r i p s w i t h the now completely vanquished Athenians (cf. W.E. Thompson, "Thucydides 2.65.11", H i s t o r i a 20 [ l 9 7 l j 144-5). 122 Isagoras preserved: Hdt. V.74.1. 123 On the other hand, once the Athenians had e j e c t e d Kleomenes, they were very quick to seek out a l l i e s (Hdt. V.73.1). 124 Hippias k i l l e d many i n the aftermath of Hipparchos' murder (Thuc. VI.59.2 Ath . P o l . 19.5-6). 164 125 Kylonians: Thuc. I.126.7ff. 126 Hippias was e s p e c i a l l y regarded by the Spartans: Hdt. V.90.1. 127 See R. Sealey, A H i s t o r y of the Greek C i t y - S t a t e s , 700-338 B.C. (Berkeley, 1976) 146-7; c f . a l s o A.J. P o d l e c k i , "The P o l i t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Athenian 1 T y r a n n i c i d e ' - C u l t " , H i s t o r i a 15 (1966) 133. 128 See above, n. 101. 129 Cf. R.J. Buck, "The Reforms of 487 B.C. i n the S e l e c t i o n of Archons", CP 60 (1965) 98; c f . a l s o Raubitschek (above, n. 4) 228, n. 4; Ostwald (above, n. 15) 109; Gagarin (above, n. 69) 77, n. 29. 130 Raubitschek (above, n. 4) 228, n. 4. 131 At h . P o l . 22.4; c f . Davies, APF, 451; on Hippokrates, the son of A n a x i l e o s , as a P e i s i s t r a t i d see H.A. Shapiro, "Hippokrates, Son of A n a x i l e o s " , Hesperia 49 (1980) 291-3; c f . a l s o Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 275. 132 See above, n. 41; see a l s o E. Badian, "Archons and S t r a t e g o i " , Antichthon 5 (1971) 11; P. K a r a v i t e s , " R e a l i t i e s and Appearances, 490-480 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 26 (1977) 136; a l s o Holladay (above, n. 5) 184; Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 271-2, a f t e r Davies, APF, 451 accepts Hipparchos as a grandson of Hippias. " .~' . - .; -~ \ 165 133 K a r a v i t e s (above, n. 132) 136-7; Holladay (above, n. 5) 189. 134 See above, t e x t p. 90. 135 Hipparchos' name and the c l o s e a f f i l i a t i o n of h i s f a t h e r , Charmos, with the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i were constant reminders of the past regime. 136 Obviously, Dareios' w i l l i n g n e s s to subdue Athens was the necessary i n g r e -d i e n t f o r Hippias' r e t u r n ; Artaphrenes could h a r d l y i n i t i a t e anything important on h i s own. 137 Cf. How and We l l s , 11.50; on the date see P o d l e c k i (above, n. 106) 6. 138 Cf. How and We l l s , 11.51. 139 Cf. How and We l l s , 11.55. 140 Cf. Hdt. IV.137-8; V I . 9 . 2 f f . 141 Cf. Sealey (above, n. 127) 179; a l s o Holladay (above, n. 5) 175. 142 Cf. Hdt. 1.62.1, VI.102; c f . R.M. B e r t h o l d , "Which Way to Marathon?" REA 78-9 (1976/77) 85. 143 On the r e g i o n of the D i a k r i a see Hescyhios s^.v. <5t«Kptfci£ ; the P e i s i s t r a t i d home was a t P h i l a i d a i near Brauron ( Jplato] Hipparchos 228b; P l u t . S o l . 10.2). The supporters of P e i s i s t r a t o s o r i g i n a l l y came from the 1 6 6 D i a k r i a : H d t . 1 . 1 . 5 9 ( a l t h o u g h H e r o d o t o s c a l l s t h e m H y p e r a k r i o i ) ; P l u t . S o l . 2 9 ; s e e a l s o A . F r e n c h , " T h e P a r t y o f P e i s i s t r a t o s " , G S R 2 n d S e r i e s , 6 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 4 6 - 5 7 ; J . R . E l l i s a n d G . R . S t a n t o n , " F a c t i o n a l C o n f l i c t a n d S o l o n ' s R e f o r m s " , P h o e n i x 22 ( 1 9 6 8 ) 9 8 ; a n d R . S e a l e y ( a b o v e , n . 1 2 7 ) 1 2 3 - 8 . 1 4 4 E u p h o r b o s a n d P h i l a g r o s o f E r e t r i a p r o v i d e d t h e A t h e n i a n s w i t h a n e x a m p l e o f w h a t t r a i t o r s c o u l d b r i n g a b o u t f o r t h e m ( H d t . V I . 1 0 2 . 2 ) a n d , a p p a r -e n t l y , D a r e i o s h a d t h e s a m e t h i n g i n m i n d f o r t h e A t h e n i a n s ( V I . 1 0 2 ) ; c f . a l s o D i o d . 1 0 . 2 7 . 2 . 1 4 5 C f . K t e s i a s E p i t . 18 ( J u s t i n 2 . 9 . 2 1 ) ; C i c . Ep_. a d A t t . 9 . 1 0 . 3 ; S o u d a S_. V. J7r7T<.«*5 . 1 4 6 S e e a l s o H d t . V I . 1 1 5 ; o n t h e s h i e l d - s i g n a l s e e , m o s t r e c e n t l y , D . G i l l i s , C o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h t h e P e r s i a n s , H i s t o r i a J E i n z e l s c h r . i f . t e n 24 ( 1 9 8 0 ) 4 5 - 5 8 . 1 4 7 C f . S e a l e y ( a b o v e , n . 1 2 7 ) 2 0 2 - 3 . 1 4 8 H d t . V I . 1 2 3 . 1 ; c f . F o r r e s t ( a b o v e , n . I l l ) ; K a r a v i t e s ( a b o v e , n . 1 3 2 ) 1 3 7 , n . 3 0 ; H o l l a d a y ( a b o v e , n . 5) 1 8 0 f f . ; R h o d e s , A t h e n a i o n ( a b o v e , n . 6 6 ) 2 7 4 - 5 . 1 4 9 C f . P a u s . 1 . 3 3 . 2 . 1 5 0 A t h . P o l . 2 2 . 5 ; c f . R h o d e s , A t h e n a i o n ( a b o v e , n . 6 6 ) 2 7 4 - 5 . 167 151 Probably K a l l i a s K r a t i o u (see E. Vanderpool, Ostracism i n Athens [ C i n c i n n a t i , 197oJ 21-2; c f . a l s o B i c k n e l l [above, n. 473 64-71; Thomsen ^b o v e , n. 14^ j 97-9) . On twelve sherds K a l l i a s i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the Mede, being e i t h e r e« f^\-iySuj^ or o /""l^cSo^ . One v o t e r has even drawn a c a r i c a t u r e of a Mede on an ostrakon; c f . , however, Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 276. 152 G.M.E. W i l l i a m s , "The Kerameikos Ostraka", ZPE 31 (1978) 103-113 and "The Image of the A l k m a i o n i d a i , 490-480 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 29 (1980) 106-10 o f f e r s a d i f f e r e n t view. Badian (above, n. 132) r i g h t l y p o i n t s out, however, t h a t the gap between the s h i e l d - s i g n a l and the f i r s t o s t racism does not undermine a connection between the ostracisms and the events a t Marathon and the treason t h a t was a l l e g e d t o have occurred there. (Cf. Rhodes, Athenaion [above, n. 66] 275.) 153 I t i s p o s s i b l y s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Lykourgos, Leok. 117 says t h a t , when the Athenians decided to make the bronze t a b l e t from Hipparchos' s t a t u e , "they voted t o w r i t e on i t (the names of) the unclean (<*A<-T»j pcovj- ) and the t r a i t o r s " . The word ac.Xi.Ty] pt© <_ i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the A l k m a i o n i d a i f o r t h e i r wrongdoing t o the Kylonians (cf. Thuc. 1.126.12; Ar. Knights 445-6). To speculate: perhaps the f i r s t o s t r a c i s e s , who were mainly A l k m a i o n i d a i , went over to the Mede a f t e r t h e i r o s t r a c i s m s , refused r e c a l l because of t h e i r i n j u r y , and were thus branded as " f r i e n d s of the t y r a n t s " on the s t e l e and p r o s c r i b e d as o i A t c y ^ t o c . 154 Hdt. V.98; VI.121.1. 168 155 K a r a v i t e s (above, n. 132) 145; Davies, APF, 381. 156 See above, n. 144; two passages i n Herodotos (VI.112.3 and 120) suggest t h a t the Greeks of 490 feared the P e r s i a n s i n o r d i n a t e l y . 157 Va l e t o n (above, n. 6) 24. 158 Cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 339, n. 52. 159 Beloch (above, n. 6) 313. 160 Cf. Hdt. I I I . 3 9 ; Athen. 258ff.; Diod. 20.77.1. 161 Cf. C. Fornara, "The ' T r a d i t i o n 1 about the Murder of Hipparchus", H i s t o r i a 17 (1968) 403, n. 10. 162 Thuc. VI.55.3; see above, n. 119. 163 Jacoby, A t t h i s , 336,- n. 36 observes t h a t Kleidemos f o r one was unconvinced by Thucydides' arguments. 164 Fornara (above, n. 161) 423, n. 1. 165 Fornara (above, n. 161) 423; see a l s o K i n z l (above, n. 3) 506, n. 16. 166 Jacoby, A t t h i s , 156; c f . C. Fornara, "The C u l t of Harmodius and A r i s t o g e i t o n " , P h i l o l o g u s 114 (1970) 160, n. 27, who p o i n t s out t h a t i t 169 matters l i t t l e whether the author was H e l l a n i k o s or not; c f . a l s o Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 189. 167 Cf. Fornara (above, n. 161) 424. 168 Von Stern (above, n. 6) 363-4; Jacoby, A t t h i s , 337, n. 43; Dover, HCT, 320; K i n z l (above, n. 3). 169 Cf. Fornara (above, n. 161) 423, n. 2; K.J. Beloch, G r i e c h i s c h e  Geschichte (Strassburg, 1913) 1.2, 294 and Beloch (above, n. 6) 313 p o i n t s out t h a t Herodotos a t V.55.1 may have been viewing events from the stand-p o i n t of 510 (or a f t e r ) , r a t h e r than t h a t of 514. 170 Cf. H. F r i e d e l (above, n. 5) 33; P o d l e c k i (above, n. 127) 140 suggests t h a t Hdt. VI.121 was w r i t t e n l a t e r than VI.109 and i n s e r t e d i n t o an a l -ready completed n a r r a t i v e a f t e r Herodotos had learned the tru e s t o r y from the A l k m a i o n i d a i . But t h a t must a l s o mean t h a t the e n t i r e account of Athens' l i b e r a t i o n (V.55ff.) was r e v i s e d . 171 Herodotos' account of Athens' l i b e r a t i o n d e r i v e d from the Al k m a i o n i d a i (cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 335, n. 27) and i t i s c l e a r that Herodotos i s promot-in g the Al k m a i o n i d a i a t the expense of the Gephyraioi (cf. VI.123.1). 172 PMG 474-5; CM. Bowra, Greek L y r i c Poetry (Oxford, 1961) 392. 173 See F r i e d e l (above, n. 5) 32-3; M. Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginnings of  the Athenian Demos (Oxford, 1969) 123. 170 174 Cf. above, n. 171; c f . a l s o Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 191. 175 See Chapter I I I . 176 Fornara (above, n. 161) 423-4. 177 See above, n. 166. 178 Statues: (Antenor*s group) P l i n . Nat. H i s t . 34.17; (the group of K r i t i o s and Nesiotes) Marmor Parium Ep. 54 (see S. Brunnsaker, The Tyrant-Slayers  of K r i t i o s and Nesiotes jLund, 1955^ 33-40 f o r a complete set of r e f e r -ences); tomb i n the Kerameikos: Paus. 1.29.15; annual s a c r i f i c e s by polemarch: A t h . P o l . 58.1; see a l s o Jacoby, A t t h i s , 339, n. 52. 179 i I assume t h a t the r e s t o r a t i o n cJ i -«5o^ov' i s sound (see F. Jacoby, Das Marmor Parium ^ B e r l i n , 1904j| 110, but c f . R. Vattuone, "L'Excursus n e l VI L i b r o d e l l e S t o r i e d i T u c i d i d e " , RSA 5 £l975] 177, n. 26). 180 Dover, HCT, 318 i s undisturbed by Thuc. VI.53.3: " . . . f o r i t goes without saying t h a t a t y r a n t ' s b r o t h e r s , so long as they are on good terms w i t h him, enjoy great power...." But Thucydides equates the tyranny of the c h i l d r e n w i t h t h a t of the f a t h e r , an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the Athenian p u b l i c thought t h a t P e i s i s t r a t o s ' sons succeeded him. 181 Hdt. VI.39.1, 123.2, although the i s s u e i s not as c l e a r - c u t as i n Thuc. (cf. Hdt. V.65.1); c f . K i n z l (above, n. 3) 506. 171 182 Cf. , however, Fornara (above, n. 166) 167-8, who questions the a s c r i p -t i o n of the mistake to H e l l a n i k o s . 183 Herodotos seems to have been f i r s t w i t h c r i t i c i s m of the Spartans, a l -though he wanted the g l o r y of the l i b e r a t i o n to redound t o the Alk m a i o n i d a i (V.62.1-2, VI.123.2-3). Cf. Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 190. 184 On the Prytaneion Decree see Thompson (above, n. 60). 185 Cf. P o d l e c k i (above, n. 127) 140-1; Vattuone (above, n. 179) 180-1. 186 Jacoby, A t t h i s , 337, n. 43; Dover, HCT, 320; Fornara (above, n. 161) 415; but c f . A t h . P o l . 17.3: Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 189 b e l i e v e s t h a t A t h . P o l . i s f i r m l y on the side of Thucydides and Herodotos. 187 That a u c t o r i t a s r e s i d e d i n the o l d e s t and wisest ( i . e . , Hippias) and th a t Hipparchos was some s o r t of dandy was perhaps the c r e a t i o n of the author (cf. Vattuone [above, n. 179]. 177); contra Dover, HCT, 320: there seem s u f f i c i e n t grounds t o b e l i e v e t h a t the view of the tyranny a f t e r P e i s i s t r a t o s as j o i n t l y h e l d p r e e x i s t e d Thucydides' w r i t i n g ; but c f . a l s o Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 190-225. 1 8 8 The p a r t i c i p i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n ir-pvrlouTuro^ u>v i s causal. 189 Dover, HCT, 319. 172 190 Dover, HCT, 319; c f . a l s o E. Schwartz, Das Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Bonn, 192;'9) 337-8. 191 Dover, HCT, 319. 192 Dover, HCT, 318. 193 See above, n. 160; c f . Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 190. 194 Cf. a l s o Hdt. III.145-6: Maiandrios handed over command of the doryphoroi to h i s brother, C h a r i l a o s , who had formerly been j a i l e d . 195 Cf. R.J. Lenardon, "Thucydides and H e l l a n i k o s " , C l a s s i c a l C o n t r i b u t i o n s :  Studies presented to Malcolm F r a n c i s McGregor (Locust V a l l e y , New York, 1981) 70. 196 The e a r l i e s t d i r e c t reference to the s k o l i a i s i n Ar. Acharn. 980 (see Ostwald [above, n. 1 7 3 J 12 3-4; a l s o D. Page, ed. Further Greek Epigrams [Cambridge, 198l] 186-9). 197 Jacoby, A t t h i s , 158-61. 198 K l e i s t h e n e s was probably i n d i s f a v o u r w i t h the Athenians from the time t h a t the embassy sent t o Artaphrenes i n Sardis o f f e r e d e a r t h and water t o the P e r sians to o b t a i n an a l l i a n c e (Hdt. V.73.2-3). L a t e r , Artaphrenes, we are t o l d , d i r e c t e d the Athenians' own embassy to take Hippias back i f they wanted peace w i t h the Persians (Hdt. V.96). I f Hippias had P e r s i a n 173 support e a r l y on, the embassy ( i f i t took place) might have been viewed by the Athenians as a proposal made by K l e i s t h e n e s f o r Hippias to r e t u r n i n the same way K l e i s t h e n e s ' f a t h e r , Megakles, had e f f e c t e d P e i s i s t r a t o s ' r e t u r n so many years before, e s p e c i a l l y i f K l e i s t h e n e s ' p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n was p r e c a r i o u s . But c f . R.D. Cromey, " K l e i s t h e n e s ' Fate", H i s t o r i a 28 (1979) 132-3. 199 Jacoby, A t t h i s , 340, n. 53. 200 See below, t e x t p. 134. 201 V. Ehrenberg,."The O r i g i n s of Democracy", H i s t o r i a 1 (1950) 532. 2 02 Ehrenberg (above, n. 201) 533; see a l s o V. Ehrenberg, "Das Harmodios-l i e d " , WS 69 (1956) 69. 203 P o d l e c k i (above, n. 127) 130. 204 P o d l e c k i (above, n. 127) 135: "The Antenor 'tyrannicide'-group cannot be dated wit h c e r t a i n t y , nor can i t have made much of an impact." 205 Ostwald (above, n. 173) 132. 206 Cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 162; a good p a r a l l e l comes from modern American opin-i o n of the American War of Independence: most Americans would say t h a t American freedom was won by American "minute" men at Concord, Lexington or V a l l e y Forge, although the t r u t h of the matter i s t h a t American freedom 174 was won by the French at Yorktown. We a l s o note t h a t Independence i s dated from 1776, f u l l y f i v e years before t h a t independence was a c t u a l l y achieved. 2 07 Ostwald (above, n. 173) 123ff. u n i t e s s k o l i a 10 and 13 (above, t e x t p. 124) w i t h the a c t u a l attainment of democracy, i . e . , K l e i s t h e n i c democ-racy i n 507 (Ath.Pol. 21.1-2); the other s k o l i a , 11 and 12 (Ostwald [above, n. 173] 121), he concedes might have been w r i t t e n e a r l i e r (see Brunnsaker [above, n. 178] 23-4) , but b e l i e v e s t h a t the best approach to the problem of da t i n g the s k o l i a i s to f i n d a terminus ante quem (?) f o r s k o l i a 10 and 13. Ostwald, however, accepts P l i n y ' s date f o r Antenor's group. The most c u r r e n t work i n l i n e w i t h the views of Ehrenberg and Ostwald i s D. A s h e r i , " E l l a n i c o , Jacoby e l a T r a d i z i o n e Alcmeonida", Acme 34 (1981) 2 0 f f . 2 08 Bowra (above, n. 172) 394-5. 209 Ostwald (above, n. 173) 123. 210 Bowra (above, n. 172) 395; P o d l e c k i (above, n. 127) 134-40. 211 The date of the statue-group of Antenor i s the c r u c i a l p o i n t f o r determin-in g the date of the o f f i c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s f o r t h e i r a c t . On Antenor's group see M. Moggi, "In Merito a l i a Datazione d e i ' T i r a n n i c i d i ' d i Antenor", ASNP I I I , 1 (1971) 17-63; I . Cal a b i - L i m e n t a n i , "Armodio e A r i s t o g i t o n e , g l i U c c i s i d a l Tiranno", Acme 22 (1976) 15. 175 212 Cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 339, n. 52; Brunnsaker (above, n. 178) 40-1 and 43; A s h e r i (above, n. 207) 20. On an aspect of p a r a l l e l d a t i n g of Greek and Roman events see B r i a n M. L a v e l l e , "A Note on Pe r i s c h o i n i s m a " , RFIC (forthcoming). 213 Indeed, Simonides even composed the d i s t i c h on the statue-group of K r i t i o s and Nesiotes (see P o d l e c k i [above, n. 127] 135). 214 See above, s e c t i o n 2,D; c f . a l s o Jacoby, A t t h i s , 162. t> 215 A t h . P o l . 22.4; Hipparchos' archonship: Dion. Hal. V.77.6. 216 E.g. the Areopagites. Perhaps there i s a l i n k between the replacement of the o l d order by the new i n the twenty years a f t e r the ex p u l s i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and increased h o s t i l i t y to the f a m i l y . 217 See above, s e c t i o n 2,D; c f . Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 230. 218 A s h e r i (above, n. 207) 20-1 emphasizes t h i s best. I do not, however, t h i n k t h a t the c u l t ' s wide acceptance among the Athenians because of i t s n a t i v e character need c o n f l i c t w i t h an a r t i f i c i a l i n t r o d u c t i o n of i t by a c l e v e r p o l i t i c i a n . 219 Cf. P o d l e c k i (above, n. 127) 138, n. 56: "A date c_. 487 f o r the Antenor 'tyrannicide'-group would t h e r e f o r e not d i s t u r b me: i t would have been p a r t of Themistocles' e a r l i e r anti-Alcmeonid campaign." On Themistokles and o s t r a c i s m see P o d l e c k i (above, n. 106) 185-8. 176 220 P o d l e c k i (above, n. 127) 137, n. 53; Brunnsaker (above, n. 178) 102ff. 221 I t should be noted t h a t P. Corssen, B e r l i n e r P h i l o l o g i s c h e Wochenschrift 2 3 (1903) 350-1 i n i t i a l l y suggested t h a t the Antenor-group d i d not predate 488. That suggestion was l a t e r elaborated by A. Raubitschek, "Two Monu-ments erected a f t e r Marathon", AJA 44 (1940) 58, n. 2; see a l s o Ostwald (above, n. 173) 133, n. 7; contra Ostwald: Brunnsaker's arguments (above, n. 178) 90-8 a g a i n s t the hypothesis do not l a y i t to r e s t by a long chalk. 222 Cf. Beloch (above, n. 169) GG, 294, although Beloch makes too much of the c u l t ; see a l s o Chapter I I I . 223 Cf. J p l a t o J Hipp. 228b-22 9d; see Chapter I . 224 Thuc. VI. 59.3;' see a l s o Page (above, n. 196) 239-40. 225 On S i g e i o n see Cook (above, n. 117). Hippoklos was one of the Ionian t y r a n t s who, a t the Hellespont, voted to save the bridge of Dareios i n the face of Scythian urgings to destroy i t (Hdt. IV.138). Consequently, he came t o be i n the Great King's favour. I take i t t h a t Thucydides knew of Hippoklos' r e p u t a t i o n and deduced t h a t Hippias married h i s daughter to A i a n t i d e s t o reap the b e n e f i t of Hippoklos' connection w i t h Dareios:. indeed, the words «<:t<r Q<x\fOfA.ev6$ <*uz-ou$ HifpokHdsj J^^u &*c<-\€t du) Suv<*<f&c*L. show t h a t Thucydides r e c o n s t r u c t e d Hippias' thoughts about the b e n e f i t s of the m a r r i a g e - a l l i a n c e . Thucydides i n f e r r e d the thoughts of Hippias from Hippias' subsequent move t o Sousa, thus making the author's 177 i n f e r e n c e p l a u s i b l e , but not n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e . 226 I t i s l i k e l y t h a t , when Daurises recaptured Lampsakos during the Ionian r e v o l t (Hdt. V.117), he r e a f f i r m e d or r e e s t a b l i s h e d the H i p p o k l i d s : the p o l i c y of Dareios was to employ t y r a n t s as puppets (cf. Hdt. VI.9). I assume t h a t A r c h e d i k e 1 s c h i l d r e n , l i k e Hippias' progeny, a c t u a l l y e x e r c i s e d some power; c f . below, n. 229. 227 Cf. P. F r i e d l a n d e r and H. H o f f l e i t , Epigrammata: Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s i n Verse (Berkeley, 1948) 127-8. 228 Cf. Hdt. VI.107.2; above, n. 145. 229 The terminus ante quern must be 464, s i n c e , by then, Themistokles had r e -cei v e d Lampsakos to provide him h i s wine (Thuc. 1.138.5). Archedike's sons could not l i k e l y have been c a l l e d " t y r a n t s " without some c i t y to govern. A c t u a l l y , the Lampsakenes had probably already ousted the Hi p p o k l i d s (see B.D. M e r i t t , H.T. Wade-Gery and M.F. McGregor, The  Athenian T r i b u t e L i s t s , I I I {Princeton, 1950] 2 0 0 f f . ) . 230 Cf. F r i e d l a n d e r and H o f f l e i t (above, n. 227) 128; contra Page (above, n. 196) 239. 231 Cf. P. F r i s c h , Die I n s c h r i f t e n von Lampsakos (Bonn, 1978) 85. 232 Cf. Hdt. VI.94.2; VII.6.4-5, 52.2; but V.65.1; VI.123. 178 Cf. Hdt. VI.39.1 ; Thuc. VI.53.3 ; A t h . P o l . 17.3, 18.1. J.J.E. Hondius, "Hippias oder Hipparchos?" Hermes 22 (1922) 476-7 b u i l d s a case f o r power ex e r c i s e d by Hipparchos on the b a s i s of Hipparchos 1 d e d i c a t i o n t o P t o i o n A p o l l o (L. B i z a r d , BCH 44 [l92o] 238). But the d e d i c a t i o n r e a l l y proves nothing about Hipparchos' power and i s r i g h t l y r e j e c t e d as such an index by Jacoby, A t t h i s , 337, n. 43; see a l s o Chapter I , s e c t i o n 2,C. 2 34 C o r n e l i u s (above, n. 11) 79; c f . a l s o Rhodes, Athenaion (above, n. 66) 225. Dover's r e b u t t a l (HCT, 320) seems weak: th a t Thucydides r a i s e d the question- of succession does not mean tha t the question i s n e c e s s a r i l y v a l i d . 179 I I I . THE MURDER OF HIPPARCHOS 1. Introduction: Thucydides and The Tyrannicide The excursus of Book VI (54-59) of Thucydides' h i s t o r y , which recounts the murder of Hipparchos by Harmodios and Ar i s t o g e i t o n , has always been con-1 sidered d e f i n i t i v e . Thucydides' purpose i n writing the digression was to disprove the common Athenian assumption that Hipparchos was tyrant when he 2 was s l a i n . His method was to show that Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n acted from p r i v a t e motives and turbulent emotions when they k i l l e d Hipparchos, that they d i d not act p o l i t i c a l l y to free Athens from the tyranny. Thucydides was convinced of the rightness of his view and asserted at the beginning of the 3 d i g r e s s i o n that the Athenians were ignorant of the truth of the a f f a i r . There are, however, problems i n the digression and they seem to derive 4 from Thucydides' polemical approach to-the subject. For h i s statement against the Athenians indicates that Thucydides opposes what most Athenians thought about the incident and suggests that what follows the dec l a r a t i o n of Athenian ignorance i s an argument instead of h i s t o r y . In f a c t , Thucydides' polemical approach quite p o s s i b l y r e s u l t e d i n inconsistencies i n h i s narra-t i v e due to mis i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or misapplication of the evidence. The suspi-cion of such misuse stems from Thucydides' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t e l e con-cerning the a d i k i a of the tyrants: he apparently introduced the evidence of 5 the s t e l e because of what i t seemed to him to be. Thucydides was probably led to h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by a strong b e l i e f about Hipparchos that was based on other information and by misconceptions about the o r i g i n of the st e l e 6 brought about by the narrowness of his strong b e l i e f s . S i m i l a r l y , i t i s 180 a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t Thucydides was l e d by the same strong c o n v i c t i o n about Hipparchos t o read h i s views i n t o e a r l i e r accounts of the t y r a n n i c i d e - the only m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e as sources, using h i s own inferences and deductions. Something must account f o r Thucydides' i n c o n s i s t e n c y : he denies t h a t Hipparchos was t y r a n t and yet at one p o i n t i n the d i g r e s s i o n describes him 7 as possessing arche. I t i s p o s s i b l e to see i n t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y and others how Thucydides i m p e r f e c t l y u n i t e d h i s own views of Hipparchos' power w i t h the e a r l i e r accounts t h a t o b v i o u s l y a s c r i b e d t y r a n n i c a l power t o Hipparchos. Thucydides' neglect of these i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s was l i k e l y caused by the same confidence i n h i s b e l i e f s about Hipparchos as th a t which caused him to accept the s t e l e a d i k i a s f o r what i t seemed: q u i t e simply, Thucydides was convinced t h a t Hipparchos was not t y r a n t when he was k i l l e d . To i l l u s t r a t e these p o i n t s , a c l o s e r examination of Thucydides' d i g r e s -s i o n i s i n order. I t should be cautioned, however, th a t the best r e s u l t t h a t can be obtained from the examination i s a sharper focus on the sources used by Thucydides, m a t e r i a l t h a t may i t s e l f be f a r from the t r u t h . Thus, c h a r t -ing i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n Thucydides w i l l not r e v e a l the t r u t h of the t y r a n n i -c i d e nor even provide a p r e f e r a b l e account, but r a t h e r show t h a t there i s 8 v a r i a t i o n from Thucydides t h a t might hold the t r u t h . We may r i g h t l y expect, however, t h a t most inf e r e n c e s i n the d i g r e s s i o n are Thucydides', e s p e c i a l l y i , / 9 references founded on TO e t K 0 5 . That i s a h e l p f u l standard, since much of the d i g r e s s i o n r e s t s on r e a s o n a b i l i t y . E a r l i e r accounts whose authorship can be determined are u s e f u l f o r d i f -f e r e n t i a t i n g other p o s s i b l e Thucydidean touches; l a t e r accounts, because they i l l u s t r a t e p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t s of dispute and because they show why 10 Thucydides' account was not considered d e f i n i t i v e i n a n t i q u i t y . They may 11 a l s o hold v a l u a b l e d e t a i l passed over by Thucydides. 181 I t i s most important t o d i s c o v e r t h a t e a r l i e r , unascribed i n f o r m a t i o n about the t y r a n n i c i d e , f o r i t i s l i k e l y t h a t a l l accounts about Hipparchos" murder d e r i v e u l t i m a t e l y from a common source. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s e a r l i e r i n f o r m a t i o n was i t s e l f r e c o n s t r u c t e d t o make sense of a dramatic event. Inferences, c o n c l u s i o n s , r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s and r e v i s i o n s were added and subtracted from t h a t "core" account, some of which may have merged with the t r a d i t i o n and become s o l i d i f i e d over time. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , we may never ob-t a i n the t r u t h of the t y r a n n i c i d e since the Athenians seem to have been i n disagreement about i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e e a r l y on, perhaps because a l l explana-t i o n s were constructed ex post f a c t o . We can, however, reach a c l e a r e r understanding of the e a r l i e r r e p o r t s , upon which Thucydides drew, and, i n t h a t way, get c l o s e r to the t r u t h . 182 2. Accounts before Thucydides' A. Introduction There i s only one account of the tyrannicide written before Thucydides' to which a d e f i n i t e author can be ascribed, although i t i s c l e a r that others were extant. Herodotos touched upon the murder of Hipparchos i n h i s account 12 of how Athens won her freedom. From what he says, i t i s obvious that he was responding to the view so vigorously attacked by Thucydides l a t e r that Athens was freed from tyranny by the tyrannicides. That version, termed the " o f f i c i a l " or "vulgate" version, has been generally a t t r i b u t e d to Hellanikos the Atthidographer, : but t h i s i s not possible because i t must predate Herodotos and so cannot be ascribed i n i t s e a r l i e r , more o r i g i n a l form to any 13 known author. Whether Hellanikos l a t e r repeated the " o f f i c i a l " version of Hipparchos' death and not j u s t the erroneous equation of the Harmodios-s k o l i a , which made Hipparchos' death synonymous with Athenian freedom, i s im-14 pos s i b l e to say. I t should be noted that the weight of the " o f f i c i a l " ver-sion caused Herodotos to soften h i s assertions about the end of the tyranny and thus to weaken his attempted r e f u t a t i o n of that version: indeed, Herodotos was apparently confused about the importance of the tyrannicide; Hellanikos, who knew Herodotos, nevertheless adopted a version l i k e the 15 " o f f i c i a l " one. B. Herodotos 183 The most s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e of Herodotos 1 treatment of the t y r a n n i c i d e 16 i s i t s b r e v i t y . I n s t a r k c o n t r a s t t o Thucydides 1 lengthy and very v i v i d account, Herodotos disposes of the murder of Hipparchos i n one sentence (V.56.2): " A f t e r he had spoken of the dream, he dispatched the p r o c e s s i o n , during which he d i e d . " Instead of e x p l a i n i n g the motives or u n r a v e l l i n g the a c t i o n of the murder i t s e l f , Herodotos was more concerned w i t h Hipparchos 1 premonitive dream on the n i g h t before h i s death (V.56) and Herodotos' own 17 theory about the o r i g i n of the Gephyraioi, the genos of the murderers. These two elements are i r r e l e v a n t t o the subject a t hand, the f r e e i n g of Athens, but d i s c u s s i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e , the subject a t hand, i s a b s o l u t e l y minimal. I t i s somewhat p u z z l i n g why Herodotos should have f a i l e d to mention such i n t e r e s t i n g m a t e r i a l . One p o s s i b l e answer i s t h a t Herodotos wanted t o minimize the s i g n i f i -cance of t y r a n n i c i d e as much as he could i n order t o maximize the r o l e of the 18 A l k m a i o n i d a i i n the l i b e r a t i o n of Athens. By saying very l i t t l e about the t y r a n n i c i d e s and very much about the A l k m a i o n i d a i , Herodotos could p l a y down the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the murder f o r h i s reader. The b e n e f i c i a r i e s of t h i s r e p o r t i n g were the A l k m a i o n i d a i , who were c a s t i n a much more favourable l i g h t . Herodotos' i n t e r e s t i n promoting the A l k m a i o n i d a i i s apparent. The c l e a r e s t instance occurs at VI.121ff. where Herodotos combats the charge t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the infamous s h i e l d - s i g n a l a t Marathon 19 t h a t i m p l i c a t e d the f a m i l y as c o l l a b o r a t o r s w i t h Hippias and the P e r s i a n s . Herodotos a l l e g e s t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i were misotyrannoi who f l e d the P e i s i s t r a t i d tyranny TOV TT*<VT«< ^poVov . That i s , of course, f a l s e . He argues t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i "much more than Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n " f r e e d Athens, perhaps because he b e l i e v e d t h a t the f a m i l y ' s a c t i o n then wiped 184 21 out past or f u t u r e charges of treachery. Whether Herodotos b e l i e v e d what he was t o l d or constructed the in f o r m a t i o n himself i s of no consequence: the s p e c i a l p l e a d i n g on behalf of the Al k m a i o n i d a i i s unconvincing. I t neverthe-l e s s shows q u i t e w e l l to what extent Herodotos was well - d i s p o s e d toward the 22 A l k m a i o n i d a i . What Herodotos says about the c l a n of the Gephyraioi r e i n f o r c e s b e l i e f i n t h a t p r e d i s p o s i t i o n . For the sub-digression about the c l a n ' s o r i g i n 23 attempts t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e i r own t r a d i t i o n s . In the d i g r e s s i o n , Herodotos s t r e s s e s the foreignness of the Geph y r a i o i , ending the d i g r e s s i o n w i t h the i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t the c l a n , w i t h i t s separate temples and r i t e s , was s t i l l f o r e i g n and u n a s s i m i l a t e d among the Athenians. Far from being Athenians, the Gephyraioi were o r i g i n a l l y not even Greek, but Phoenician, a c l e a r disparage-24 ment given the Greek view of the Phoenicians. In c o n t r a s t , the Alk m a i o n i d a i were an o l d Athenian f a m i l y (V.62.2): ... 'AXK/U^VLSOLL T y<£Ve>5 €oVrej /HQ-rf/rftct , t . . Herodotos' t a c t i c i n the d i g r e s s i o n apparently was t o suggest t h a t the Gephyraioi should be considered l e s s p a t r i o t i c be-cause more f o r e i g n , while the Al k m a i o n i d a i should be thought of as more p a t r i o t i c because they were Athenian to the core (see below, t e x t ) . We must remember t h a t the d i g r e s s i o n concerning the o r i g i n s of the Gephyraioi i s com-p l e t e l y i r r e l e v a n t to the death of Hipparchos. Herodotos' c r i t i c i s m of the t y r a n n i c i d e s i s , however, weakened by a l a c k of c o n v i c t i o n about t h e i r importance. At VI.109.3 M i l t i a d e s urges Kallimachos, before the b a t t l e of Marathon, to make Athens f r e e and thus t o 26 equal the achievement of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n . Herodotos thus uses the t y r a n n i c i d e s as the benchmark f o r M i l t i a d e s to give Kallimachos, as i f the t y r a n n i c i d e s had a c t u a l l y f r e e d Athens. Two d i f f e r e n t concepts of the importance of the t y r a n n i c i d e present themselves i n Herodotos, showing t h a t 185 he was of two minds about them. His i n d e c i s i o n may have prevented Herodotos from arguing e x p l i c i t l y t h a t Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n d i d not f r e e Athens 27 as Thucydides d i d l a t e r . I t perhaps a l s o forced Herodotos t o denigrate them only o b l i q u e l y by o m i t t i n g the s t o r y of the murder almost e n t i r e l y from h i s w r i t i n g s and by suggesting t h a t the models of Athenian freedom were not r e a l l y Athenians at a l l . Perhaps to l e s s e n t h e i r importance even f u r t h e r , Herodotos e x t o l l e d the A l k m a i o n i d a i , d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r achievement e f f u s i v e l y . We note t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i , even i n t h e i r most g l o r i o u s days, never became 28 synonymous w i t h Athenian freedom. Two important f a c t s do, however, emerge from Herodotos' slender t r e a t -ment of the t y r a n n i c i d e s t h a t w i l l be of some importance l a t e r : Hipparchos was murdered during the Panathenaic p r o c e s s i o n , while he_ was d i s p a t c h i n g i t . C. H e l l a n i k o s and Other Versions H e l l a n i k o s was apparently the f i r s t spokesman f o r the view contested by 29 Herodotos. For the i n f o r m a t i o n on the P a r i a n Marble t h a t l i n k s Hipparchos' 30 death w i t h the freedom of Athens i s a t t r i b u t e d to him. I t was a g a i n s t t h a t equation t h a t Herodotos and Thucydides reacted. The equation of the Marble and of the Harmodios-skolia helps p a r t i a l l y to e x p l a i n Herodotos' motive f o r a t t a c k i n g the t y r a n n i c i d e s by s t r e s s i n g t h e i r f o r e i g n n e s s . For the equation makes the Athenians themselves e n t i r e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own l i b e r a t i o n and the t y r a n n i c i d e was i n c l u d e d i n t h a t n a t i o n a l i s m . I t had become important f o r the Athenians to ignore the p a r t i c -i p a t i o n of o u t s i d e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the Spartans, i n the l i b e r a t i o n , perhaps 186 31 because of the Peloponnesian War. Herodotos' e f f o r t s to dim the p a t r i o t i s m imputed to the t y r a n n i c i d e s were designed to take advantage of t h i s chauvin-ism and t o deprive the t y r a n n i c i d e s of some of the c r e d i t f o r t h e i r a c t . The Athenian b e l i e f i n s e l f - l i b e r a t i o n , a concept o b v i o u s l y much more a t t r a c t i v e to them than sharing c r e d i t w i t h the Spartans, accounts, too, f o r the g l a r i n g c h r o n o l o g i c a l e r r o r t h a t u n i t e d the t y r a n n i c i d e w i t h Athens' l i b e r a t i o n . Athens, which became the g r e a t e s t proponent of democracy i n Greece i n the f i f t h century, perhaps wished to b e l i e v e t h a t she had been a r d e n t l y demo-32 c r a t i c from the beginning. We have no evidence to a s c r i b e any v e r s i o n of the a c t u a l s l a y i n g of Hipparchos t o H e l l a n i k o s , but, i f he d i d re p o r t one, i t was probably s i m i l a r 33 to the " o f f i c i a l " v e r s i o n . There are, however, two e a r l i e r accounts of the m o t i v a t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s i n Thucydides t h a t the author apparently com-bined (see below, t e x t ) . Since both accounts depicted Hipparchos as t y r a n t , H e l l a n i k o s could have reported one or the other o r , perhaps, even a t h i r d . 1 8 7 3. Thucydides A. Introduction The purpose of Thucydides! digression concerning the,-murder of.:." • Hipparchos was to demonstrate that Hipparchos was not the tyrant of Athens when he was s l a i n . The argument i s two-fold: Hipparchos was not tyrant be-cause h i s brother Hippias was elder and so ruled; the tyrant-slayers were personally, not p o l i t i c a l l y , motivated to act and accomplished the murder, of Hipparchos only by accident. There are not many who would argue that Thucydides presents h i s argument i n a straightforward way or that the argument i s not weakened by the nature of the evidence adduced. Indeed, the manner i n which Thucydides argues h i s case implies that there was no conclusive proof about the succession. I have 34 already pointed out that the evidence of the Achtungsstele, which o Thucydides used to argue f o r Hippias 1 primacy, would be indisputable proof that Hippias was tyrant i f the s t e l e was what Thucydides believed i t to be. But the evidence was ambiguous and allowed for d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s about the succession. A c t u a l l y , Thucydides' account of the events leading to Hipparchos' death i s almost i r r e l e v a n t to the question of Hipparchos' status. I t s pertinence r e s u l t s only from Thucydides' a l l e g a t i o n that the tyrannicides acted from anger and passion, rather than to overthrow the tyranny ( i . e . , Hipparchos). Yet even t h i s suspect l i n e of argument i s b u i l t upon the very slender foundation of the reconstructed thoughts and emotions of the p r i n c i -pals at almost the precise moment that they were thinking and f e e l i n g them. The argument of the digr e s s i o n concerning Hipparchos' death i s complex, c i r -cuitous and i t s c r e d i b i l i t y i s correspondingly weakened. 188 Why d i d Thucydides not marshall stronger arguments? The answer i s prob-abl y because the evidence t h a t he could muster was i t s e l f not s t r o n g l y i n d i c -a t i v e of Hipparchos' s t a t u s nor were the events of the murder c l e a n l y r e -ported i n Thucydides' sources. Quite simply, Thucydides used what was a v a i l -a b le. The r e s u l t was weakness and, consequently, i t i s c l e a r t h a t Thucydides was more concerned to argue h i s p o i n t weakly than he was t o r e f r a i n from the muddied evidence or even to acknowledge the inadequacies of the evidence f o r h i s argument. Obviously, Thucydides was s t r o n g l y urged t o c o r r e c t the Athenian b e l i e f about Hipparchos and t h i s m o t i v a t i o n must have been created by stronger proofs than those he adduces i n the d i g r e s s i o n . But on what ba s i s would t h i s m o t i v a t i o n be founded? One foundation must have been common sense: the t y r a n n i c i d e s d i d not l i b e r a t e Athens when they k i l l e d Hipparchos; the tyranny continued f o r four years u n t i l the Spartans and the A l k m a i o n i d a i l i b e r a t e d Athens. One l o g i c a l e x t r a p o l a t i o n from t h i s knowledge would be t h a t , since Athens was not l i b e r a t e d when Hipparchos was k i l l e d , he was not the t y r a n t when he was k i l l e d . I f Thucydides was committed t o t h a t l i n e of argument, he q u i t e probably j o i n e d i t w i t h the evidence a v a i l a b l e to him, the e a r l i e r accounts of Hipparchos' murder, and r e i n t e r p r e t e d i t . I n s i g h t i n t o these accounts was enhanced by Thucydides' adamantine b e l i e f i n the l a c k of p o l i t i c a l meaning i n the murder; previous accounts thus showed him t h a t the t y r a n n i c i d e was e r o t i c a l l y , not p o l i t i c a l l y , i n s p i r e d . But these accounts, which comprise the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of f a c t s i n Thucydides' r e p o r t , only par-t i a l l y accommodate h i s i n s i g h t , f o r they were o b v i o u s l y composed w i t h Hipparchos i n mind as t y r a n t (hence Hipparchos' arche). The r e s u l t of the imperfect combination i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y , r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and near i r r e l e v a n c y i n the d i g r e s s i o n . Thucydides' mistake was to use accounts t h a t h e l d Hipparchos as t y r a n t t o draw the opposite c o n c l u s i o n about Hipparchos' 189 s t a t u s . We might r i g h t l y conclude t h a t the d i g r e s s i o n i s i n an unfinished' s t a t e as we read i t . This examination of Thucydides' d i g r e s s i o n w i l l be i n two p a r t s : moti-v a t i o n s of the t y r a n n i c i d e s and the act of murder i t s e l f . L a t e r accounts, such as t h a t found i n the A t h . P o l . , which must have been i n f l u e n c e d by Thucydides, w i l l be introduced only as they d i f f e r w i t h him on p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t s . I s h a l l not t r y here to s e t t l e the question of the purpose of the d i g r e s s i o n i n i t s context, a problem r e a l l y concerning Athens' h i s t o r y i n the 35 l a t e f i f t h century. Of course we must proceed b e l i e v i n g t h a t Thucydides was not unduly i n f l u e n c e d by any contemporary p a r a l l e l s t h a t he may have d i s -36 covered l a t e r t o a l t e r h i s o b j e c t i v i t y . B. M o t i v a t i o n Thucydides' main a t t a c k a g a i n s t the t y r a n n i c i d e s concerns t h e i r motiva-t i o n f o r murdering Hipparchos (1.20; VI.54). Thucydides a s s e r t s t h a t , con-t r a r y to the popular Athenian n o t i o n t h a t Hipparchos was murdered because he was the t y r a n t , the murder was a c t u a l l y a toA/*m** itVpo/rtKip V ^vv-fwytotv / > 37 (VI.54.1), an ocAotycoxos ^oAytc* eK TOG TT*tp«)(pT^'^oCj; (VI. 59. A ) . Thucydides emphasizes the e r r o r of the Athenians, suggesting t h a t he thought t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s ' m o t i v a t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e t o 38 d i s p r o o f . But there are a c t u a l l y two fo r c e s i n f l u e n c i n g the m o t i v a t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s i n Thucydides - a p e r s o n a l , emotional one and a more l o g i -c a l , p o l i t i c a l one. These f o r c e s are confused i n Thucydides' e x p l a n a t i o n and c o n t r a d i c t Thucydides' a p p r a i s a l of the t y r a n n i c i d e as a ^vi/z.^^L<K . 190 Two motives are given in Thucydides' digression, both ostensibly person-al in nature, but affecting the tyrannicides differently. Aristogeiton f i r s t plotted to "loose the tyranny" after Hipparchos propositioned Harmodios. Harmodios was <*>f>lc -ofAcKLacj A.«f*.TTpa<^ and Aristogeiton his e/o°<arT:*j$ . When Hipparchos made advances to Harmodios and was rejected, the youth took the story to Aristogeiton, whose response was as follows: o <5e 6^U>rt.<w?5 au * '1 "* st \ t •» c > \ * < I i f / A . '' T o < u r o ^ €.TTLOovX^irec eoouj u>£ « r r © xyjj vn^^euvis ^t-uja^tof *k*cci*A»*-«v v^f r v ^ v v t o c . In accordance with the i n i t i a l pronouncement of Thucydides, Aristogeiton's response was swift and unreflective, i.e. , thoroughly emotional. Yet then Aristogeiton's behaviour diverges from Thucydides' belief in i t s emotional nature: Aristogeiton attributes his potential injury not to Hipparchos, but to the condition of tyranny at Athens, a very thoughtful, even intellectual 40 extension. This reflection makes Aristogeiton*s motive p o l i t i c a l and fl a t l y contradicts Thucydides' appraisal of the murder. For although Aristogeiton seems motivated to act from fear of losing Harmodios to the c f v v e^us of Hipparchos, he is able to restrain himself, coolly plotting the 41 best way to loose the tyranny by means of his existing resources. The mur-der of Hipparchos thus becomes something more than "accident". The second motive concerns Harmodios almost exclusively and again con-tradicts Thucydides' appraisal of the tyrannicide. We note that Aristogeiton is apparently ready to act, but f a i l s to do so until Harmodios is motivated. Twice rejected by Harmodios, Hipparchos plans "secretly" to sully his reputa-42 tion. He then causes Harmodios' sister to be disqualified as a kanephoros 43 for "a certain procession ... because of her unworthiness". The insult naturally affects Harmodios as a slur upon his honour, and he is predictably 44 angered. Aristogeiton, according to Thucydides, "became even angrier". 191 Nonetheless, in spite of Harmodios' anger and Aristogeiton's increased anger, the two men plot to postpone their act until the day of the Panathenaic pro-cession, calculating that on that day they would be free from suspicion i f 45 they were under arms. Even after the second goad by Hipparchos, neither tyrannicide's anger is unbridled. Thucydides recognized that only one force was at work on the tyranni-cides: Aristogeiton was moved to act from outright sexual love of Harmodios («^owrt» < ^ 5 ) i Harmodios by outrage (vSpLO-fL&voc) that was nevertheless pro-46 duced from Hipparchos1 erotically inspired score-settling. Two motives are apportioned, one to each tyrannicide i t seems, with the implication that, cumulatively, they produced Hipparchos' murder. The apportionment of motives is suspicious and entails both problems of delay in action and others that deprive the account of a measure of plausi-47 b i l i t y . For instance, the lovers, Harmodios and Aristogeiton, do not com-municate: i n i t i a l l y Aristogeiton plots alone; Harmodios is not included in the original plot. Only after his sister's insult is Harmodios sufficiently moved to act, although he has played into his lover's enemy's hands. We note that Aristogeiton is not directly affected by the slight to Harmodios' si s -ter, but is connected only through his love of Harmodios. Yet even though Hipparchos was the agent of their grief, the tyrannicides aim f i r s t at Hippias, not Hipparchos. There are reasons to think that the motives given in Thucydides' digres-sion were separate before he wrote his account and to believe that both mo-tives given may have been reconstructed to explain the tyrannicide. Proof for two motives for the tyrannicides is found in the Hipparchos and in the Ath.Pol. The Hipparchos (229b-c) is most informative: X^yfit**. Si urro 'CtJv' 192 ov c5c * o(- v r o X A o c ujy 0>jo-*v} 6cu ri?v xyS taeApTjs A t c ^ w v 1:175 K*V>\0opL<*5 y etreV c o v c ^ ^ X A * xc,v ^tevC/ip^toScev j^ovevuc TT<K.LSL t^*- r<o0 ^ t < r r < ^ V < 7 ^ Ko<\ TTgrr^i. SO/CG-^L. vniK6iVoVi I t i s u n l i k e l y that some author a f t e r Thucydides, but before [ p l a t o ] , saw c l e a r to disentangle what Thucydides purported to be one motivation and that each motive then 48 gained partisans. We note that "most people" thought that the i n s u l t to Harmodios 1 s i s t e r resulted i n the tyrannicide and that i s the motive that appears nearest i n time to Hipparchos' death i n Thucydides. This passage o f f e r s evidence that two versions of the motivation were given before Thucydides and that he incorporated both into h i s digression. In the Ath.Pol. (18.2), Thessalos has taken over the r o l e of t y r a n n i c a l provocateur, but even so i t s author has chosen to recount the version given 49 by "the many". Thessalos became enamoured of Harmodios, was rebuffed and then prevented Harmodios' s i s t e r from carrying the basket, saying that the 50 , boy was effeminate. Both Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n were moved •n-p«'cce*.v "C»jv np°i§<-V . A r i s t o g e i t o n functions i n t h i s version as a mere name; h i s motivation ,is unimportant. A e l i a n (Var. Hi s t . 11.8) makes Hipparchos the lone i n s u l t e r : ^X.'mr^pX^'S *Vvjpe 6r\ XJTTO Cfi\pp.o&ta\r *cu\. y ^ Q t o - c - o ^ t t t o V o s OXL « V ToT^ TfotV*.By V<*CO t j K O f t c c n x l . K«Vo\jV Z~vj u> K * r x r o V v e y * d < / xov err(-)(u>p*-ov o v K e c ^ o r e . z*/* otS&\$>jY T ^ v Ap/^oocou OJ<: pi.-r} o " < r « < V •. The issue once again i s the i n s u l t to Harmodios' s i s t e r and here the lawless-ness of Hipparchos' r e f u s a l i s stressed. We note the s i m i l a r i t y of language between A e l i a n U^LXV OUOU.V"^ and Thucydides ( i t * , r o f*\Yj o i J j c * V £L\/e(u\: i t i s possible that A e l i a n , who does not mention Aristogeiton's motivation except as i t resu l t e d from the i n s u l t to Harmodios' s i s t e r , pre-193 serves a source t h a t , i n i t s o l d e r form, was used at l e a s t i n p a r t by Thucydides, i . e . , the account about m o t i v a t i o n spoken by "the many". The " l o v e - t r i a n g l e " theme w i t h i t s s t r e s s on A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s pique and a n x i e t y over h i s l o v e r was not g e n e r a l l y accepted as the m o t i v a t i o n f o r the 51 murder of Hipparchos, as we have seen. Even i n Thucydides' account of the murder, Hipparchos' a s s a s s i n a t i o n was the d i r e c t r e s u l t of the i n s u l t . That, i n any case, A r i s t o g e i t o n acted out of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r Harmodios can have given r i s e to the motive a l l e g e d of A r i s t o g e i t o n i n Thucydides. Apparently, the o l d e s t v e r s i o n of the m o t i v a t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e made the i n s u l t to Harmodios' s i s t e r the cause f o r a c t i o n . Of the two motives mentioned i n Thucydides, A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s was q u i t e l i k e l y r e c o n s t r u c t e d : f o r the motive apportioned to A r i s t o g e i t o n d e r i v e s from h i s attachment t o Harmodios. I t seems more s o p h i s t i c a t e d than the motive assigned to Harmodios because i t i s a b s t r a c t : i t i s constructed upon the t h r e a t of i n j u r y , not upon a c t u a l i n j u r y . A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s love f o r Harmodios(and h i s subsequent death because of h i s devotion^was q u i t e p o s s i b l y considered noble, i d e a l ; h i s .response - t o end the tyranny, not Hipparchos, the r e a l t h r e a t - i s removed from emotion, i n t e l l e c t u a l and q u i t e p o s s i b l y developed from p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n about the t y r a n n i c i d e , which may 52 have been v o i c e d before Thucydides composed h i s d i g r e s s i o n . A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s m o t i v a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y subject to the charge of r e -c o n s t r u c t i o n because, i n Thucydides, i t r e s t s upon the mental and emotional processes of the t y r a n n i c i d e s as they were t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g . No r e l i a b l e informant can have reported t o Thucydides A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s immediate thoughts and responses, yet Thucydides was c o n f i d e n t enough to supply them f o r the reader: " A r i s t o g e i t o n was thoroughly l o v e s i c k and feared l e s t the power of Hipparchos g a i n Harmodios f o r c i b l y . . . . A r i s t o g e i t o n became even a n g r i e r . . . . 194 They (sc_. the t y r a n n i c i d e s ) expected others to j o i n them i n f r e e i n g the s t a t e ... they were a f r a i d and thought they had been betrayed...." This recon-s t r u c t i o n should be a t t r i b u t e d to Thucydides, s i n c e here, as throughout h i s h i s t o r y , he deduces thoughts and emotions from r e s u l t s and from h i s general 53 estimate of human behaviour. Both motives given i n Thucydides resemble aspects of t o p o i i n v o l v i n g t y r a n n i c a l h y b r i s and must have been conceived w i t h Hipparchos i n mind as t y r a n t . A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s f e a r of Hipparchos' power could have d e r i v e d from a topos a k i n to Otanes' p o r t r a y a l of a tyrant' '(Hdt. I l l . 80) : vcyn«ce< cfi K<-V££t TT^-efitoc K « C f3t«r-<c. >^w«.<.K<_5 k r ^ c V e t x& °cKf>czrou_£ . Chaxreas, speak-ing t o the assembled Athenians a t Samos, p a i n t s a l y i n g p i c t u r e of what i s t r a n s p i r i n g a t home under the Four Hundred (Thuc. V I I I . 7 4 . 3 ) : .. .TTAv)¥'*~5 ' A r i s t o g e i t o n thus f e a r s t h a t Hipparchos w i l l a c t as t y r a n t s a c t to have h i s way w i t h Harmodios. Harmodios i s a f f e c t e d much more d i r e c t l y by Hipparchos' t y r a n n i c a l h y b r i s . Both Hippias and Hipparchos turned the g i r l away from performing the honourable duty of c a r r y i n g the basket because the g i r l was "unworthy". Ac-cording t o Philoch o r o s (FrGrHist 328, F r . 8 ) , unmarried g i r l s of repute car-r i e d the basket ( «<i i ^ i u i ^ r L TtaipQivoc. ) . I t has been suggested t h a t Harmodios' s i s t e r was i n s u l t e d because she was of i n s u f f i c i e n t repute or 56 because, as a Gephyraian, she was too f o r e i g n to p a r t i c i p a t e . Both reasons f a i l : Demosthenes (59.113) shows t h a t t^cwp.^ could be possessed by f r e e women and Aristophanes' L y s i s t r a t a 647 seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t o r d i n a r y women 57 could be b a s k e t - c a r r i e r s ; the l a t t e r reason given i s i m p l a u s i b l e because who would know b e t t e r than the Gephyraioi whether or not t h e i r daughters and s i s t e r s c ould c a r r y the basket? For the i n s u l t t o work, the g i r l must have 195 had every e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t she would c a r r y the basket as other g i r l s d i d . The i n s u l t was probably d i r e c t e d against the g i r l ' s c h a s t i t y , the a l l e g a t i o n being t h a t she was not a 7T=^ o ed • Such a s l u r would r u i n the f a m i l y , f o r i t would destroy both the g i r l ' s m a r r i a g e a b i l i t y and Harmodios' honour. We note t h a t t y r a n n i c a l h y b r i s a g a i n s t women f r e q u e n t l y i s sexual i n nature and 58 such a ser i o u s slander would demand r e t r i b u t i o n from a male r e l a t i v e . A comparison between Thucydides' s t o r y of the i n s u l t and the s t o r y of Megakles' daughter (Hdt. 1.61) provides some i n t e r e s t i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s . In the l a t t e r s t o r y , the t y r a n t ( P e i s i s t r a t o s ) i n s u l t s a woman s e x u a l l y by hav-3 V f , ing sex w i t h her u n n a t u r a l l y ( o v K«xs< v o ^ c o v ), The i n s u l t r e f l e c t s on her male p r o t e c t o r (Megakles), who avenges the i n s u l t by l o o s i n g the tyranny. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t both i n s u l t e r s are of the same f a m i l y , t h a t both times the i n s u l t occurred a t Athens and both times the t y r a n t p a i d f o r h i s h y b r i s . The g i r l i s unnamed because the honour at issue i s r e a l l y not her own but of the men in v o l v e d : i t i s her sex t h a t i s important, not her iden-59 t i t y . Thus, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t both motives given f o r the t y r a n n i c i d e were re c o n s t r u c t e d from t o p o i about t y r a n t s . The a c t u a l f a c t s of the t y r a n n i c i d e could be as simple as Herodotos makes them: Hipparchos was k i l l e d while d i s -p atching the Panathenaic p r o c e s s i o n , cause unknown. Quite p o s s i b l y the moti-v a t i o n s f o r the t y r a n n i c i d e were the r e s u l t s of patterned guesses p r o j e c t e d i n t o the past , i n t o a r e l a t i v e v o i d of sure i n f o r m a t i o n . However t h a t may be, we can say w i t h some degree of c e r t a i n t y t h a t the o l d e r (because l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d , l e s s a b s t r a c t ) v e r s i o n of the m o t i v a t i o n 60 was the i n s u l t to Harmodios' s i s t e r t h a t caused the youth to a c t . The sec-ond motive branched o f f from the f i r s t perhaps i n order to e x p l a i n 61 A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s death. Perhaps Harmodios' a c t i o n because of h i s s i s t e r had 196 already become less i n t e l l i g i b l e to some. At any rate, the "bare bones" of the older version were probably as follows: a) Hipparchos made advances to Harmodios. b) . Harmodios rebuffed him; the tyrant sought retribution. c) Hipparchos then insulted Harmodios1 sister, saying that she was not a virgin. d) Harmodios became angered, sought revenge. e) Aristogeiton joined Harmodios. The question now becomes: Why did Thucydides not choose between the two motives given instead of giving two? Quite possibly i t was because Thucydides used both accounts, i.e., a l l the evidence available to him, to prove his own view. He realized that, in both cases, the motivation was rooted in eros and that the motives given did not specifically involve Hipparchos' tyranny. He combined the two motives current, the popular one and the more philosophical one, emphasizing their emotional aspects. It was plain to him that Hipparchos was murdered because of an emotionally-triggered chain of events, the haphazard nature of which was perhaps indicated to him by the fact that even in the "popular" account Hippias was the primary target (see below, text). Thucydides thus c r i t i c i z e d the Athenians on two fronts for f a i l i n g to realize what he himself saw so plainly from the reports they 62 themselves gave. Thucydides turned both accounts back upon the Athenians. Thucydides' use of earlier material that depicted Hipparchos as tyrant w i l l help explain some of the inconsistencies in his account as well as the polemical attitude he adopted toward the Athenians for their erroneous views. For there are several places in Thucydides' account that contradict his 63 assertion that Hipparchos was not tyrant when murdered. Because he was thoroughly convinced of the merits of his argument that Hipparchos was not 197 t y r a n t when murdered and of the m e r i t s of h i s i n s i g h t i n t o the r e p o r t t h a t the Athenians themselves spoke, Thucydides could be r e p r o a c h f u l w i t h the Athenians and apparently ignore the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s he may have thought minor, completely unimportant or i n no need of adjustment. Or, as seems l i k e l i e r , i t may be t h a t Thucydides intended to c o r r e c t the problems l a t e r 64 i n h i s f i n a l d r a f t . C. The Act A f t e r Harmodios' s i s t e r had been i n s u l t e d and Harmodios was s u f f i c i e n t l y motivated t o a c t , the p l a n to k i l l the t y r a n t was f i n a l l y implemented. Thucydides says t h a t there were c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s , but he does not c l a r i f y 65 t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n . He r e p o r t s t h a t the t y r a n n i c i d e s expected the Athenian bystanders to j o i n spontaneously w i t h them i n a b i d f o r freedom, but then we hear nothing of t h a t b i d . The i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t the t y r a n n i c i d e s wished t o o b t a i n freedom f o r Athens must have r e f l e c t e d favourably upon them and t h e i r 66 a l l e g e d co-conspirators,' whether or not i t was t r u e . We a r r i v e a t the controversy i n v o l v i n g the number of c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s , a p o i n t of d i s p u t e between Thucydides and the author of the A t h . P o l . Thucydides s t a t e s t h a t , f o r s a f e t y ' s sake, the number of c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s 67 was kept s m a l l . But the author of the A t h . P o l . , i n what appears to be a s p e c i f i c c o n t r a d i c t i o n of Thucydides, says t h a t there were many co-68 c o n s p i r a t o r s . Thucydides has been c r i t i c i z e d f o r r a t i o n a l i z i n g the number of c o n s p i r a t o r s , while the estimate found i n the A t h . P o l . has been defended 69 by some as accurate. 198 A c t u a l l y , both estimates were probably r a t i o n a l i z e d and t h i s r a t i o n a l -i z a t i o n was made p o s s i b l e f o r both authors because of a l a c k of c o n s i s t e n t , i n d i s p u t a b l e evidence about the conspiracy. Thucydides s t a t e d t h a t few were i n v o l v e d probably because, i n the a c t u a l commission of the crime, only one other person was in v o l v e d - the man who Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n thought 70 betrayed them when he was t a l k i n g to Hi p p i a s . When Thucydides says t h a t , a f t e r Hipparchos 1 death, Hippias "picked out those he thought were g u i l t y and anybody c a r r y i n g a dagger", he i m p l i e s t h a t Hippias acted a r b i t r a r i l y about h i s choices using judgement and c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, not sure knowledge. No one had acted w i t h Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n when t h e i r daggers f e l l , a t 71 l e a s t no one was known t o , even by H i p p i a s . Thucydides here s t r u c k a t a f i c t i o n t h a t portrayed the Athenians as a c t i v e i n the co n s p i r a c y , although he probably d i d so without apparent mal-i c e . For Thucydides conceded t h a t Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n thought t h a t the Athenians would j o i n them when they acted against Hipparchos. The f a c t t h a t the Athenians remained q u i e t was not turned to c r i t i c i s m by Thucydides inasmuch as he i m p l i e s t h a t there was a good reason f o r the Athenians to stay q u i e t , H i p pias' preparedness (VI.55.3): ov ou^'iv K ^ t ^ ^ e c V / ' l o t / d K e t -ITOX4 jLitrrKc- ro n*<fi«)(p>)pL< pai&Lu>£ r-^v c ^ « v w e ^ ; € t J.-irtr*t^>^o$ /t«v ev TTJ7 ofp^ -*i 4*/v °<TTe UoiVd ^ )<< 'JxroS ofe ^ u o ^ ^ o v K <* erc°( re> «A A<* K«CC dt<* t o rxpo — rc^cvjfj/VTjcles rc'Zjyw.**' ?ro\tr=<t$ foSepoV..., Thucydides apparently b e l i e v e d t h a t the Athenians would have acted i f given a proper chance and perhaps t h a t 72 the m i s c a r r i a g e of the t y r a n n i c i d e was l i n k e d to the Athenian quietude. The author of the A t h . P o l , may have c o r r e c t e d Thucydides because he j o i n e d the numbers k i l l e d i n the aftermath of the murder w i t h the conspiracy. For him, Hippias' " r e i g n of t e r r o r " was a simple case of punishment f o r a 73 crime: many were k i l l e d because many were i n v o l v e d . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t 199 the author opted f o r an e a r l i e r , more popular, account t h a t had many Athenians p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the attempted overthrow of the tyranny, perhaps as 74 an extension of an account t h a t made the Athenians t h e i r own l i b e r a t o r s . He may have perceived e r r o r i n Thucydides and t r i e d t o r e f u t e i t , but i t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t the author had access t o b e t t e r i n f o r m a t i o n than Thucydides, ^ e s p e c i a l l y ' i n l i g h t o f T h u c y d i d e s 1 d e f i n i t e a s s e r t i o n t h a t , t h e ' 75 " "* " c o n s p i r a t o r s were few i n number. The only other person to have entered i n t o the a f f a i r while i t was o c c u r r i n g was the nameless confederate who the t y r a n n i c i d e s thought betrayed them. We see t h a t h i s only f u n c t i o n i n the account was to d e f l e c t the t y r a n -n i c i d e s away from Hippias. The unnamed c o n s p i r a t o r , however, emerges only i n the thoughts of the t y r a n n i c i d e s and then only moments before they met t h e i r own end (VI. 57.2).: "And when they saw one of t h e i r c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s t a l k i n g f a m i l i a r l y w i t h Hippias (for he was easy of access t o a l l ) , they feared and thought they had been betrayed and were w i t h i n an ace of being taken. Thus (ow ) they wanted t o exact revenge, i f they c o u l d , from the one who had brought them to g r i e f and on whose account they had r i s k e d a l l . " For the nameless c o n s p i r a t o r t o be more than a r a t i o n a l c ontrivance to ex-p l a i n why Hippias was not atta c k e d , we must accept e i t h e r t h a t A r i s t o g e i t o n l a t e r d i v u l g e d h i s thoughts to someone who took them down then and there or t h a t some t h i r d person e x i s t e d who saw the events u n f o l d , guessed the thoughts of the t y r a n n i c i d e s and noted them. Both a l t e r n a t i v e s are weak; 76 q u i t e probably the unnamed c o n s p i r a t o r was a figment. Another i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n the d i g r e s s i o n r e i n f o r c e s t h i s assessment. According to Thucydides, Hippias was Trxtrtv £onfDoo-o6o$ i n s p i t e of h i s guard of doryphoroi. The main i n c o n s i s t e n c y , however, i n v o l v e s Thucydides' reason why the Athenians d i d not a c t to overthrow the regime of Hippias (VI.55 .3) 200 . . . T o ^paxrep^ys (fvVTrfQes rccs^v T r o X c T X t j fie Sepoy/ . Hippias i s both f e a r f u l to the c i t i z e n r y and easy of access. The phrase TT^e-cV €.unpovad~o<j seems to have originated as an obiter dictum to explain how the unnamed con-sp i r a t o r could approach Hippias to betray the tyrannicides and prevent them from k i l l i n g Hippias; the r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n about the Athenian i n a b i l i t y to drive Hippias out was Thucydides 1 (see below, t e x t ) . That Hippias was approached at a l l i s an example of r e v i s i o n of the o r i g i n a l account by Thucydides or, perhaps, another source. Lang noticed that, although Hipparchos provoked the anger of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n , 77 the tyrannicides set out f i r s t to murder Hippias. Hipparchos was not the primary target and was approached by the tyrannicides only a f t e r Hippias was thought unapproachable. Lang pointed out that the f a c t that Hippias was t a r -geted f i r s t should have served Thucydides as proof that Hippias, not Hipparchos, was the tyrant, e s p e c i a l l y since A r i s t o g e i t o n was aiming to end 78 the tyranny. Thucydides 1 single-mindedness about the overriding motivation may, however, have blunted h i s perceptions of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Hippias seems to have been forced into the cause-and-effect sequence leading to Hipparchos' death by an author who wished to have the tyrant-slayers attack Hippias f i r s t . The reasons for t h i s are obvious: the tyrannicides were meant to attack Hippias as the e v i l tyrant-who-was-to-be. The story of the attack on Hippias was l i k e l y interpolated into the ear-l i e r t r a d i t i o n and that i n t e r p o l a t i o n occurred well a f t e r h i s expulsion from Athens. In f a c t , the story of the tyrannicide w i l l probably have been re-v i s e d a f t e r Marathon - when, we cannot say - a f t e r Hippias had returned to 79 A t t i c a with the Persians. Hippias' r o l e on the day of Hipparchos' murder was quite l i k e l y reconstructed on the basis of the most recent memories of him as an e v i l tyrant who deserved to die or because, to another author, the 201 tyrannicides had aimed at liberating Athens and so must have designated him primary target. In retrospect, Hippias' memory was far more pernicious than Hipparchos' and so the tyrannicides, patriots who gave their utmost that Athens might be free - the intent of dead men allows for free reconstruction^—-were detoured from Hipparchos to Hippias. They arrived back on Hipparchos1 track after they - no fault of theirs - were deflected from k i l l i n g the tyrant by the imputed treachery of the unnamed conspirator. The interposi-tion of Hippias between cause and effect explains how Hipparchos was k i l l e d , although Hippias really deserved to die. Hippias 1 relative unimportance to the earlier unrevised tradition of the episode is indicated by the confusion about his position and activity on the day of the Panathenaic procession. Thucydides (VI.57.1) puts Hippias ... E^ O^TJV TTGjfArTr*) $ npa c^VoiL • Hipparchos was by the Leokoreion doing we are not told what (VI.57.3). These statements conflict with Thucydides' own ear-l i e r pronouncement about Hipparchos, that he was rr«pL -ce> Aei*M«Y>*cov tc<Xov-/u.£Vov r>7• v«t Q-r)vuLKrf V rrof.TTr]V St't KO<TpLavvz:<_ (1.20.2); with Herodotos' statement that Hipparchos was dispatching the Panathenaic procession when he was murdered (V.56.2: .. . €Tre/u.y»€ x^rv-rro/ucn^ }iv xr\ reXet/r^ ); and with the report in the Ath.Pol. that Hipparchos was dispatching the procession when he was murdered (18.3: row ^ r^rn-oya^ov cTc«KecyUoi?Vrotrro^rrryY TT<x.p)x. To /\euncop&loV <xrrdK~L~€iv<*v ) . Hippias' variable position during the proces-sion indicates that the tradition had fixed none for him: Thucydides may have revised his statement in the digression in Book VI a about 'who was dispatching the procession when i t occurred to him that mar-shalling the procession signified some status for Hippias. Thucydides rea-soned that Hippias belonged in the Kerameikos ordering up the contingents for 202 the parade. Thucydides seems to have a l t e r e d his thinking about the proces-sion between the time he had written 1.20.2 and the time he wrote VI.57.1: i t must have been important to i d e n t i f y Hippias with the dispatch of the 80 Panathenaic procession. The uncertainty about Hippias' p o s i t i o n during the procession emerges once again i n the Ath.Pol., whose author seems aware of the problem of status f o r Hippias. If Hippias was to have a status equal to the author's concept of a shared tyranny, Hippias must.assume a place of importance on the route equal i n s i g n i f i c a n c e to Hipparchos'. Thus, Hippias was situated upon the Akropolis r e c e i v i n g the procession that was dispatched by Hipparchos. In the Ath.Pol., Hippias obtained a status v i s - a - v i s the procession that b a l -81 anced Hipparchos'. Thucydides adjusted Hippias' p o s i t i o n to conform to his own ideas. Hipparchos' p o s i t i o n near the Leokoreion was unchangeable; Hippias' p o s i t i o n could, however, vary since there was no f i x e d t r a d i t i o n . Thucydides placed Hippias behind Hipparchos marshalling the procession because, to Thucydides, he was senior to Hipparchos and must have occupied a senior p o s i t i o n on the route. Thucydides i n f e r r e d Hippias' p o s i t i o n from what he believed about him 82 as the tyrant. The "core" account obviously assigned no p o s i t i o n to Hippias because i t was i r r e l e v a n t . o This same si l e n c e about Hippias on the day of the murder allowed Thucydides (or another) to attach doryphoroi to him, causing yet another con-t r a d i c t i o n . Doryphoroi were the hallmarks of a l l tyrants and Hipparchos, 83 according both to Thucydides and to the author of the Ath.Pol., had them. The attachment of doryphoroi to Hippias accords with Thucydides' reasoned opinion that Hippias must have commanded them for a long time to have been able to keep co n t r o l of Athens a f t e r Hipparchos' death; the attachment does 2 0 3 not, however, accord w i t h Hippias' r e p u t a t i o n as rr<*cru\* tvnjooffoooj-. The same c o n s i d e r a t i o n s about balance may have been i n p l a y : since Hipparchos had doryphoroi, they must a l s o be a t t r i b u t e d to Hippias. One of the most c o n t r o v e r s i a l aspects of the p l o t concerns the manner i n which the murder was accomplished. Thucydides (VI.57.1) s t a t e s t h a t Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n went forward to the deed e x o v r € S r <* eXXe*'~"' 84 n pieTc-x. . L a t e r , a f t e r the murder, Hippias hoped to d i s c o v e r the c u l p r i t s by exposing those men who were c a r r y i n g e n c h e i r i d i a as w e l l as the r e g u l a r equipment of s h i e l d and spear. But the author of the A t h . P o l . (18.4) de-c l a r e d t h a t only l a t e r , under the democracy, d i d those who marched i n the Panathenaic p r o c e s s i o n c a r r y s h i e l d and spear. The author s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n t r a d i c t s Thucydides. Some sc h o l a r s have seen i n t h i s disagreement the signs of debate between 85 the "many" and the "few". For i f , as the author of A t h . P o l . a s s e r t s , the Athenians had no armament, they could o b v i o u s l y not be h e l d accountable f o r 86 f a i l i n g t o r i s e up a g a i n s t the t y r a n t , Hippias and the s t o r y of the d i s a r -mament of the demos, wholly u n f l a t t e r i n g , l o s e s c r e d i b i l i t y . But the r e a l i s s u e was probably not p o l i t i c a l a t a l l t o begin w i t h . For the question debated may have been simply whether the Athenians were armed or not i n 514. Munch pointed out t h a t the d i g r e s s i o n of Thucydides c o n t r a s t s Hippias' calm i n the face of extreme danger w i t h the confusion and u l t i m a t e m i s c a r r i a g e of the p l a n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s , a theme developed, but not i n -87 vented, by Thucydides. The disarming i n c i d e n t shows both the calmness and cleverness of Hippias and Thucydides' approval of Hippias i s expressed i n even more s o l i d terms when Thucydides recounts Hippias' statesmanlike f o r e -88 s i g h t i n arranging a withdrawal from Athens. But because Thucydides had a l r e a d y excused the Athenians from r i s i n g up, the Athenians i n the s t o r y of 204 the disarmament were meant to be played o f f against Thucydides' p o r t r a y a l of Hippias, not necess a r i l y to be r i d i c u l e d . The anecdote about the disarmament i n Thucydides has been recognized as 89 s i m i l a r to one involving P e i s i s t r a t o s i n the Ath.Pol. (15.4). Af t e r the b a t t l e of Pallene, P e i s i s t r a t o s pretended to hold an assembly near the Theseion, to which the Athenians came and duly disarmed. P e i s i s t r a t o s then softened h i s vo'ice to become inaudible and drew complaints from the assembly. By common consent, the assembly was removed to a plade with better acoustics and P e i s i s t r a t o s ' servants gathered up the arms of the Athenians and stored them away. Thus, the Athenians were disarmed by P e i s i s t r a t o s shortly a f t e r h i s f i n a l return to power. This story about P e i s i s t r a t o s combines two of h i s a t t r i b u t e s - general cleverness and cleverness i n speaking. In the story of h i s self-wounding (Hdt. 1.59; Ath.Pol. 14.1) to obtain a guard and i n the story of Phye-Athena (Hdt. 1.60.4; Ath.Pol. 14.4), who reintroduced P e i s i s t r a t o s into Athens from e x i l e , P e i s i s t r a t o s i s portrayed as consummately clever, outwitting the 90 Athenians. He also acquired a reputation f or demagogy that caused the 91 Athenians l a t e r to fear such speakers. But, we ask, who kept these s t o r i e s ? Obviously, the Athenians, who would c l e a r l y not be i n c l i n e d to per-petuate u n f l a t t e r i n g s t o r i e s about themselves, e s p e c i a l l y about t h e i r stupid-i t y . These s t o r i e s of the cleverness of the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i must have been kept by the Athenians, who were themselves renowned for wit among the Greeks, 92 to explain how they could have been ruled t y r a n n i c a l l y . P e i s i s t r a t o s was the c l e v e r e s t of the clever Athenians, as he would have to have been to have ruled over the Athenians. The disarming-anecdote was designed to explain the i n a c t i v i t y of the Athenians during the long period of tyranny, a f a c t that 93 must have caused the Athenians no small measure of embarassment. 205 The author of the A t h . P o l . a t t r i b u t e d the disarming t o P e i s i s t r a t o s , but Thucydides a t t r i b u t e d i t t o H i p p i a s . We note t h a t the author of the A t h . P o l . 94 terms P e i s i s t r a t o s ' a c t i o n "the disarming of the demos". He was apparently s t a t i n g h i s b e l i e f t h a t the Athenians were without weapons e a r l y on i n the tyranny, s i n c e , i n f e r e n t i a l l y (although not n e c e s s a r i l y a c t u a l l y ) , the Athenians under arms would have posed a continuous t h r e a t t o the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i . Since only under the democracy were arms r e s t o r e d to the people, men were not allowed to march i n the Panathenaic p r o c e s s i o n under arms u n t i l a f t e r the democracy supplanted the tyranny. Whether or not the statement i n the A t h . P o l . about the p r a c t i c e of c a r r y i n g arms i n the proces-s i o n i s c o r r e c t , to be c o n s i s t e n t , the demos could not be allowed the use of arms by the t y r a n t s at any time, r e l i g i o u s or otherwise, since the Athenians 95 would have r i s e n up. Thucydides was confined by a more l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n : how could the t y r a n n i c i d e s go about armed without a t t r a c t i n g s u s p i c i o n ? He had the t y r a n -n i c i d e s postpone t h e i r a c t u n t i l the day when they could go about armed and not draw a t t e n t i o n . But here the p l o y f a i l s i n t e r n a l l y : e n c h e i r i d i a are not 96 s h i e l d s and spears, the arms s p e c i f i e d . I f the e n c h e i r i d i a were v i s i b l e , the c o n s p i r a t o r s would s t i l l have been subject to s u s p i c i o n ; i f they could be concealed, the c o n s p i r a t o r s need not have waited u n t i l the Panathenaic 97 p r o c e s s i o n to do the deed. Hippias used the d i s t i n c t i o n between those who c a r r i e d e n c h e i r i d i a and those who d i d not to s i n g l e out the suspected con-s p i r a t o r s . Thus, Thucydides may have used the excuse of arms-carrying to e x p l a i n why the t y r a n n i c i d e s waited u n t i l the day of the Panathenaic proces-s i o n to a c t , but i t seems only remotely l i k e l y t h a t he was c r i t i c i z i n g the Athenians. I f we "weed" out the a c c r e t i o n of inference and r e v i s i o n , we may a r r i v e 2 0 6 at an approximation of the "core" account i n i t s e a r l i e r form: a) Harmodios was a b e a u t i f u l boy who was desired by the tyrant, Hipparchos. b) Hipparchos made advances to him, but was rebuffed and sought revenge. c) He in s u l t e d Harmodios' s i s t e r when she came forward to be a kanephoros. „ d) Harmodios was angered and e n l i s t e d A r i s t o g e i t o n 1 s a i d . e) The p a i r rushed at Hipparchos and k i l l e d him when he was involved i n dispatching the Panathenaic pro-cession. f) Harmodios was k i l l e d on the spot by the tyrant's body-guard; A r i s t o g e i t o n died l a t e r and not e a s i l y . 98 g) Hippias assumed f u l l c ontrol of the tyranny. There are reasons to suspect that the "core" account might have been at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y reconstructed: a) Hipparchos was notoriously a paederast. b) Harmodios, from the tyrannicide-group, was a comely youth. c) A r i s t o g e i t o n , from the same group, was older than Harmodios and so can have become the r i v a l of Hipparchos. d) The i n s u l t to Harmodios' unnamed s i s t e r was the alleged f l a s h p o i n t of action, but resembles a topos that has tyrants i n s u l t i n g women sexually. Again, Hipparchos was k i l l e d during the Panathenaic procession, perhaps i n d i c a t i n g that the motivation of the tyrannicides 207 must somehow be connected. This i s not to say t h a t the "core" cannot be t r u e : indeed, the i n s u l t to Harmodios' s i s t e r may have helped t o ground the topos. I t i s , however, as c l o s e to the t r u t h as we can come. D. Conclusions Very l i t t l e r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about the murder seems to have survived u n t i l the time of Thucydides' w r i t i n g . What has come down to us from Thucydides and other w r i t e r s i s apparently an amalgam of inference and recon-s t r u c t i o n from i n f e r e n c e and perhaps even d e s i r a b i l i t y . The "core" account, which i n c l u d e d the i n s u l t t o Harmodios' s i s t e r as the cause of the murder and which depic t e d Hipparchos as t y r a n t , may i t s e l f have been reco n s t r u c t e d a f t e r the event to e x p l a i n i t (with the tyrannicide-group as i n s p i r a t i o n f o r embel-lishment?) . Thus, very few s o l i d f a c t s are a v a i l a b l e to us about the murder of Hipparchos. In the d i g r e s s i o n , Thucydides seems s u s c e p t i b l e to h i s own argument, apparently i n t e r p r e t i n g the events of the murder i n l i n e w i t h h i s t h e s i s , under no r e a l compunction to a l t e r c o n t r a d i c t o r y testimony to achieve i n t e r -n a l c o n s i s t e n c y . P o r t i o n s of the d i g r e s s i o n , which i n c l u d e the r e p o r t of the very thoughts of Hipparchos and the t y r a n n i c i d e s , must be l a r g e l y Thucydides' work. His deductions about Hippias are i n t e l l e c t u a l and t h e r e f o r e t h e i r f o r c e i s weakened i n the face of the d i g r e s s i o n ' s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . Thucydides seems not to have been devoted to the re p o r t of f a c t . Two p r e e x i s t i n g v e r s i o n s of the m o t i v a t i o n of the t y r a n n i c i d e s were com-208 bined by Thucydides i n an e f f o r t t o show t h a t the a c t was not a p o l i t i c a l one. The i n s u l t to Harmodios' s i s t e r was the motive accepted by the "many"; A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s motive, h i s love f o r Harmodios and the f e a r of l o s i n g him to the t y r a n t , i s l e s s immediate, more a b s t r a c t , and so probably created a f t e r the i n s u l t - m o t i v e . Thucydides used both m o t i v a t i o n s , which were cur r e n t i n h i s day, t o demonstrate t h a t t h e i r common denominator was eros, not p o l i t i c s . Thus, he thought to himself to prove t h a t the Athenians were completely i n e r r o r about the murder and Hipparchos. But h i s combination f a i l s because Thucydides overlooked the problems created by the combination t h a t work a g a i n s t h i s argument. V e s t i g e s of the o l d e r t r a d i t i o n s emerge, showing t h a t the s t o r i e s were conceived w i t h Hipparchos i n mind as t y r a n t . In some p l a c e s , Thucydides even f a i l e d t o s t r i p Hipparchos of t h a t power he denied him and, i n other p l a c e s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t Thucydides has explained Hipparchos" power i n s u f f i c i e n t l y . The o l d e r accounts i n d i c a t e t h a t Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n p l o t t e d a g a i n s t the tyranny and waited to a t t a c k : Thucydides' c o n c l u s i o n about the emotional nature of the t y r a n n i c i d e i s v i t i a t e d . 209 Notes 1 Cf. G. Grote, A History of Greece (London, 1888) III.335: "Such i s the memorable narrative of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y invaluable inasmuch as i t a l l comes from Thucydides." Cf. also A.R. Burn, The L y r i c  Age of Greece (London, 1960) 322; C. Mossfc, La Tyrannie dans l a Grece (Paris, 1969) 73-4; J.B. Bury and Russell Meiggs, A History of Greece (London, 1975) 134. Some of the more important studies concerning the digression are M. Hirsch, "Die Athenischen Tyrannenmorder i n Geschichtsschreibung und Volkslegende" ( K l i o 20 (1926) 129-67; F. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 152-68 and 331-45; M. Lang, "The Murder of Hipparchus", H i s t o r i a 3 (1954/55) 395-407; T. F i t z g e r a l d , "The Murder of Hipparchus: A Reply", H i s t o r i a 6 (1957) 275-86; H.-P. Stahl, Thukydides, Die Stellung des Menschen im  geschichtlichen Prozess (Munich, 1966) 1-11; C. Fornara, "The 'Tradition' about the Murder of Hipparchus", H i s t o r i a 17 (1968) 400-24; K. Dover, HCT, IV.317-37; R. Vattuone, '-'L'Excursus nel VI Libro d e l l e Storie d i Tucidide", RSA 5 (1975) 173-84 and D; Asheri, " E l l a n i c o , Jacoby e l a 'Tradizione Alcmeonida'", Acme 34 (1981) 15-32. 2 The l i t e r a t u r e s p e c i f i c a l l y or mainly concerned with the purpose of the dig r e s s i o n i s massive. I l i s t some of the more important discussions: E. Schwartz, Das Geschichtswerk Des Thukydides (Hildesheim, 1929) 180-7; H. Munch, Studien zu den Exkursen des Thukydides (Heidelberg, 1935) 66-82; L. Pearson, "Note on a Digression of Thucydides (VI.54-59)", AJP 70 (1949) 186-9; H.-J. Diesner, "Peisistratidenexkurs und P e i s i s t r a t i d f e n b i l d bei Thukydides", H i s t o r i a 8 (1959) 12-22; A. Momigliano, "L'Excursus d i 2 1 0 Tucidlde i n V I , 54-59", St u d i d i S t o r i o g r a f i c a A n t i c a i n Memoria d i Leonardo F e r r e r o (Torino, 1971) 31-5. 3 •> > V 1.20.1: Ot 2iY Qp<OTTOL r«j- «fKoey C<Dv TlpOjfe^&V^pteVaf^j K<* t -vj V ' / . ' "7 C ' ) a l •> 3 \ \ ' \ y / '/^G^v^/ujV tfV.,,„ VI.54.1: ... TTAGOV Scyj^erufLtVoj 4 On Thucydides' p o l e m i c a l approach see Munch (above, n. 2) 72 f f . ; Dover, HCT, 323; Jacoby, A t t h i s , 158. 5 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 2. 6 Cf. Lang (above, n. 1) 399. 7 VI.54.5. 8 Fornara (above, n. 1) 401 i s wrong to assume th a t Thucydides would have been o b l i g e d to demonstrate t h a t what he r e l a t e d was p r e f e r a b l e . That i s what we. wish he had done. As i t i s , i t seems t h a t a sound in f e r e n c e (to Thucydides) was i t s own j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Again, I t h i n k Lang (above, n. 1) 399 i s wrong t o assume t h a t v a r i a n t s "not so l o g i c a l l y bound i n the proof of a t h e s i s . . . " are more l i k e l y t o have been o r i g i n a l , f o r an unchallenged v a r i a n t may simply be t h a t . 9 Cf. Lang (above, n. 1) 399; see a l s o W.E. Thompson, " I n d i v i d u a l 211 M o t i v a t i o n i n Thucydides", CSM 30 (1969) 166-7. 0 10 Cf. A r i s t . Rhet. 1401b; At h . P o l . 18; Diod. 9.1.4; P l u t . Mor. 504e, 770c, 995b; c f . Jacoby, A t t h i s , 336, n. 36. 11 Fornara (above, n. 1) 406. 12 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 3,B. 13 Cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 1 and 156, n. 5; Munch (above, n. 2) 67 b e l i e v e d t h a t the t r a d i t i o n s o l i d i f i e d only i n the second h a l f of the f i f t h century B.C. 14 Cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 342-3, n. 73, however: " I f by the r roAXoc, who be-l i e v e d i n the i n s u l t to Harmodios 1 s i s t e r as motive, an A t t h i s i s meant # ... i t can only be t h a t of H e l l a n i k o s - i f the dialogue (Hipparchos) r e a l l y was composed about 400 B.C." This does not f o l l o w . 15 See C. Fornara, " H e l l a n i c u s and an Alcmaeonid T r a d i t i o n " , H i s t o r i a 17 (1968) 381-4. 16 Cf. R.W. Macan, Herodotus, the Fourth, F i f t h and S i x t h Books (London, 1895) II.124-5. Cf. a l s o Jacoby, A t t h i s , 334, n. 23 and Fornara (above, n. 1) 405. 17 Cf. How and W e l l s , 11.25. 18 Contra K. K i n z l , "Herodotus - I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " , RhM 118 (1975) 193, n. 3; 212 t h i s was perceived by Fornara (above, n. 1) 406 and n. 23. 19 How and Wel l s , 11.115; r e h a b i l i t a t i n g the Alkmaionid r e p u t a t i o n has been r e c e n t l y taken up again: see G.M.E. W i l l i a m s , "The Image of the Alk m a i o n i d a i between 490 B.C. and 487/6 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 29 (1980) 108, whose arguments are unconvincing, however. For, r i g h t l y or wrongly, the s h i e l d - s i g n a l was a t t r i b u t e d to some (not a l l ) of the Al k m a i o n i d a i and th a t connection w i t h the subsequent ostracisms of the 480s cannot have been f o r t u i t o u s . See P. K a r a v i t e s , " R e a l i t i e s and Appearances, 490-480 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 26 (1977) 129-49. 20 See Appendix. 21 In f a c t , c o n t r a r y to what Herodotos would have the reader b e l i e v e , the Athenians had, during the 480s, c l a s s e d some of the Al k m a i o n i d a i as t r a i -t o r s and - i t must f o l l o w from the a l l e g a t i o n of medizing - " f r i e n d s of the t y r a n t s " : see Wil l i a m s (above, n. 19) 108, n. 16. 22 Cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 335, n. 25 and 26. 23 Cf. How and Wells, 11.25; on the Gephyraioi see U. von Wilamowitz-M o e l l e n d o r f f , "Oropos und d i e G r a i e r " , Hermes 21 (1886) 91-115, e s p e c i a l l y 106-7 concerning the t y r a n t - s l a y e r s ; J . Toepffer, A t t i s c h e Genealogie ( B e r l i n , 1889) 293-300; Davies, APF, 472-9. 24 Cf. Isok. 9.47: 77«*<o|*A«(<3«; V ^ f * p "07 • 7To At v ex Be B<<f>6e£p oo^ivryV K<*teft* X^V $otVlK-M*v *^Xn v ovre r o u j t\A*}\/<<s npo<r6^o/u6Ynv KT\ We r e c a l l 213 t h a t the Phoenicians composed the bulk of the P e r s i a n f l e e t during the f i f t h century and t h a t the f l e e t posed the g r e a t e s t t h r e a t to Athens and her a l l i e s i n the Aegean u n t i l the Ionian War. How and Wells, 11.28 sug-gest t h a t Herodotos emphasizes the r a c i a l d i f f e r e n c e of the Gephyraioi by emphasizing the d i f f e r e n c e s i n c u l t and worship (V>.59-; see below, t e x t ) , but c f . Thucydides 1 d e s c r i p t i o n of A r i s t o g e i t o n as an 4v>yp rtuV «fl"twv (VI.54.2). For what i t i s worth, t h i s " i n s u l t " was perceived by P l u t . Mor. 860e; see a l s o Jacoby, A t t h i s , 337, n. 40. 25 Cf. Hdt. VI.125.1: oc Se ^AXH/J-^OJVC^UL ycr~(V julv K«- t « o t v e K c c © ^ V ^ o t y u t f r p o t ev "CTytrc ^A&rjV^trc. .... 26 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 3,B. 27 See Fornara (above, n. 1) 422-3. 28 The scope of t h i s paper does not permit me to dwell on the A l k m a i o n i d a i or explore i n d e t a i l the problems connected w i t h them, but I do dispute the view t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i "could p o i n t w i t h p r i d e to t h e i r own l i b e r a t i o n of Athens" (cf. Jacoby, A t t h i s , 156-68; A.J. P o d l e c k i , "The P o l i t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Athenian 1 T y r a n n i c i d e 1 - C u l t " , H i s t o r i a 15 ^1966] 130-1): they were c o l l a b o r a t o r s w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i , they were suspected of c o l l a b o r a t i n g w i t h the P e r s i a n s ; they introduced the Spartans onto A t t i c s o i l . They were undoubtedly perceived as o p p o r t u n i s t i c , not p a t r i -o t i c ; n a t u r a l l y , f a m i l y h i s t o r y would have i t otherwise. 29 Jacoby (above, n. 13); Dover, HCT, 321. 214 30 See Chapter IT, s e c t i o n 3,A, n. 166 and s e c t i o n 3,C. 31 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 3,C. 32 See M. Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginning of the Athenian Democracy (Oxford, 1969) 121ff. 33 Cf. above, n. 14. 34 Cf. Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 2. 35 See above, n. 2; on the best view, Thucydides witnessed a p a r a l l e l be-tween the end of the tyranny and the s i t u a t i o n at Athens i n 416, the con-t e x t of the d i g r e s s i o n : '.see W. Schadewaldt, Die-..6esch±ch'ts:schriebung des ': Thukydides ( B e r l i n , 1929) 84-95; Munch (above, n. 2); c f . W.R. Connor, "Tyrannis P o l i s " , Ancient and Modern: Essays i n Honor of Gerald F. E l s e (Ann Arbor, 1977) 95-109, e s p e c i a l l y 107-9. 36 Cf. Fornara (above, n. 1) 404-5. y0 / / I t r a n s l a t e J v v r t / ^ i ^ as "accident": see LSJ s_.v. tsi/vz.o)^t.o^ 2b. 38 Cf. Schadewaldt (above, n. 35) 89; S. Brunnsaker, The Tyrant-Slayers of  K r i t i o s and Nesiotes (Lund, 1955) 7; Fornara (above, n. 1) 405. 39 VI.54.2ff. 215 40 Cf. Lang (above, n. 1) 402; Diesner (above, n. 2) 14-5 t h i n k s t h a t the gap between A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s anger and h i s a c t i o n i s a l o g i c a l one. 41 o"vv<fAi.^: according to H. K o n i s h i , "The Composition of Thucydides", AJP 101 (1980) 38, " . . . a f t e r 5.20.1 <TJv«<y^ <-5 appears only when 'hegemonic power' i s suggested." Thucydides' use of the word here seems to be anoth-er i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n h i s view of Hipparchos' power. "tiro -T^5 t>m<p)fou<r>f^ CCuJcr&oo^: c f . Dover, HCT, 329: " I . e . , so f a r as h i s i n f l u e n c e as pieao$ To\^xnj<^ allowed." A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s "middling" status c o n t r a s t s w i t h Hipparchos' o i / v ^ i j (and, f o r th a t matter, w i t h Herodotos' treatment of the Gephyraioi as o u t l a n d e r s ) : mesos may have p h i l o s o p h i c a l overtones: c f . P l u t . Solon 3,1 ,14.1.15.1 ,161, 42 VI.54.4: €v zporr^i ^ « w ^ < i / e t : see Dover, HCT, 329. (Dover's reasons / f o r emending are inadequate to r u l e out TOTTOJ as a p o s s i b i l i t y . ) 43 VI.56.1: gv TfojAiTj*} Tcvc : perhaps Thucydides thought t h a t the gap be-tween the d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n and the Panathenaic proc e s s i o n was too short: c f . U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, A r i s t o t e l e s und Athen ( B e r l i n , 1893) 11.110; M. Va l e t o n , "De Harmodio et A r i s t o g i t o n e " , Mnem. 46 (1917) 38-9; Brunnsaker (above, n. 38) 12 and 15; a l s o F i t z g e r a l d (above, n. 1) 283. 44 F. F r o s t , " P o l i t i c s i n E a r l y Athens", C l a s s i c a l C o n t r i b u t i o n s : Studies i n Honour of Malcolm F r a n c i s McGregor (Locust V a l l e y , New York, 1981) 39 r i g h t l y l i n k s the i n s u l t to Harmodios' s i s t e r t o Harmodios' personal hon-our, but i s perhaps wrong to i n t e r p r e t the i n s u l t as r e l i g i o u s i n nature (p. 35): see below, t e x t . 216 45 VI.56.2. 46 VI.57.3. 47 Cf. V aleton (above, n. 43). 48 See J . M i l l e r , R-E I I . 1.930 s_-v. A r i s t o g e i t o n ; a l s o "Die Erzawungen von den Tyrannenmordern", P h i l o l o g u s 6 i l 8 9 3 ) 573-6. : H i r s c h (above, n. 1). 145ff. The Hipparchos was probably composed before 320 (see P. F r i e d l a n d e r , P l a t o : The Dialogues ( F i r s t Period) [New York, 1964^] 127-8); the dramatic date of the Symposion i s 416, but the a c t u a l date of composi-t i o n was probably c_. 389-79 B.C. (see K. Dover, comm. P l a t o . Symposium [Cambridge, 198o] 11); c f . Jacoby, A t t h i s , 342-3, n. 73. 49 Fornara (above, n. 1) 411ff. seems t o have d i f f i c u l t y grasping the f l u i d -i t y of the t r a d i t i o n t h a t allowed Thessalos to be introduced i n t o the account i n the A t h . P o l , as i n s t i g a t o r : c f . Diod. 10.17 where Thessalos alone h e l d a l o o f from tyranny; P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the  A r i s t o t e l i a n Athenaion P o l i t e i a (Oxford, 1981) 228; see a l s o Dover, HCT, 320. Lang (above, n. 1) 402 r i g h t l y observes t h a t the s t o r y was not f i x e d and i s thus wrong to conclude t h a t the A t h . P o l . o f f e r s b e t t e r i n f o r m a t i o n than Thucydides. 50 Rhodes (above, n. 49) 231; c f . A r i s t . P o l . 1311a 40 - 1311b 2 (Periander's i n s u l t to h i s cata m i t e ) . The s h i f t of the i n s u l t from Harmodios' s i s t e r d i r e c t l y to Harmodios shows t h a t w r i t e r s as e a r l y as the f o u r t h century had d i f f i c u l t y understanding how Harmodios could be moti-217 vated through his- s i s t e r ( c f. Hipparchos 229b-c; above, t e x t ) . A change i n popular m o r a l i t y i s i n d i c a t e d , o c c u r r i n g before those w r i t e r s composed t h e i r works, which seems to have made the w r i t e r s i n s e n s i t i v e to the type of i n s u l t o c c u r r i n g i n Thucydides' and Herodotos' work (see below, t e x t ) . T h is change i n popular m o r a l i t y suggests t h a t the i n s u l t t o Harmodios' s i s t e r was considered a r c h a i c and s i l l y as a motive and i n d i c a t e s a l s o t h a t the i n s u l t - m o t i v e was probably o l d e r than the s t o r y of A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s m o t i v a t i o n . 51 Cf. A e l i a n Var. H i s t . 11.8; I u s t i n 2.9 (Diokles=Hipparchos)'; Max. Tyre 24.2. Fornara (above, n. 1) 411 p o i n t s out t h a t Thucydides i s the f i r s t to c a l l Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n l o v e r s : they are not l o v e r s i n Aristophanes. 52 Cf. P l a t o , Sympos. 182c; A r i s t . Rhet. 1401b; Athen. 562a, 602a ; P l u t . Mor. 770c; on the dramatic date of the Symposion see n. 48, above. 53 Cf. Valeton (above, n. 43) 3 7 f f . ; F. C o r n e l i u s , Die Tyrannis i n Athen (Munich, 1929) 8 4 f f . ; Thompson (above, n. 9) 158-74, e s p e c i a l l y 166-7. 54 Andrewes (A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K. Dover, A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on  Thucydides, V [ o x f o r d , 1 9 8 l j 267) c a l l s Chaireas' statement "standard r h e t o r i c about t y r a n t s " . See a l s o below, n. 58 and 59. 55 ' f , y Cf. Photios s_.v. K*v > ) 5£opoc * Tr°cp&& vc <- ... o t f t ^ L Se vZv <£COJ\/,., &j^k*u*/ -^o-otV . See below, n. 57; c f . Rhodes (above, n. 49) 230-1. 218 56 I n s u f f i c i e n t repute: E.C. Marchant, ed. Thucydides, Bk. VI (London, 1902) 195; Dover, HCT, 334. Gephyraian e x t r a c t i o n : G. B u s o l t , G r i e c h i s c h e  Geschichte (Gotha, 1895) 11.381. 5 7 See a l s o L y s i s . 1194; on the kanephoroi see M.B. Walbank, "Artemis Bear-Leader", CQ_ 31 (1981) 276-81, e s p e c i a l l y 279-80. 58 Cf. A r i s t . P o l . 1314b ( p r e s c r i b i n g conduct f o r t y r a n t s ) : e t c d~eJLCTJ yuevov" XUTX>V cdXlVteG^t. fAJtjS&\"»~ CUJV *£>)(Of^&VwV U&f>tJo V p r i z e VeoV yU.->f I"6 /fi«V K C ^ . ; c f . below, n. 59. 59 Cf. the s t o r y of Pausanias and Kleonike:. P l u t . Kim. 6.4-7; Mor. 555c. Cf. Hdt. 1.8.13; I I I . 1 - 2 ; c f . a l s o IV.154. 60 Cf. above, n. 50; Jacoby, A t t h i s , 342-3, n. 73. 61 Cf. Fornara (above, n. 1) 411. 62 We note, however, th a t nowhere i n h i s account of the murder does Thucydides adduce a shred of p o s i t i v e evidence t h a t Hipparchos was not t y r a n t : q u i t e the c o n t r a r y , the d i g r e s s i o n a l l u d e s to Hipparchos 1 power (see Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 3,E). 63 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 3,E. 64 Many sch o l a r s suggest t h a t the d i g r e s s i o n i s i n an imperfect s t a t e : c f . Schwartz (above, n. 2) 180-7; M. H i r s c h (above, n. 1) 131; Jacoby, 219 A t t h i s , 333, n. 47; Fornara (above, n. 1) 401, n. 5. 65 We speculate t h a t they were f i g h t i n g e i t h e r f o r t h e i r own freedom or f o r Harmodios 1 honour. 66 Cf. C o r n e l i u s (above, n. 53) 83. 67 VI.56.3. 18.2: ... /icee^oVewv' i r e A ^ S / ; c f . Rhodes (above, n. 49) 231. G. K a i b e l , S t i l und Text der Athenaion P o l i t e i a ( B e r l i n , 1893) 167 thought t h a t the o r i g i n a l t e x t l i k e l y read ov ^ t r ^ o v r w * ' JTOXACV ; c f . a l s o H i r s c h (above, n. 1) 142, n. 1 and 146, n. 1. 69 Cf. Lang (above, n. 1) 403-4. 70 VI.57.2. Cf. Ath. P o l . 18.3: ...K«c Trpoc^^voie-c^vr-t^ r w v J«t\">\cJJv KX\ < 72 See Munch (above, n. 2) . 73 See above, n. 71. 74 Cf. Fornara (above, n. 1) 407. 75 Contra F.G. Kenyon, comm. A r i s t o t l e on the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the Athenians 220 (London, 1893) 48, n.: the existence of d e f i n i t e f a c t s i s perhaps i m p l i e d i n the A t h . P o l . , but the i m p l i c a t i o n does not i n v a l i d a t e these f a c t s . 76 Cf. C o r n e l i u s (above, n. 53) 85, although C o r n e l i u s suggests t h a t A r i s t o g e i t o n may have given r e a l testimony about the murder/conspiracy under t o r t u r e . ."See below, n. 98. ~"\ 77 Lang (above, n. 1) 402. 78 Lang (above, n. 1) 402. 79 See Chapter I I , s e c t i o n 2,D. Obviously, the i n t e r p o l a t i o n must have oc-curred a f t e r the " o f f i c i a l " v e r s i o n of the murder had s o l i d i f i e d ( i . e . , a f t e r the Harmodios-skolia. had been composed) . 8 0 2 Cf. IG I I 334 (=SEG X V I I I , 13), which concerns the l e s s e r Panathenaia. The h i e r o p o i o i dispatched t h i s p r o c e s s i o n (11.17-18); c f . a l s o A t h . P o l . 60.1. 81 Cf. Rhodes (above, n. 49) 231; c f . C o r n e l i u s (above, n. 53) 86; a l s o Fornara (above, n. 1) 408-9, although he overlooks the balance of Hippias and Hipparchos; Lang (above, n. 1) 404 b e l i e v e s t h a t Hippias was a c t u a l l y on the A k r o p o l i s , but t h a t i s u n l i k e l y since i t would make the author of the A t h . P o l . a b e t t e r h i s t o r i a n than Thucydides, a d i f f i c u l t p r o p o s i t i o n i n view of the circumstances. F i t z g e r a l d (above, n. 1) 282-3 contends t h a t i t was unusual f o r anybody to be on the A k r o p o l i s r e c e i v i n g the p r o c e s s i o n . 221 82 Thucydides had changed h i s mind about Hippias' p o s i t i o n over time. Observed by Lang (above, n. 1) 404; conceded by Fornara (above, n. 1) 408, n. 28. 83 Cf. Hdt. 1.59.6-7; A r i s t . P o l . 1311a; A t h . P o l . 14.1; P l u t . S o l . 30. 84 On the type of weaponry used see Brunnsaker (above, n. 38) 150-1; i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t the t y r a n n i c i d e s went forward to the deed "holding t h e i r swords i n myrtle boughs" as i n the Harmodios-skolia (see Ostwald £above, n. 3 2 J 182-5: Jongkees' suggestion £p. 184^ makes the best sense); c f . a l s o Valeton (above, n. 43) 39. 85 Cf. Wilamowitz (above, n. 43) 109, n. 19; H i r s c h (above, n. 1) 143; C o r n e l i u s (above, n. 53) 86-7; Dover, HCT, 336; J.M. Moore, A r i s t o t l e  and Xenophon on Democracy and O l i g a r c h y (Berkeley, 1975) 232. 86 Cf. Rhodes (above, n. 49) 210. 87 Cf. Munch (above, n. 2 ) 7 7 f f . ; Jacoby, A t t h i s , 335,_n. 25; Diesner (above, n. 2) 14-5. 88 Diesner (above, n. 2 ) 2 0 f f . suggests t h a t Thucydides saw i n Hippias a p r o t o - P e r i k l e s , but t h a t i s to ignore t h a t Thucydides had general models f o r good statesmanship and good p o l i t i c a l a b i l i t y ; Jacoby, A t t h i s , 335, n. 26 seems t o have overlooked the aspect of calmness vs. chaos best de-s c r i b e d by Munch; f o r a view c h a l l e n g i n g Munch's see Pearson (above, n. 2) 188, n. 2. 222 89 Cf. Rhodes (above, n. 49) 210-3. Macan (above, n. 16) 11.125, n. 7; Lang (above, n. 1) 404; Dover, HCT, 335; Moore (above, n. 85). 90 Cf. P olyainos 1.21.2; see a l s o n. 91; C o r n e l i u s (above, n. 53) 86, n. 15. 91 A t h . P o l . 22.3; A r i s t . P o l . 1310b 1 4 f f . 92 J . Day and M. Chambers, A r i s t o t l e ' s H i s t o r y of the Athenian Democracy (Berkeley, 1962) 21 consider the subject of Athenian cleverness a topos, but s u r e l y , even i f t r u e , t h a t i m p l i e s only a frequency of usage, not the t r u t h or f a l s i t y of the topos or whether the Athenians ^disbelieved i t : about themselves. 93 Cf. Hdt. VI.121ff.; c f . S. Hoffman, "In the Looking G l a s s " , I n t r o d u c t i o n to The Sorrow and The P i t y (New York, 1972) x i i on the myth of general French r e s i s t a n c e to German occupation: "...the discomfort f e l t by those who l i v e d those years without committing themselves or had come to f e e l s o r r y about t h e i r commitment, and who knew the i n a c c u r a c i e s of the O f f i c i a l V e r s i o n ( i . e . , t h a t the French had r e s i s t e d the Germans as a n a t i o n ) , but feared the squalor of the t r u e r one, . . . r e s u l t e d i n a general u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o d r a i n the myth. ... What was s a i d or w r i t t e n i n t e x t s was i n conformity t o the O f f i c i a l V e r s i o n . " 94 15.4: rr«f>ecXexo s i tou tT^/tou r«" ortX*- r»v<fe xyfv Tpoirov . 95 Cf. Wilamowitz (above, n. 43) 1.169-72; Buso l t (above, n. 56) 11.326, n. 223 1 and 383, n. 1. C. Hign e t t , A H i s t o r y of the Athenian C o n s t i t u t i o n (Oxford, 1951) 125, n. 3 s t a t e s t h a t ( A r i s t o t l e ) wrongly a t t r i b u t e s the disarming to P e i s i s t r a t o s , but see above, n. 85; c f . Rhodes (above, n. 49) 210. 96 Lang (above, n. 11 403-4. 97 Cf. above, n. 43; see a l s o Moore (above, n. 85). 98 Cf. K. von F r i t z and E. Kapp,•• A r i s t o t l e ' s 'Constitution'"of Athens and •> Related Texts (New York, 1950) 160: "Obviously, there was no r e l i a b l e t r a d i t i o n even concerning so outstanding an event of the l a s t quarter of the 6th century." The s t o r i e s of A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s slow end (Ath.Pol. 18.4-6; Diod. 10.16; see J.E. Sandys, A r i s t o t e l e ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n of Athens ^London, 1893J 70 f o r references) were probably already c u r r e n t i n Thucydides' time (cf. V I . 57.4: p*£cuj£ 6teu4 Q>j ). A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s i m p l i c a t i o n of f e l l o w - c o n s p i r a t o r s explained Hippias' purge, was l a t e r deemed u n f l a t t e r -ing to the hero who then was made to i m p l i c a t e the " f r i e n d s of the t y -r a n t s " - a t r i c k on Hippias: the s t o r y of Hippias' shaking A r i s t o g e i t o n ' s hand (Ath.Pol. 18.6) shows the hero's f o r t i t u d e , Hippias' f o o l i s h n e s s and v i o l e n c e , and in v o l v e s a p r e t t y i r o n y . I t seems, however, apocryphal ( c f . Athen. 652b j p h a l a r i s j ) ; Rhodes (above, n. 49) 232-3. The Leiaina-myth (Paus. 1.23.2; Polyainos 8.45) i s s u r e l y apocryphal and shows how popular the "end of A r i s t o g e i t o n " had become: c f . Jacoby, A t t h i s , 344, n. 92. 224 EPILOGUE When Hipparchos d i e d i n 514, he l e f t behind him both an example of con-duct t h a t l e a d i n g men of Athens were to f o l l o w through the f i f t h century and a t a s t e f o r i n n o v a t i o n i n a r t , e s p e c i a l l y i n l i t e r a t u r e , among the Athenians. The o b j e c t f o r Athenian statesmen was to be well-known and admired i n order to o b t a i n s t a t u r e and a f o l l o w i n g of v o t e r s . Consequently, p u b l i c f i g u r e s v i e d w i t h one another i n presenting innovations and comforts to an i n c r e a s -i n g l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d Athenian p u b l i c . Such e f f o r t s were assessed as the p r i c e of i n f l u e n c e i n the democracy. Of course, Hipparchos need not have bothered with the c o u r t i n g of v o t e r s , although he q u i t e probably sought p u b l i c good-w i l l . At any r a t e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t some of the means he used to acquire p u b l i c i t y were emulated by men l i k e Themistokles, Kimon and N i k i a s . In f a c t , the methods e s t a b l i s h e d o r , at l e a s t , c u l t i v a t e d by him at Athens seem to have become almost i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d and c o n s t i t u t e a legacy to Athenian p o l i t i c s of the f i f t h century. 1 The f i r s t emulator t h a t we know of was the great Themistokles. A l -though Themistokles eschewed personal acquaintance w i t h the l y r e , he c e r t a i n -2 l y had a t a s t e f o r poets. His c l o s e s t p o e t i c a l a s s o c i a t e was Simonides, 3 once employed by Hipparchos. Among other s e r v i c e s , Simonides c e l e b r a t e d Themistokles' r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Lykomid shrine at P h l y a , perhaps l e n d i n g 4 h i s own name and elegy to i t . For Themistokles a l s o f i g u r e d prominently i n Simonides' "The Sea F i g h t at Salamis", apparently as hero and a r c h i t e c t of 225 5 the Greek naval v i c t o r y . I t i s perhaps p o s s i b l e to see i n the closeness of the two some of the same closeness as between Hipparchos and Simonides o r , 6 perhaps, Anakreon. Another poet i n v o l v e d w i t h Themistokles shows why the statesman was i n t e r e s t e d : "...while he was s t i l l young and unknown, he (sc. Themistokles) i n v i t e d E p i k l e s of Hermione, a c i t h a r i s t much sought a f t e r by the Athenians, to p r a c t i c e i n h i s house, d e s i r i n g to have the honour of many people seeking 7 him and coming to h i s house." E p i k l e s , perhaps a r e l a t i v e or a p u p i l of Hipparchos 1 r e t a i n e r , Lasos of Hermione, could b r i n g Themistokles p u b l i c i t y by h i s very presence i n Themistokles' household. This i s s u r e l y an echo of how poets had a f f e c t e d Hipparchos' r e p u t a t i o n , but, more important^ i t . ' , shows v i v i d l y how the Athenians had come to value v i r t u o s i i n t h e i r midst. Themistokles apparently c o n t r i v e d t o tap t h i s r i c h v e i n of p u b l i c t a s t e and use i t f o r h i s own aggrandizement. His r e t e n t i o n of E p i k l e s seems i n a d i -r e c t l i n e from Hipparchos' r e t e n t i o n of poets. One f u r t h e r t a c t i c t h a t Themistokles may have adopted from the P e i s i s t r a t i d s was h i s use of the o f f i c e of water-commissioner to b r i n g a 8 b e t t e r supply t o the c i t y . From the f i n e s he had exacted from those abusing the water system, he dedicated a famous bronze s t a t u e , the Water-Carrier, as 9 a reminder of h i s good s e r v i c e to the people. The e f f i c i e n t d e l i v e r y of water t o the Athenian m u l t i t u d e r e c a l l s P e i s i s t r a t o s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n of the 10 Enheakrounos fountain. Themistokles apparently transgressed the boundaries t h a t the Athenians had made f o r t h e i r prominent men, :for he offended the multitude by b u i l d i n g the temple of Artemis A r i s t o b o u l e : the Athenians took the d e d i c a t i o n to be too d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t i v e of Themistokles' r o l e i n p r e s e r v i n g Athenian freedom 11 during the P e r s i a n War. His mistake was apparently to place a p o r t r a i t 226 statue of himself i n the temple and, from t h a t , the Athenians may have con-,12 eluded h y b r i s . " That must c e r t a i n l y have been i n f l u e n t i a l i n the d e c i s i o n 13 of the populace to o s t r a c i z e him. P o s s i b l y even more emulative of the t y r a n t s was Kimon, the son of M i l t i a d e s . We read t h a t he was q u i t e f a m i l i a r w i t h song and the l y r e and was 14 a q u a l i f i e d judge of the t r a g i c competitions. Kimon, too, seems to have had h i s p o e t - r e t a i n e r s : we read t h a t Melanthios " s p o r t i n g (with Kimon) i n an elegy" d e s c r i b e d Kimon's conquest of Mnestra and A s t e r i a of Salamis, a r e c o l -15 l e c t i o n of Anakreon 1s sport w i t h h i s patron, P o l y k r a t e s . Melanthios' f r e e -dom t o "sport" w i t h Kimon s u r e l y i n d i c a t e s a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p , perhaps on the order of t h a t between Themistokles and Simonides. Yet another f r i e n d might have been Archelao.s, the n a t u r a l i s t who composed a consolatory elegy 16 f o r Kimon on the death of h i s w i f e , I s o d i k e . Kimon used the wealth t h a t he had acquired on campaign to e m b e l l i s h Athens and to a i d Athens' poor. Perhaps h i s most ambitious undertaking was the w a l l of the A k r o p o l i s , c l e a r l y a f o r e s t r u c t u r e f o r the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of 17 Athena's temple there. Yet he brought h i s benefaction even c l o s e r to the people by p l a n t i n g shade t r e e s i n the Agora; perhaps he completed Hipparchos' work at the Akademy by making i t i n t o a proper t r a i n i n g ground, 18 p r o v i d i n g i t w i t h t r a c k s and shady walks. When walking abroad i n Athens, Kimon bestowed g i f t s of c l o t h i n g and money on the needy and the e l d e r l y , get-19 t i n g companions to exchange c l o t h e s w i t h the poor. He opened h i s f i e l d s to 20 the poor and allowed them to p i c k whatever they wished. Kimon's behaviour caused a comparison to be made between h i s l i f e t i m e and the Age of Kronos - a 21 term used to d e s c r i b e the e a r l i e r r u l e of the P e i s i s t r a t i d s . More a r e c o l l e c t i o n of Hipparchos was Kimon's herm. Because of h i s im-227 p o r t a n t v i c t o r y on the Strymori, the Athenians permitted Kimon and h i s two colleagues the p r i v i l e g e of e r e c t i n g Hermai w i t h i n s c r i p t i o n s - l e s s t h e i r 22 names. That i n j u n c t i o n suggests t h a t Hipparchos' herms were s t i l l remind-ing the Athenians of the tyranny t h a t once was and t h a t no. one should a s p i r e 23 t o emulate Hipparchos i n f a c t . At any r a t e , the Athenians were very con-scious about the greatness of the honour bestowed on Kimon and h i s c o l -leagues . P e r i k l e s ' d e s i g n a t i o n as the "new P e i s i s t r a t o s " was undoubtedly con-24 t r i v e d by the comic poets as l i g h t disparagement. The cause f o r the com-p a r i s o n was P e r i k l e s ' preeminence i n Athens a f t e r the o s t r a c i s m of 25 Thucydides, the son of Melesias. Yet P e r i k l e s added to h i s honour i n the t r a d i t i o n a l way by e m b e l l i s h i n g the c i t y . P l u t a r c h ' s testimony g i v e s good evidence t h a t , although the b u i l d i n g s of the A k r o p o l i s were undertaken by the Athenians and were overseen by P h e i d i a s , the major b u i l d i n g s of the A k r o p o l i s 26 were a t t r i b u t e d t o P e r i k l e s . P e r i k l e s was s i m i l a r l y undeterred from a c q u i r i n g a share of the g l o r y of the Panathenaia. We read t h a t P e r i k l e s moved a decree e s t a b l i s h i n g musical 27 contests f o r the f e s t i v a l . He himself was e l e c t e d manager - (a~t"hlothetes) f o r the c o n t e s t s , p r e s c r i b i n g how instruments were to be played and songs were to be sung. This r e g u l a t i o n i s s t r o n g l y reminiscent of the P e i s i s t r a t i d 28 r e g u l a t i o n of the Homeric r e c i t a l s . Indeed, the management of the contests must have been a p o s i t i o n of honour and s u r e l y presupposes P e r i k l e s ' f a m i l -29 i a r i t y w i t h and a p p r e c i a t i o n of music. Hipparchos, of course, was a con-noisseur of poetry ( i f not an expert) and was probably a manager of the games hi m s e l f . I f he was d i s p a t c h i n g the Panathenaic pro c e s s i o n when he was k i l l e d , he was performing a f u n c t i o n l a t e r delegated to the a t h l o t h e t a i of. 228 ' 30 the Greater Panathenaia. P e r i k l e s 1 o b j e c t i n r e i n t r o d u c i n g the contests i s revealed i n N i k i a s ' behaviour. Because he could not compete w i t h Kleon, h i s great adversary, i n winning the people to him, he t r i e d to win them w i t h c h o r a l and gymnic e x h i -31 b i t i o n s and other such t h i n g s as would d e l i g h t them. N i k i a s r e v e r t e d to expenditure to win the Athenians. His wealth permitted him to er e c t d e d i c a t o r y o f f e r i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s 32 such as the P a l l a d i o n on the A k r o p o l i s . His o u t l a y included the i s l a n d of 33 Delos, an arena of r i v a l r y among ar c h a i c t y r a n t s . Indeed, N i k i a s created a s p e c t a c l e g r e a t l y reminiscent of P o l y k r a t e s 1 c h a i n i n g of Rheneia to Delos. For he had constructed a bridge of boats between the i s l a n d s over which the 34 chorus marched. L i k e P o l y k r a t e s , too, N i k i a s purchased a t r a c k of land on '35 Delos and donated i t to the D e l i a n s . N i k i a s ' s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n Delos seems to have been grounded i n the examples of the t y r a n t s . A l c i b i a d e s s u f f e r e d most from a comparison of h i s behaviour w i t h t y -r a n t s . And ye t , i t was because of A l c i b i a d e s ' l a c k of r e s t r a i n t t h a t he drew such comparisons, not because he emulated t y r a n t s . His horses were famous 36 throughout the Greek-speaking world f o r t h e i r famous v i c t o r y a t Olympia. L i k e t y r a n t s of o l d , A l c i b i a d e s was c e l e b r a t e d w i t h an e p r n i k i a n ode by a f a -37 mous poet of the day: i n A l c i b i a d e s ' case, i t was E u r i p i d e s . A l c i b i a d e s turned the v i c t o r y to p o l i t i c a l good, reminding the Athenians of the g l o r y 38 t h a t he brought them on at l e a s t one important occasion. A l c i b i a d e s ' personal magnetism was so gre a t , apparently, t h a t he was 39 able t o m i t i g a t e the i l l - e f f e c t s of h i s d i s a b i l i t y i n p u b l i c speaking. I t i s a l l the more impressive when we consider t h a t Kleon achieved h i s p o l i t i c a l 229 40 success almost wholly through h i s o r a t o r y . We must conclude t h a t the Athenians r e t a i n e d t h e i r a d d i c t i o n to t r a d i t i o n a l forms of showmanship i n p o l i t i c i a n s through the f i f t h century, so much so t h a t poorer Athenians were apparently w i l l i n g t o e n t r u s t the government e n t i r e l y t o A l c i b i a d e s at one 41 p o i n t . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t A l c i b i a d e s ' s h i e l d - d e v i c e was Eros armed 42 with a thunderbolt. The blazon r e c a l l s an e a r l i e r i n t e r e s t i n Eros at 43 Athens evinced by the a l t a r dedicated to Charmos. P l u t a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Athenians saw i n t h i s device proof f o r A l c i b i a d e s ' t y r a n n i c a l bent; 44 t h e i r c l o s e s t l i n k between Eros and tyranny were the P e i s i s t r a t i d s . I n -45 deed, Aristophanes termed A l c i b i a d e s "a l i o n n u r t u r i n g i n the c i t y " . I t was the f e a r of A l c i b i a d e s ' ambition t h a t created general d i s a p p r o b a t i o n of him among the Athenians and t h a t f i n a l l y drove him from the c i t y . That f e a r was, i n no small p a r t , i n f l a t e d by the s u s p i c i o n t h a t A l c i b i a d e s had p a r t i c -i p a t e d i n parodies of the E l e u s i n i a n M y s t e r i e s and i n the m u t i l a t i o n of the Herms. In t h i s cursory study of some of the l e a d i n g Athenian statesmen, we can detect a conscious e f f o r t to t u r n o s t e n t a t i o n to p o l i t i c a l c r e d i t . By exten-s i o n , we can conclude t h a t the Athenians had come t o expect evidences of r ZLjj.-r{ from t h e i r l eaders and t h a t such men as Themistokles and Kimon i n -volved themselves i n s e l f - g l o r i f i c a t i o n , at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y , as means of ad-vancement. C l e a r l y , the Athenians had been schooled i n a p p r e c i a t i o n of l e a d -e r s h i p by the very leaders they abjured p o l i t i c a l l y - the P e i s i s t r a t i d s . At l e a s t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i d i d the most to promote the type of show t h a t seems to have become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a t Athens. S i m i l a r l y , we may expect t h a t patronage of the l i t e r a r y a r t s by the t y -230 r a n t s , notably Hipparchos, parented the sp l e n d i d f l o w e r i n g of Athenian and Greek l i t e r a t u r e i n the f i f t h century. Each member of Hipparchos' c i r c l e c o uld have been a teacher as w e l l as a v i r t u o s o . E p i k l e s of Hermione, p o s s i -b l y a p u p i l or successor of h i s countryman, Lasos, has been mentioned and i t 46 seems th a t Anakreon took some i n t e r e s t i n Aeschylos' l y r i c s . The i n t e r e s t of the P e i s i s t r a t i d s i n t r a g i c poetry i s i n d i c a t e d by the f a c t t h a t Thespis 47 stepped forward from the choros i n 534. Indeed, Athens under the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i may have become the p o e t i c , i f not c u l t u r a l , center of Greece. The innovations i n the a r t s brought to Athens by the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i seem to have been accepted wholeheartedly by the Athenians. Indeed, t h e i r ac-quired t a s t e f o r the new was not discarded along w i t h the t y r a n t s , but was 48 r e t a i n e d and c u l t i v a t e d . The very e p i c e n t e r of t h i s s chooling must have been Hipparchos, undoubtedly the a r b i t e r of • Athenian t a s t e w h i le ~_he l i v e d and apparently even a f t e r h i s death. 231 Notes 1 One l i k e l y e a r l i e r emulator may have been Megakles, the son of Hippokrates, the f i r s t v i c t i m of ost r a c i s m i n 487/6 (Ath.Pol. 22.5): c f . Pind. Pyth. 7. 2 P l u t . Them. 2.3. The passage might i n d i c a t e a l a c k of n a t i v e a b i l i t y r a t h e r than a d i s t a s t e f o r l y r e - p l a y i n g , but c f . F. F r o s t , P l u t a r c h ' s  Themistocles (Pri n c e t o n , 1980) 65-6. 3 Cf. P l u t . Them. 5.4-5; on the f r i e n d s h i p of Simonides and Themistokles see A.J. P o d l e c k i , The L i f e of Themistocles (Montreal, 1975) 4 9 f f . 4 P l u t . Them. 1.3; c f . F r o s t (above, n. 2) 64. 5 P l u t . Them. 15.4; c f . P o d l e c k i (above, n. 3) 50; F r o s t (above, n. 2) 160. 6 On the closeness of Simonides and Hipparchos c f . A.J. P o d l e c k i , " F e s t i v a l s and F l a t t e r y : The E a r l y Greek Tyrants as Patrons of Poetry", Athenaeum 68 (1980) 381-2. 7 P l u t . Them. 5.2; F r o s t (above, n. 2) 88 seems t o miss the p o i n t of t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n i n P l u t a r c h : E p i k l e s was p a r t of Themistokles' p u r s u i t of fame and honour. 8 P l u t . Them. 31.1; c f . F r o s t (above, n. 2) 224-5. 232 9 The Water-Carrier was obv i o u s l y dedicated before 480, perhaps q u i t e e a r l y on i n Themistokles' p u b l i c career (on the o f f i c e of overseer of the springs A t h . P o l . 43.1 see P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the A r i s t o t e l i a n  Athenaion P o l i t e i a [oxford, 198l] 516-7); .cf. P e r i k l e s ' involvement w i t h the d e l i v e r y of water t o the c i t y (C.W. Fornara, T r a n s l a t e d Documents of  Greece and Rome, I : Archaic Times t o the End of the Peloponnesian War ^Baltimore, 1973] 128). 1 0 Paus. 1.14.1; on the Enneakrounos f o u n t a i n see J . T r a v l o s , A P i c t o r i a l  D i c t i o n a r y of Athens (London, 1970) 204-9. 11 P l u t . Them. 22.1-2; on the shrine see Travlos (above, n. 10) 121-3. Themistokles' devotion to Artemis i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n l i g h t of the f a c t t h a t the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i brought the c u l t of Brauronian. Artemis to Athens and f o s t e r e d i t (cf. Travlos above, n. 10 124; L. K a h i l , "Le 'Craterisque' d'Artemis e t Le Brauronian de l ' A c r o p o l e " , Hesperia 50 [ l 9 8 l ] 261): k r a t e r i s k o i found on the s i t e of Artemis A r i s t o b o u l e are s i m i l a r to ones found i n number at Artemis' shrine a t Brauron (cf. K a h i l , 253-63). 12 P l u t . Them. 22.2; c f . P o d l e c k i (above, n. 3) 144. This same type of h y b r i s i s repeated i n the a l l e g e d p o r t r a i t of P e r i k l e s on Athena's s h i e l d ( P l u t . Per. 31.4) and of A l c i b i a d e s i n the l a p of Nemea ( P l u t . A l k . 16.5). 13 P l u t . Them. 22.3; see P o d l e c k i (above, n. 3) 194 f o r an ostrakon c a s t a g a i n s t Themistokles w i t h a touch of i r o n y ; c f . F r o s t (above, n. 2) 186ff. on Themistokles 1 o s t r a c i s m . 233 14 Singing: P l u t . Kim. 9.1; Judge: P l u t . Kim. 8.7-8. 15 Melanthios and Kimon: P l u t . Kim. 4.8; on Anakreon and P o l y k r a t e s see Chapter I , s e c t i o n 3,A,2. 16 P l u t . Kim. 4.9. 17 Cf. R.J. Hopper, The A c r o p o l i s (London, 1971) 82; on the controversy about Kimon 1s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the temple of Athena see R.E. Wycherley, The Stones of Athens (Pri n c e t o n , 1978) 140. 18 P l u t . Kim. 13.8; on the Akademy see Wycherley (above, n. 17) 219-25. 19 P l u t . Kim. 10.2. 20 P l u t . Kim. 10.1. 21 P l u t . Kim. 10.6; P e i s i s t r a t i d s : A t h . P o l . 16.7 (cf. Rhodes above, n. 9 217-8) . 22 Aes. 3.183-5; P l u t . Kim. 7.3-8.2; on these Hermai see E. H a r r i s o n , The Athenian Agora, XI: A r c h a i c and A r c h a i s t i c Sculpture ( P r i n c e t o n , 1965) H O f f . 23 On Hipparchos' herms see Chapter I , s e c t i o n 2,A. Contra Ha r r i s o n (above, n. 22) 116: the herms are not "best explained i f we imagine a precedent which i n v o l v e d v i c t o r y " , since the common d e d i c a t i o n f o r a v i c t o r y was a t r i p o d . Rather we'should seek a precedent t h a t i n v o l v e d very great honour or a very honourable personage (sc. Hipparchos). 24 P l u t . Per. 7; c f . a l s o 16. 25 P l u t . Per. 14. 26 P l u t . Per. 7 and 13; c f . Hopper (above, n. 17) 82-9. 27 P l u t . Per. 13.6; c f . Rhodes (above, n. 9) 670-1 on musical c o n t e s t s . 28 See Chapter I , s e c t i o n 3,C,2. 29 P e r i k l e s ' musical t u t o r was e i t h e r Damon of Oa or Pythokleides ( P l u t . Per. 4.1) . 30 A t h . P o l . 60.1; c f . Rhodes (above, n. 9) 669-71. 31 P l u t . Nik. 3.2-3. 32 P l u t . Nik. 3.3. 33 P l u t . Nik. 3.4-6; see Chapter I , s e c t i o n 3,A,1. 34 P l u t . Nik. 3.5. 35 P l u t . Nik. 3.6. 235 36 Thuc. VI.16.2 (cf. Dover, HCT, 246-7); Plut. Alk. 11.1. 37 P l u t . Alk. 11.2. 38 Thuc. VI.16.2. 39 Plu t . Alk. 10.3 and 13.2, but c f . 16.3 (see Dover, HCT, 246; contra Dover: we do not know i f Al c i b i a d e s a c t u a l l y spoke as Thucydides has him speak [unlikely i n any event] or i n what measure the s o p h i s t r i e s , etc. i n Thucydides 1 speeches ascribed to Al c i b i a d e s are his own). 40 Kleon: Thuc. I l l . 3 6 . 6 f f . ; ' Ar. Knights 626ff . ; Ath.Pol. 28.3 (cf. Rhodes [above, n. 9} 351-4). 41 Plu t . Alk. 34.6. 42 Plu t . Alk. 16.2. 43 See Chapter I, section 2,B. 44 Could the thunderbolts indicate that A l c i b i a d e s was advocating the d i s -placement of Zeus? 45 Ar. Frogs 1431-2; also P l u t . Alk. 7.2; see Chapter I, section 3,D. 46 Schol. Aes. P_.V. M . 1 2 8 ; c f . Podlecki (above, n. 6) 3 8 1 , n. 2 7 . 236 Marm. Par. Ep. 43 (see F. Jacoby, Das Marmor Parium [ B e r l i n , 1904}); c f . P o d l e c k i (above, n. 6) 381, n. 26. Such a t t i t u d e s were not l i m i t e d to the wealthy: c f . F. F r o s t , " P o l i t i c s i n E a r l y Athens", C l a s s i c a l C o n t r i b u t i o n s : Studies i n Honour of Malcolm  F r a n c i s McGregor (Locust V a l l e y , New York, 1981) 33-9, e s p e c i a l l y 38: "And an a n a l y s i s of the coarse p o t t e r y from the Agora shows a demand among Athenian housewives f o r imported, mould-made washbasins, probably f o r no other reason than vogue, f o r such items not only could be but were pro-duced d o m e s t i c a l l y a t what must have been a much lower p r i c e . " 237 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, J.W. "Was Cl e i s t h e n e s an Archon?" CJ 54 (1958/59) 307-14. Andrewes, A. The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956). (A.W. Gomme, and K.J. Dover), A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides, IV-V (Oxford, 1970 and 1981). A s h e r i , D. " E l l a n i c o , Jacoby e l a 'Tradizione Alcmeonida'" Acme 34 (1981) 15-32. Badian, E. "Archons and S t r a t e g o i " , Antichthon 5 (1971) 1-34. Beazley, J.D. Athenian Red-Figure Vase-Painters (Oxford, 1963) . , The Pan-Painter (Mainz, 1974). Beloch, K.J. G r i e c h i s c h e Geschichte (Strassbourg, 1913). , "Hipparchos und Themistokles", Hermes 55 (1920) 311-8. Benardete, Seth Herodotean Studies (The Hague, 1969). B e r t h o l d , R.M. "Which Way to Marathon?" REA 78-79 (1976/77) 84-95. Berve, H. Die Tyrannis b e i den Griechen, I - I I (Munich, 1967) . B i c k n e l l , P. "The E x i l e s of the Alkmaeonidai during the P e i s i s t r a t i d Tyranny", H i s t o r i a 19 (1970) 129-31. , Studies i n Athenian P o l i t i c s and Genealogies, H i s t o r i a E i n z e l -s c h r i f t e n 19 (Wiesbaden, 1972). , "Athenian P o l i t i c s and Genealogy; Some Pendants", H i s t o r i a 23 (1974) 146-63. , "Themistokles' Father and Mother", H i s t o r i a 31 (1982) 161-73. Bing, J.D. "Lykopodes: A C o n t r i b u t i o n to Athenian M i l i t a r y H i s t o r y from 238 P e i s i s t r a t o s to K l e i s t h e n e s " , CJ 72 (1977) 308-16. B i z a r d , L. " F o u i l l e s du P t o i o n (.1903), I I . - I n s c r i p t i o n s " , BCH 44 (1920) 227-67. Boardman, J . Athenian Black-Figure Vases (London, 1974). , Athenian Red-Figure Vases: The Archaic P e r i o d (London, 1975). and Donna C. K u r t z , Greek B u r i a l Customs (New York, 1971). Boersma, J.S. Athenian B u i l d i n g P o l i c y from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C. (Groningen, 1970) . Bowra, CM. Greek L y r i c Poetry (Oxford, 1961) . Bradeen, D.W. "The F i f t h Century A r c h o n - L i s t " , Hesperia 32 (1963) 187-208. Brown, N.O. Hermes the Thief (New York, 1947). Bruneau, P. and J . Ducat, Guide de Delos ( P a r i s , 1965). Brunnsaker, S. The Tyrant-Slayers of K r i t i o s and Nesiotes (Lund, 1955 and 1971) . Buck, R.J. "The Reforms of 487 B.C. i n the S e l e c t i o n of Archons", CP_ 60 (1965) 96-101. , A H i s t o r y of Boeotia (Edmonton, 1979). Burn, A.R. The L y r i c Age of Greece (London, 1960). B u r s t e i n , S.M. "The R e c a l l of the O s t r a c i z e d and the Themistokles Decree", CSCA 4 (1971) 93-110. Bury, J.B. and R. Meiggs, A H i s t o r y of Greece to the Death of Alexander (London, 1975). B u s o l t , G. G r i e c h i s c h e Geschichte (Gotha, 1895) . and H. Swoboda, Gr i e c h i s c h e Staatskunde (Munich, 1920/26). Cadoux, T.J. "The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides", JHS 68 (1948) 70-123. C a l a b i - L i m e n t a n i , I . "Armodio e A r i s t o g i t o n e g l i U c c i s i d a l Tiranno", Acme 239 22 (1976) 9-27. Campbell, D.A. Greek L y r i c Poetry: A S e l e c t i o n of E a r l y Greek L y r i c , E l e g a i c and Iambic Poetry (London, 1967). Carcopino, J . L'Ostracisme Athenien ( P a r i s , 1935). Chadwick, J . The Mycenaean World (Cambridge, 1976). Chambers, M. ( J . Day and), A r i s t o t l e ' s H i s t o r y of the Athenian Democracy (Berkeley, 1962). Chittenden, J . "The Master of Animals", Hesperia 16 (1947) 89-114. Coldstream, J.N. "Hero-Cults i n the Age of Homer", JHS 96 (1976) 8-17. Connor, W.R. "Tyrannis P o l i s " , Ancient and Modern: Essays i n Honor of G.F. E l s e (Ann Arbor, 1977) 95-109. Cook, J.M. The Troad (Oxford, 1973). Corbett, P.E. "The Burgon and Blacas Tombs", JHS 80 (1960) 52-60. C o r n e l i u s , F t Die Tyrannis i n Athen (Munich, 1929). Corssen, P. "Das V e r h a l t n i s der a r i s t o t e l i s c h e n zu der thukydideischen D a r s t e l l u n g des Tyrannenmordes", RhM 51 (1896) 226-39. , ("Nachrichten tiber Versammlungen"), B e r l i n e r P h i l o l o g i s c h e Wochenschrift 23 (1903) 350-1. i Crome, J.F. " H i p p a r c h e i o i Hermai", AM 60/1 (1935/36) 300-13. Cromey, R.D. " K l e i s t h e n e s ' Fate", H i s t o r i a 28 (1979) 129-47. Crosby, M. "The A l t a r of the Twelve Gods", Hesperia Suppl. 8 (1949) 82-103. C u r t i u s , H. "Zur Geschichte des Wegebaus b e i den Griechen", Abhandlungen der K o n i g l i c h e n Akademie der Wissenschaften zu B e r l i n aus dem Jahre 1854 (1855). Davie, J.H. "Herodotos and Aristophanes on Monarchy", GSR Ser. 2, 26 (1979) 160-8. Davies, J.K. Athenian P r o p e r t i e d F a m i l i e s , 600-300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971). 240 Davison, J.A. " P e i s i s t r a t u s and Homer", TAPA 86 (1955) 1-21. , "Notes on the Panathenaea", JHS 78 (1958) 23-42 (= From A r c h i l o c h u s to Pindar pLondon, 1968] 28-69). Day, J . and M. Chambers, A r i s t o t l e ' s H i s t o r y of the Athenian Democracy (Berkeley, 1962) . D e v e l i n , R. " M i l t i a d e s and the P a r i a n E x p e d i t i o n " , AC 46 (1977) 571-7. Diesner, H.-J. " P e i s i s t r a t i d e n e x k u r s und P e i s i s t r a t i d e n b i l d b e i Thukydides", H i s t o r i a 8 (1959) 12-22. Dindorf, W. ed. A r i s t i d e s ( L e i p z i g , 1829). Dodds, E.R. comm. P l a t o . Gorgias (Oxford, 1959). Dover, K.J. comm. P l a t o . Symposium (Cambridge, 1980). (A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and), A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides, IV-V (Oxford, 1970 and 1981). Dow, S. ( J . Ki r c h n e r and), " I n s c h r i f t e n vom A t t i s c h e n Lande", AM 62 (1937) 1-3. Drees, L. Olympia: Gods, A r t i s t s , A t h l e t e s (New York, 1968). Drews, R. "The F i r s t Tyrants i n Greece", H i s t o r i a 21 (1972) 129-44. Ducat, J . Kouroi du P t o i o n ( P a r i s , 1971). , "La Confederation Beotienne et 1'Expansion Thebaine a l'Epoque Archaique", BCH 97 (1973) 59-73. (P. Bruneau and), Guide de Delos ( P a r i s , 1965). Dyson, G.W. "AEONTA TEKEIN", CO 23 (1929) 186-95. Ehrenberg, V. "The O r i g i n s of Democracy", H i s t o r i a 1 (1950) 515-48. , "Das Harmodioslied", WS 69 (1956) 57-69. Eitrem, S. "Hermai", R-E 8, 696. E l i o t , C.W.J. and M.F. McGregor, " K l e i s t h e n e s : Eponymous Archon, 525/4 B.C.", Phoenix 14 (1960) 27-35. 241 E l l i s , J.R. and G.R. Stanton, " F a c t i o n a l C o n f l i c t and Solon's Reforms", Phoenix 22 (1968) 95-110. F a r n e l l , L. The C u l t s of the Greek States (London, 1909). Ferngren, G.B. Studies i n E a r l y Greek Tyranny (Diss., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972). F e r r i l l , A r thur "Herodotus on Tyranny", H i s t o r i a 27 (1978) 385-98. F i n l e y , M.I. and H.W. P l e k e t , The Olympic Games: The F i r s t Thousand Years (London, 1976). F i t z g e r a l d , T. "The Murder of Hipparchus: A Reply", H i s t o r i a 6 (1957) 275-86. Focke, F. Herodot a l s H i s t o r i k e r ( S t u t t g a r t , 1927). Fornara, C. " H e l l a n i c u s and an Alcmaeonid T r a d i t i o n " , H i s t o r i a 17 (1968) 381-4. , "The ' T r a d i t i o n ' about the Murder of Hipparchus", H i s t o r i a 17 (1968) 400-24. , "The C u l t of Harmodios and A r i s t o g e i t o n " , P h i l o l o g u s 114 (1970) 155-80. , Herodotus: An I n t e r p r e t a t i v e - E s s a y (Oxford", 1971) . , T r a n s l a t e d Documents of Greece and Rome, I: Archaic Times t o the End of the Peloponnesian War (Baltimore, 1973). F o r r e s t , W.G. "The F i r s t Sacred War", BCH 80 (1956) 33-52. , "Themistokles and Argos", CQ_ 10 (1960) 221-41. , The Emergence of Greek Democracy, 800-400 B.C. (New York, 1966). , "The T r a d i t i o n of Hippias' E x p u l s i o n from Athens", GRBS 10 (1969) 277-86. French, A. "The Party of P e i s i s t r a t o s " , GSR 2nd S e r i e s , 6 (1959) 46-57. F r i e d e l , H. Der Tyrannenmord i n Gesetzgebung und Volkmeinung der Griechen 242 ( S t u t t g a r t , 1937). F r i e d l a n d e r , P. P l a t o : The Dialogues ( F i r s t Period) (New York, 1964). and H. H o f f l e i t , Epigrammata: Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s i n Verse (Berkeley, 1948). F r i s c h , P. Die I n s c h r i f t e n von Lampsakos (Bonn, 1978). F r i t z , K. von and E. Kapp, A r i s t o t l e ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n of Athens (New York, 1950). F r o s t , F. P l u t a r c h ' s Themistocles (Princeton, 1980). , " P o l i t i c s i n E a r l y Athens", C l a s s i c a l C o n t r i b u t i o n s : Studies i n Honour of Malcolm F r a n c i s McGregor (Locust V a l l e y , New York, 1981) 33-9. Gagarin, M. "The Thesmothetai and the E a r l i e s t Athenian Tyranny Law", TAPA 111 (1981) 71-8. Gardiner, E.N. Greek A t h l e t i c Sports and F e s t i v a l s (London, 1910). Gauthier, P. "Les Tyrans dans l a Monde Grec Antique", REG 81 (1968) 555-61. Gehrke, H.-J. "Zur Geschichte M i l e t s i n der M i t t e l des 5. Jahrhunderts von C h r i s t " , H i s t o r i a 29 (1980) 17-31. Gerber, D.E. Euterpe (Amsterdam, 1970). G i l l i s , D. C o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h the P e r s i a n s , H i s t o r i a E i n z e l s c h r i f t e n 24 (Wiesbaden, 1980). Goldman, H. "The O r i g i n of the Herm", AJA 46 (1942) 58-68. Gomme, A.W. "Athenian Notes I " , AJP 65 (1944) 321-39. , A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides, I - I I I (Oxford, 1956 and 1966). A. Andrewes and K.J. Dover, A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Thucydides, IV-V (Oxford, 1970 and 1981). Grote, G. A H i s t o r y of Greece (London, 1888). Guarducci, M. "Note d i E p i g r a f i a A t t i c a A r c a i c a " , Annuario d e l l e Scuola 243 A r c h e o l o g i c a d i Atene e d e l l e M i s s i o n i I t a l i a n e i n O r i e n t e , 3-5 Nuova Se r i e (1941/42) 115-34. G u t h r i e , W.K.C. The Greeks and t h e i r Gods (Boston, 1950). Hammond, N.G.L. "The P h i l a i d s i n the Chersonese", CQ_ 6 (1956) 113-29. Hansen, M.H. E i s a n g e l i a : The Sovereignty of the People's Court i n Athens i n 0 the Fourth Century B.C. and the Impeachment of Generals and P o l i t i c i a n s (Odense, 1975). , Apagoge, E n d e i x i s and Ephegesis a g a i n s t Kakourgoi, A t i m o i and Pheugontes (Odense, 1976). , " E i s a n g e l i a a t Athens: A Reply", JHS 100 (1980) 89-95. H a r r i s o n , E. The Athenian Agora, XI; Arch a i c and A r c h a i s t i c Sculpture ( P r i n c e t o n , 1965). Hart, John Herodotus and Greek H i s t o r y (London, 1982). Heerwerden, M. van "De L o c i s N o n n u l l i s Thucydideis e L i b r i s V I - V I I " , Mnem. 8 (1880) 145-81. Higby, L. "The Erythrae Decree", K l i o B e i h e f t 36 ( B e r l i n , 1936). H i g n e t t , C. A H i s t o r y of the Athenian C o n s t i t u t i o n (Oxford, 1951). Hindley, G. A H i s t o r y of Roads (London, 1931). H i r s c h , M. "Die Athenischen Tyrannenmorder i n Geschichtsschriebung und Volkslegende", K l i o 20 (1926) 129-67. H o f f l e i t , H. (P. F r i e d l a n d e r and), Epigrammata: Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s i n Verse (Berkeley, 1948). Hoffman, S. "In the Looking G l a s s " , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o The Sorrow and The P i t y (New York, 1972). Holladay, J . "Medism i n Athens, 508-480 B.C.", GSR 2nd S e r i e s , 25 (1978) 174-91. Hondius, J.J.E. "Hippias oder Hipparchos?" Hermes 22 (1922) 475-8. 244 Hopper, R.J. The A c r o p o l i s (London, 1971). How, W.W. and J . W e l l s , A Commentary on Herodotus (Oxford, 1912). Hunter, V. "Athens Tyrannis: A New Approach to Thucydides", CJ_ 69 (1974) 120-6. Immerwahr, H. Form and Thought i n Herodotus (Cleveland, 1966). Jacoby, F. Das Marmor Parium ( B e r l i n , 1904). , Die Fragmente der Gr i e c h i s c h e n H i s t o r i k e r ( K i e l , 1922- ). , A t t h i s . The L o c a l C h r o n i c l e s of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949). J e f f e r y , L.H. The L o c a l S c r i p t s of Ar c h a i c Greece (Oxford, 1961). , Ar c h a i c Greece: ..The C i t y - S t a t e s , 700-500 B.C. (London, 1976). J u d e i c h , W. Topographie von Athen (Munich, 1905). K a h i l , L. "Le 'Craterisque' d'Artemis et Le Brauronian de l ' A c r o p o l e " , Hesperia 50 (1981) 253-63. K a i b e l , G. S t i l und Text der Athenaion P o l i t e i a ( B e r l i n , 1893). Kapp, E. (K. von F r i t z and), A r i s t o t l e ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n of Athens (New York, 1950). K a r a v i t e s , P. " R e a l i t i e s and Appearances, 490-480 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 26 (1977) 129-47. Kardara, Ch. "Ho Phonos tou Hipparchou", E E Ath 25 (1974/77) 51-60. K e i l , B. Die Solonische Verfassung i n A r i s t o t e l e s Verfassungsgeschichte ( B e r l i n , 1892). Kenyon, F.G. comm. A r i s t o t l e on the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the Athenians (London, 1893) . Kern, 0. "Ba k i s " , R-E 2.2, 2802. K i n z l , K. "Zu Thukydides fiber d i e P e i s i s t r a t i d a i " , H i s t o r i a 27 (1973) 504-7. , "Herodotus - I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " , RhM 118 (1975) 193-204. , "Mehr zu Thucydides fiber d i e P e i s i s t r a t i d a i " , H i s t o r i a 25 (1976) 245 478-80. , "Notes on the E x i l e s of the A l k m a i o n i d a i " , RhM 119 (1976) 311-4. K i r c h b e r g , J . Die Funktion der Orakel im Werke Herodots, Hypomnemata I I (Gottingen, 1965). K i r c h n e r , J . Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum ( B e r l i n , 1948). and S. Dow, " I n s c h r i f t e n vom A t t i s c h e n Lande", AM 62 (1937) 1-3. Kluwe, E. Die Tyrannis der P e i s i s t r a t i d e n und i h r Niederschlag i n der Kunst (Diss., Jena, 1966). K o n i s h i , H. "The Composition of Thucydides", AJP 101 (1980) 29-41. K u r t z , Donna C. (J . Boardman and), Greek B u r i a l Customs (New York, 1971). Laidlaw, W.A. A H i s t o r y of Delos (Oxford, 1933). Lamb, W.R. t r a n s , f p l a t q ] Hipparchus (London, 1927). Lang, M. "The Murder of Hipparchus", H i s t o r i a 3 (1954/55) 395-407. Latt i m o r e , R. t r a n s . The Odes of Pindar (Chicago, 1976). L a v e l l e , B.M. "A Note on Pe r i s c h o i n i s m a " , RFIC (forthcoming). Lenardon, R. "Thucydides and H e l l a n i k o s " , C l a s s i c a l C o n t r i b u t i o n s : Studies presented t o Malcolm F r a n c i s McGregor (Locust V a l l e y , New York, 1981) 59-70. Lewis, D.M. (R. Meiggs and), A S e l e c t i o n of Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s to the End of the F i f t h Century B.C. (Oxford, 1969 and 1975). Loenen, D. "The P i s i s t r a t i d e s , A Shared Rule", Mnem. Ser. 4, 1 (1948) 81-9. MacDowell, D.M. comm. Andocides. On The Mysterie s (Oxford, 1962). , The Law i n C l a s s i c a l Athens (London, 1978) . McGregor, M.F. "The Pro - P e r s i a n P a r t y at Athens from 510-480 B.C.", HSCP Suppl. 1 (Athenian Studies presented to W.S. Ferguson) (1940) 71-95. , " C l e i s t h e n e s of Sicyon and the P a n h e l l e n i c F e s t i v a l s " , TAPA 72 (1941) 266-87. 246 (B.D. M e r i t t , H.T. Wade-Gery and), The Athenian T r i b u t e L i s t s , I I I ( P r i n c e t o n , 1950). (C.W.J. E l i o t and), " K l e i s t h e n e s : Eponymous Archon, 525/4 B.C.", Phoenix 14 (I960) 27-35. Macan, R.W. Herodotus, the Fourth, F i f t h and S i x t h Books (London, 1895). , Herodotus, the Seventh, E i g h t h and Ni n t h Books (London, 1908). Marchant, E.C. comm. Thucydides. Book VI (London, 1902). Margary, Ivan Roman Roads i n B r i t a i n (London, 1967). Marwitz, H. "Hermai", Der K l e i n e Pauly ( S t u t t g a r t , 1967) 1065-6. Meiggs, R. The Athenian Empire (Oxford, 1972). and D.M. Lewis, A S e l e c t i o n of Greek H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s t o the End of the F i f t h Century B.C. (Oxford, 1969 and 1975). (J.B. Bury and), A H i s t o r y of Greece to the Death of Alexander (New York, 1975). M e r i t t , B.D. "Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s " , Hesperia 8 (1939) 48-82. , "Greek I n s c r i p t i o n s " , Hesperia 21 (1952) 340-80. H.T. Wade-Gery and M.F. McGregor, The Athenian T r i b u t e L i s t s , I I I (P r i n c e t o n , 1950). Merkelbach, R. "Das D i s t i c h o n tlber den Ostrakismos des Xanthippos", ZPE 4 (1969) 201-2. Merry, W.W. comm. Aristophanes. The B i r d s (Oxford, 1904). M i l l e r , J . "Die Erzawungen von den Tyrannenmordern", P h i l o l o g u s 6 (1893) 573-6. , " A r i s t o g e i t o n " , R-E 2.2, 930. M i l l e r , S. "The A l t a r of the S i x Goddesses i n T h e s s a l i a n P h e r a i " , CSCA 7 (1974) 231-56. Moggi, M. "In M e r i t o a l i a Datazione d e i ' T i r a n n i c i d i ' d i Antenor", ASNP I I I , 247 1 (1971) 17-63. Momigliano, A. "L 1Excursus d i Tuc i d i d e i n V I , 54-59", S t u d i d i S t o r i o g r a f i c a  A n t i c a i n Memoria d i Leonardo F e r r e r o (Torino, 1971) 31-5. Moore, J.M. A r i s t o t l e and Xenophon on Democracy and Ol i g a r c h y (Berkeley, 1975). Mosse, C. La Tyrannie dans La Grece ( P a r i s , 1969). M u l l e r , F. ed. L. Herbst. Zu Thukydides ( L e i p z i g , 1898/1900). Munch, H. Studien zu den Exkursen des Thukydides (Heidelberg, 1935). Murray, 0. E a r l y Greece (Brighton, Sussex, 1980). N i l l s o n , M.P. Greek F o l k R e l i g i o n (New York, 1940). , C u l t s , Myths, Oracles and P o l i t i c s i n Ancient Greece (New York, 1951) . Ostwald, M. "The Athenian L e g i s l a t i o n a gainst Tyranny and Subversion", TAPA 86 (1955) 103-28. , Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Demos (Oxford, 1969). Page, Denys Poetae M e l i c i Graecae (Oxford, 1962). , L y r a Graeca S e l e c t a (Oxford, 1968). (revised by R.D. Dawe and J . D i g g l e ) , F u r t h e r Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981). Parke, H.W. " P o l y c r a t e s and Delos", C& 40 (1946) 105-8. , F e s t i v a l s of the Athenians (Ithaca, New York, 1977). Paton, W.R. t r a n s . The Greek Anthology (London, 1917). Pearson, L. "Note on a D i g r e s s i o n of Thucydides (VI.54-59) 1 1, AJP 70 (1949) 186-9. Peek, W. " E i n Herme des Hipparch", Hermes 70 (1935) 461-4. P l e k e t , H.W. "Isonomia and C l e i s t h e n e s : A Note", Talanta 4 (1972) 63-81. (M.I. F i n l e y and), The Olympic Games: The F i r s t Thousand Years 248 (London, 1976). Plommer, W.H. "The Tyranny of the A r c h o n - L i s t " , CR 19 (1969) 126-9. P o d l e c k i , A.J. "The P o l i t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Athenian 'Tyrannicide'-C u l t " , H i s t o r i a 15 (1966) 129-41. , The L i f e of Themistocles (Montreal, 1975). , "Simonides i n S i c i l y " , Pj? 34 (1979) 5-16. , " F e s t i v a l s and F l a t t e r y : The E a r l y Greek Tyrants as Patrons of Poetry", Athenaeum 68 (1980) 371-95. P r i n c e t o n Encyclopaedia of C l a s s i c a l S i t e s , The (P. S t i l l w e l l , ed.) (Prince t o n , 1976). P r i t c h e t t , W. Kendrick Studies i n Ancient Greek Topography, I I I : Roads (Berkeley, 1980). Raubitschek, A.E. "Two Monuments erected a f t e r the V i c t o r y of Marathon", AJA 44 (1940) 53-9. , "The O r i g i n of Ostracism", AJA 55 (1951) 221-9. Rhodes, P.J. " P e i s i s t r a t i d Chronology Again", Phoenix 30 (1976) 219-33. , "Bastards as Athenian C i t i z e n s " , CC; 28 (1978) 89-92. , " E i s a n g e l i a a t Athens", JHS 99 (1979) 103-14. , A Commentary on the Athenaion P o l i t e i a (Oxford, 1981) . Robertson, D.S. Greek and Roman A r c h i t e c t u r e (Cambridge, 1945). Robertson, N. "The Sequence of Events i n the Aegean, 408 and 407 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 29 (1980) 282-301. Robinson, J r . , C.A. "Athenian P o l i t i c s , 510-486 B.C.", AJP 66 (1945) 243-54. R o m i l l y , J . de Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism (Oxford, 1963). Rzach, T. "Musaios", R-E 16, 1, 758-67. Sandys, J.E. comm. A r i s t o t l e ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n of Athens (London, 1893). Schachermeyr, F. " P e i s i s t r a t i d e n " , R-E 19, 1, 150-5. 249 Schadewaldt, W. Die Geschichtsgchriebung des Thukydides ( B e r l i n , 1929). Schaefer, H. "Die A t t i s c h e Symmachie im Zweiten Jahrzent Ihres Bestehens", Hermes 71 (1936) 129-50. Schobel, K. The Ancient Olympic Games (Princ e t o n , 1966). S c h o l t e , A. "Hippias ou Hipparque?" Mnem. Ser. 3, 5 (1937) 69-75. Schwartz, E. Das Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Bonn, 1919). Sealey, R. "The P i t and The Well: The P e r s i a n Heralds of 491 B.C.", CJ 72 (1976) 13-20. , A H i s t o r y of the Greek C i t y - S t a t e s , 700-338 B.C. (Berkeley, 1976). Shapiro, H.A. "Hippokrates, Son of A n a x i l e o s " , Hesperia 49 (1980) 289-93. S i e b e r t , J . Die P o l i t i s c h e F l u c h t l i n g e und Verbannten i n d i e Gr i e c h i s c h e n Geschichte (Darmstadt, 1979). S t a h l , H.-P. Thukydides: Die S t e l l u n g des Menschen im G e s c h i c h t l i c h e n Prozess (Munich, 1966). S t a h l , J.M. Uber Athenische Amnestie Beschlusse", RhM 46 (1891) 250-86. Stamires, G.A. (E. Vanderpool and), " K a l l i x e n o s the Alkmeonid", Hesperia 19 (1950) 376-90. Stanton, G.R. (J.R. E l l i s and), " F a c t i o n a l C o n f l i c t and Solon's Reforms", Phoenix 22 (1968) 95-110. Stern , E. von "Hippias oder Hipparchos?" Hermes 52 (1917) 354-70. S t i l l w e l l , P. ed. The P r i n c e t o n Encyclopaedia of C l a s s i c a l S i t e s (Princeton, 1976). S t o e s s l , F. "Onomakritos", R-E 18, 1, 491-3. Strassburger, H. "Herodot und das P e r i k l e i s c h e Athen", H i s t o r i a 4 (1955) 1-25. Stroud, R.S. Drakon's Law on Homicide (Berkeley, 1968). 250 Swoboda, H. "Arthmios von Z e l e i a " , A r c h a e o l o g i s c h - E p i g r a f i s c h e M i t t h e i l u n g e n 16 (1893) 49-68. (G. Bus o l t and), G r i e c h i s c h e Staatskunde (Munich, 1920/26). Thalheim, Th. " A d i k i o u " , R-E 1, 1, 362. Thompson, W.E. "The Archonship of C l e i s t h e n e s " , CJ 55 (1959) 217-20. , " I n d i v i d u a l M o t i v a t i o n i n Thucydides", C&M 30 (1969) 158-74. , "The Prytaneion Decree", AJP 92 (1971) 226-37. , "Thucydides 2.65.11", H i s t o r i a 20 (1971) 141-51. Thomsen, R. The O r i g i n of Ostracism (Copenhagen, 1972). Toep f f e r , J . A t t i s c h e Genealogie ( B e r l i n , 1889). , "Die Soehne des P e i s i s t r a t o s " , Hermes 29 (1894) 463-75. T r a i l l , J.S. "The P o l i t i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of A t t i c a " , Hesperia Suppl. 14 (1975). T r a v l o s , J . A P i c t o r i a l D i c t i o n a r y of Athens (London, 1970). Trypanis, C.A. "The Epigrams of Anacreon on Hermae", CC; 45 (1951) 31-4. Ure, P.N. The O r i g i n of Tyranny (Cambridge, 1922). Ussher, R.G. comm. Aristophanes. E c c l e s i a z u s a e (Oxford, 1973). U s t e r i , P. Achtung und Verbannung i n G r i e c h i s c h e n Recht ( B e r l i n , 1903). V a l e t o n , M. "De Harmodio et A r i s t o g i t o n e " , Mnem. 46 (1917) 21-52. Vanderpool, E. "Some Ostraka from the Athenian Agora", Hesperia Suppl. 8 (1949) 394-411. , Ostracism i n Athens ( C i n c i n n a t i , 1970). and G.A. Stamires, " K a l l i x e n o s the Alkmeonid", Hesperia 19 (1950) 376-90. Vattuone, R. "L'Excursus n e l VI L i b r o d e l l e S t o r i e d i T u c i d i d e " , RSA 5 (1975) 173-84. Vernant, J.-P. "Lameness, Tyranny, Incest i n Legend and H i s t o r y " , Arethusa 251 15 (1982) 19-38. Wade-Gery, H.T. " M i l t i a d e s " , JHS 71 (1951) 212-21 (- Essays i n Greek H i s t o r y (Oxford, 1958] 155-70). (B.D. M e r i t t , and M.F. McGregor), The Athenian T r i b u t e L i s t s , I I I (Princ e t o n , 1950). Walbank, M.B. "Artemis Bear-Leader", CQ_ 31 (1981) 276-81. Walcot, P. Envy and the Greeks (Warminster, England, 1978). W e l l s , J . (W.W. How and), A Commentary on Herodotus (Oxford, 1912). West, M.L. E l e g i et Iambi Gr a e c i (Oxford, 1972). White, M. "The Duration of the Samian Tyranny", JHS 74 (1954) 36-43. , "Greek Tyranny", Phoenix 9 (1955) 1-18. , "Hippias and the Athenian Archon L i s t " , i n P o l i s and Imperium: Studies i n Honour of Edward Togo Salmon (Toronto, 1974) 81-95. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von "Oropos und d i e G r a i e r " , Hermes 21 (1886) 91-115. , A r i s t o t e l e s und Athen ( B e r l i n , 1893). W i l l i a m s , G.M.E. "The Kerameikos Ostraka", ZPE 31 (1978) 103-13. , "The Image of the A l k m a i o n i d a i , 490-480 B.C.", H i s t o r i a 29 (1980) 106-10. Wolff, C. "A Note on Lions and Sophocles' P h i l o k t e t e s 1436", i n G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert and M.C.J. Putnam, edd. Arktouros: H e l l e n i c Studies presented to B.M.W. Knox on the Occasion of h i s 65th Bi r t h d a y ( B e r l i n , 1979) 144-50. Woodbury, L. "The Date and Atheism of Diagoras the M e l i a n " , Phoenix 19 (1965) 178-209. Wycherley, R.E. The Stones of Athens (Prin c e t o n , 1978). , The Athenian Agora, I I I : ..Epigraphia and Testimonia (Pri n c e t o n , 1957) . Y a l o u r i s , N. ed. The E t e r n a l Olympics (New York, 1979). ..253. APPENDIX: The Sixth Century Archon-List (SEG 10, 352) 1. Hippias The following fragment was f i r s t published by Mer i t t , who suggested that i t had formed part of the Athenian a r c h o n - l i s t , and was l a t e r confirmed and 1 dated by Bradeen: Bradeen published a d d i t i o n a l fragments of the same l i s t , which thoroughly ex-2 tinguished doubts that had been r a i s e d about Meritt's suggestion. The iden-t i f i c a t i o n of the fragment as part of the a r c h o n - l i s t has not been se r i o u s l y 3 questioned since. Me r i t t dated the l i s t to the 520s, using the obviously c o r r e c t r e s t o r a -tions of Hippias, Kleisthenes and M i l t i a d e s , the l a s t i d e n t i f i e d independent-4 l y as the eponymous archon f o r 524/3. No other known Athenian ever bore the name of Hippias a f t e r h i s expulsion and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s Hippias as 5 the son of the tyrant appears c e r t a i n . The name Kleisthenes was rare at Athens, having been brought to the c i t y from Sikyon a f t e r the tyrant of that c i t y : reasonably, the name on the a r c h o n - l i s t can only have represented the 6 archonship of Kleisthenes the Alkmaionid. I E I i G E M | I T \ A & E $ E T O I P P I A i T P A T 254 The fragment preserves p a r t s of two other s i g n i f i c a n t names. The l e t -7 t e r s E T O i n l i n e 3 have been r e s t o r e d as [oft^ETojVJ or JON]ETOJJ^lA&O• A space remains above the l e t t e r T t h a t , by i t s s i z e , could have contained an omicron, but not an alpha, gamma, d e l t a or other such l e t t e r t h a t would have extended low and to the r i g h t i n the l e t t e r space, since some remnant 8 would have remained on the stone t h a t we have to see. The importance of t h i s i s t h a t the space above the T could have accommodated 0 from the name Philo n e o s , a man who we know was archon i n 528/7, the year of P e i s i s t r a t o s ' 9 death. A c e r t a i n r e s t o r a t i o n of the name Philoneos would anchor the f r a g -ment f i r m l y i n the mid-520s, since the number of names between i t and M i l t i a d e s i s e x a c t l y r i g h t to confirm M i l t i a d e s ' archonship i n 524/3. In l i n e 8, M e r i t t was tempted t o r e s t o r e £TPAT as [p£ t£ l ] $ T P A T \ p £ ) r e p r e s e n t i n g the archonship of the grandson and namesake of P e i s i s t r a t o s the 10 t y r a n t . But M e r i t t noted t h a t s e v e r a l names could f i t the space and tha t 11 P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger would have been very young as archon i n 522/1. Thucydides (VI.54.6) s a i d t h a t , during the archonship of P e i s i s t r a t o s , the son of Hippias dedicated the A l t a r s of the Twelve Gods and of A p o l l o P y t h i o s 2 at Athens and he quoted the i n s c r i p t i o n of the l a t t e r , which i s extant (IG I 12 761). M e r i t t thought t h a t the l e t t e r i n g of t h a t i n s c r i p t i o n was too so-13 p h i s t i c a t e d t o be dated e a r l i e r than the beginning of the f i f t h century. He b e l i e v e d t h a t the advanced s t y l e of the i n s c r i p t i o n and the evidence of an ostrakon t h a t bore the i n s c r i p t i o n P t < r t c r ^ r ^ i O ' * w r i t t e n retrograde c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger had sur v i v e d the exp u l s i o n of the P e i s i s t r a t i d s i n 510, had remained to become eponymous archon i n 497/6, 14 and had l a t e r become a candidate f o r ostrac i s m . Cadoux, however, observed t h a t P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger must have held the eponymous archonship before 519 anyway i f he had dedicated the A l t a r of 255 15 the Twelve Gods during h i s archonship. Herodotos (VI.108.4) records t h a t , when the P l a t a i a n ambassadors came to Athens t o seek an a l l i a n c e w i t h the Athenians a g a i n s t the Thebans, they sat down as s u p p l i a n t s on the A l t a r of 16 the Twelve Gods. Thucydides (III.68.5) dates the r e s u l t i n g P l a t a i a n / Athenian a l l i a n c e 92 years before the d e s t r u c t i o n of P l a t a i a by the Spartans 17 and the Thebans i n 427 B.C., or from 519, a date accepted by most s c h o l a r s . Thus, the A l t a r must have been dedicated by P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger before t h a t . P e i s i s t r a t o s the Younger was archon at some time and we c e r t a i n l y cannot put h i s archonship before h i s f a t h e r ' s . The ostrakon w i t h the name P e i s i s t r a t o s might b e t t e r be attached to P e i s i s t r a t o s the E l d e r or even to 18 P e i s i s t r a t o s the archon of 669/8. The l e t t e r i n g of the d e dicatory i n s c r i p -t i o n on the A l t a r of A p o l l o P y t h i o s must have been simply ahead of i t s 19 time. On epigraphic and h i s t o r i c grounds, the best r e s t o r a t i o n f o r l i n e 8 20 of the a r c h o n - l i s t i s [rEK Q $ T P A T [ 0 ; Q . A reasonable r e s t o r a t i o n of the names on the a r c h o n - l i s t w i t h t h e i r cor-responding dates i s as f o l l o w s : [ b h f j E T o t P . . . . 527/6 [rfjl P P ' | A [ O 526/5 [ K > E I ^  O E N [ E $3 525/4 [ V f j l U T I A A E i 524/3 £ K A } U H A A E . ^ 523/2 [P E l ] $ T PATfoG 522/1 The a r c h o n - l i s t i s important because i t helps to l i g h t e n an otherwise dim p i c t u r e of P e i s i s t r a t i d tyranny a t Athens f o l l o w i n g the death of P e i s i s t r a t o s . Now i t i s p o s s i b l e t o know with a reasonable amount of c e r -t a i n t y t h a t H i p p i a s , the son of P e i s i s t r a t o s , became archon i n 526/5, a f u l l 256 archon-year a f t e r the death of h i s f a t h e r . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t H i p p i a s , 21 whose age was about f i f t y a t the time of h i s archonship., waited f o r so long 22 to procure what was, i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , h i s f i r s t archonship and t h a t there was a l a g i n time between h i s f a t h e r ' s death and h i s assumption of the 23 o f f i c e . S u r p r i s i n g l y c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d on the l i s t w i t h the P e i s i s t r a t i d i s K l e i s t h e n e s the Alkmaionid-, f o r Herodotos (VI.123.1) claimed t h a t the A l k m a i o n i d a i were i n v e t e r a t e t y r a n t - h a t e r s and, because of t h a t hate, were 24 i n continuous e x i l e from the time of the b a t t l e of P a l l e n e i n 546. The » a r c h o n - l i s t shows not only t h a t K l e i s t h e n e s had returned, but a l s o t h a t a c e r t a i n c o r d i a l i t y had been r e s t o r e d between the P e i s i s t r a t i d a i and the fam-i l y of K l e i s t h e n e s which enabled K l e i s t h e n e s to o b t