4
11. Archaic tyrannies
According to Thucydides, the emergence of tyrannies in the Greek cities was an inevitable consequence of the tumultuous growth of the archaic age. In fact, these ambitious individuals seem to capture very well the dynamic spirit and the anxieties of the time, although the unsettled nature of their power and the necessity to defend it from internal and outside threats kept them from looking beyond the small confines of their cities. The world of the Greek poleis was fragmented and divided, and would remain so until the time of the great campaigns against the Persians. The city of Corinth, located on the isthmus between Attica and Peloponnese, is perhaps the best example of the dynamism of archaic Greece. Between the seventh and sixth centuries, under the enlightened tyrannies of the Cypselids and the Bacchiads, the city became arguably became the foremost center of the Greek world. The flamboyant Corinthian pottery, rich in oriental influences, became very popular throughout the Mediterranean and gave an important contribution to the shaping of a distinctively Greek taste [a–b].
Aristotle in the Politics describes tyranny in rather negative terms as a corrupted form of monarchy, which shares the worst features of oligarchy and democracy. His judgement however seems to have been more influenced by certain fifth- and fourth-century regimes, such as the tyrannies of Syracuse, than those of the archaic age. Tyranny appears as the least constitutional and least political of all the forms of government. The tyrant is essentially an individual who seizes power in the polis exclusively to advance his own interests and those of his family. Tyrants are by nature greedy and arrogant; they attract the hatred of their fellow-citizens and their power was inevitably unstable. Tyrants being tyrants, they lacked the political vision necessary to develop any ambitious plans for their cities [c–e]. This, as we shall see, was not the case of Athens, where the tyranny of Pisistratus and his heirs gave a vital contribution to the development of the identity of the Athenian citizen.
[a] Thuc. 1.13.1–3: Wealth and tyranny in archaic Greece, the case of Corinth
As Greece was becoming more powerful and wealthy than before, and revenues were also increasing, tyrannies were set up in the cities (previously they had hereditary monarchies based on certain prerogatives). Also, the Greeks began to fit out fleets and apply themselves more assiduously to navigation. The Corinthians are said to have been the first to practise the modern techniques of ship-building. In fact, Corinth is said to have been the first Greek city where triremes were built.
[b] Thuc. 1.17: The limits of archaic tyrannies
Tyrants, wherever there were tyrants in the cities of the Greeks, were only concerned about their personal interests, that is to say their personal safety and the aggrandizement of their houses. For this reason they always kept their cities as peaceful as possible, and so they failed to achieve anything memorable, except for some minor conflicts against their neighbours. So Greece for a long time was kept from undertaking any notable common enterprise, and its individual cities were incapable of any bold action.
[c] Arist. Pol. 3.5.4: Tyranny and other constitutional deviations
These are the deviations from the kinds of constitutions which have been taken into consideration: tyranny is a deviation from monarchy, oligarchy from aristocracy, and democracy from constitutional government. For tyranny is a form of monarchy where power is exercised in the interest of the monarch, oligarchy in the interest of the rich, and democracy in the interest of the poor.
[d] Arist. Pol. 4.2.2: Tyranny as a corrupted form of monarchy
The deviation from what is best and most divine is necessarily the worst form of deviation. Kingship therefore must necessarily either be kingship by name only, without really being kingship, or be based on the outstanding virtue of the man who exercises power. For this reason tyranny is by necessity the worst kind of regime and the one farthest away from legitimate constitutional government.
[e] Arist. Pol. 5.8.3–4: Tyranny drawing on the worst elements of oligarchy and democracy
Royal rule is related to aristocracy, whereas tyranny is a combination of the basest form of oligarchy and democracy. For this reason, tyranny is the most detrimental form of regime for its subjects, for it is a combination of two bad things, which bears the deviations and faults of these two kinds of constitution. These two kinds of monarchies stem from two different sources, which are the exact contrary of one another. The first kind is royalty, which comes into existence to assist the upper classes in the struggle against the commons, when a king is ordained from the upper classes on account of his superior virtue, or of those deeds which stem from virtue, or in reason of his noble birth. On the other hand, a tyrant rises to power from the struggle of the commons against the upper classes, to prevent the people from being abused by them. This is demonstrated by the events of history, for in most cases tyrants rose to power from the ranks of the demagogues, having obtained the trust of the populace by discrediting the notables. Tyrannies of this kind were established when the cities had already become powerful. On the other hand, the older tyrannies originated either from kings who deviated from the ancestral customs and aspired to a more despotic kind of power, or from men who had been appointed to the highest offices of the state (for in ancient times the peoples used to appoint magistrates and the sacred ambassadors for long terms of office), or from oligarchies where a man had been appointed to the highest magistracies. All the tyrants who rose to power in this manner could easily bring about their plans, if only they wished, because they already held royal power in the former case, or a honourable magistracy in the latter: Pheidon of Argos, for instance, and others became tyrants when they already held royal powers; the Ionian tyrants and Phalaris when they held high magistracies; Panaetius of Leontini, Cypselus of Corinth and Pisistratus of Athens and others became tyrants in the same manner, from the position of demagogues.
12. Athenian politics after Solon
Solon’s reforms did not give durable social peace to the Athenians. Regular political activity was frequently disrupted by factional strife, so much so that in two occasions it proved impossible to proceed with the election of the archon: Athens found itself in a state of actual anarchy, perpetual stasis deprived the polis of legitimate political leadership, as embodied by the city’s chief magistrate (an-arche) [a]. Political divisions were a symptom of the incomplete unification of the various districts of Attica. Political power was still contested by three local factions, the shore, the hills, and the plain, guided by aristocratic leaders, just as at the time of Solon’s archonship. Pisistratus was the head of the faction of the hill and a clever politician, who had the qualities and ambition to expand his ascendancy and become the leader of the Athenian populace [b, c].
[a] [Arist.], Ath. Const. 13: Political turbulence after Solon’s archonship
The city remained at peace for four years while Solon was abroad, although disturbance did not stop completely. On the fifth year since the archonship of Solon, the Athenians were unable to elect the archon owing to the political divisions. Four years later, the Athenians did not appoint the archon for the same reason. After these events, the same period of time having elapsed, Damasias was elected archon and held the post for two years and two months, until he was removed from office by force. After this, owing to the civic strife, the Athenians decided to elect ten archons, five from the well-born, three from the farmers and two from the artisans. These held office for the year following Damasias’ archonship. It is clear from this that in those times the archonship was the most powerful magistracy, since political strife seems to have always concerned this office. In short, the Athenians were in a state of perpetual strife: for some of them the main reason for discontent was the cancellation of debts, which they claimed had reduced them to poverty; others were dissatisfied with the present state of the constitution, because it had been sensibly modified; for some, the only reason was mutual rivalry.
There were the three factions: the party of the coastmen, led by Megacles son of Alcmaeon, and they seemed to aim at a moderate form of constitution. The second faction was the party of the Men of the Plain, who favoured the oligarchy, and their leader was Lycurgus. The third party was that of the Hillmen, who had chosen as their head Pisistratus, because he was thought to be the most democratic of all. With this party were also aligned those who had been deprived of the debts due to them, owing to their poverty, and those who were not of pure citizen descent, owing to their fear. This is demonstrated by the fact that after the overthrow of the tyrants the Athenians carried out a revision of the citizen roll, because many people shared the citizenship without being entitled to it. The different factions derived their names from the places where their estates were located.
[c] Plut. Sol. 29.1–3: Solon and Pisistratus
While Solon was abroad, civic strife broke out again in the city. The faction of the plain was headed by Lycurgus, that of the shore by Megacles, son of Alcmaeon, and that of the hills by Pisistratus. In this party there were the mass of thetes, who were bitterly at loggerheads with the wealthy. As a result, although the city was still observing the new laws, there was a general expectation and desire for a revolution and a change of government, not because they wanted to achieve equality, but because each party thought that the change would strengthen their position, and give them complete power over their enemies.
This was the state of affairs when Solon returned to Athens. He was respected and honoured by everyone, but owing to his old age he was no longer able, or willing, to speak in public and be actively engaged in politics as he was before. However, he did have private meetings with the leaders of the factions, in an attempt to reconcile them and bring civic strife to an end. Pisistratus seemed particularly attached to him. In fact, there was a flattering and agreeable manner in his conversation; he was always willing to assist the poor, and was reasonable and moderate towards his adversaries. As for those qualities which were not natural in him, Pisistratus dissimulated them so cleverly that they won him more trust than those which he actually possessed. So he was considered to be a prudent and decent man, who loved equality above everything else, and would disapprove of anyone trying to disturb the established order or yearning for change. In all this he managed to hoodwink most people, but not Solon, who quickly discovered his real nature and was the first to see through his plans. Solon, however, never hated him, but tried to soften his nature by giving him direction. For instance, he told him, as he did with others, that, if only the eagerness for power was removed from his soul, and his passion for tyranny could be cured, there would be no other man more naturally inclined to virtue, or who could make a better citizen.
13. Tyranny in Athens
In 561/560, 31 years after Solon’s reforms, Pisistratus became master of Athens. He attained power in perfectly tyrannical fashion, by resorting to ruse and violence [a]. In spite of these less than promising beginnings, all our sources describe Pisistratus as an enlightened and compassionate ruler. Pisistratus was a peculiar kind of tyrant, who does not seem to fit in the typical portrait of the tyrant drawn by Arsitotle and Thucydides. Whereas Solon had begun his reforming activity by dismantling the laws of Draco, Pisistratus maintained and observed the laws of Solon. He wanted to give a legitimate and stable base to his power, and rule in the defence of the common interest, and not in opposition to it [b–c].
Under Pisistratus Athens and the Athenians became considerably wealthier. The Constitution of the Athenians lists a number of social and economic reforms which resulted in an expansion of the cultivated land in Attica, and consequently of the class of small landowners. A new tax of 5 per cent or 10 per cent on agricultural produce brought an unprecedented quantity of money into the Athenian treasury. If the state of permanent civic strife between the factions of the various areas of Attica was a sign of the incomplete synoecism of Attica, Pisistratus instituted the local tribunals to make the presence of the central institutions of the polis felt in the rural districts of Attica [d]. The foreign policy pursued by Pisistratus and his descendants was dynamic and ambitious: the tyrant was twice forced into exile by his political enemies, but the experience helped him to establish important diplomatic relations with foreign powers such as Sparta, Macedon and Argos. Important Athenian settlements were established in the area of the Chersonese, the gateway to the grain of the Black Sea [e–g].
Pisistratus died in 528/527, passing over his power to his sons Hippias and Hipparchus, who followed on their father’s brand of enlightened tyranny [h]. Under the Pisistratids, Athens seems to have lived a first golden age: Hippias and Hipparchus promoted the arts and the letters [i, j]; they embarked upon an ambitious building programme, including a new temple to Athens on the Acropolis, the Olympieon temple in honour of Zeus, the so-called fountain of the nine mouths, and the Royal Portico in the agora. The promotion of the main civic-religious festivals of the polis, like the Great Dyonisia and the Panathenaia, gave an essential contribution to the emergence of a common Athenian identity [k–o].
[a] Hdt. 1.59.3–4: Pisistratus rises to power
When civic strife broke out between the factions of the Athenians of the coast, led by Megacles, son of Alcmaeon, and those of the plain, led by Lycurgus, son of Aristolaides, Pisistratus, who aimed at the tyranny, formed a third faction. Pisistratus collected a group of supporters, under the pretence of championing the hillmen, and then set off the following plan. Having wounded himself and his mules, Pisistratus drove his carriage into the agora, as though he was escaping from his enemies, who, as he said, had tried to kill him as he was driving into the countryside. So he begged the people to give him a bodyguard. Pisistratus had become popular at the time of his command in the war against Megara, when he seized Nisaea and accomplished many other remarkable deeds. Having been deceived by Pisistratus, the Athenian people gave him a guard of chosen men from the city. More than spearmen, these were Pisistratus’ clubmen, because these men who followed him used to carry wooden clubs. Pisistratus and his men rose to the acropolis and seized it. So Pisistratus ruled the Athenians without altering the existing magistracies or changing the laws; he led the city as a fair and decent ruler, in compliance with the established laws.
[b] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 14.3: Pisistratus and the common interest
Once he attained power, Pisisiratus pursued the common interest more in the manner of a legitimate statesman than a tyrant.
[c] Plut. Sol. 31.2: Pisistratus and the laws of the city
Pisistratus retained most of Solon’s laws; he was the first to observe them and compelled his friends to do so. For example, once he was summoned before the tribunal of the Areopagus on a charge of murder when he was already tyrant, and he duly turned up to defend himself, whereas his accuser did not show up. He also wrote new laws, one of which prescribes that those who are mutilated in war should be maintained at public expense.
[d] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 16.1–5, 7: Pisistratus the compassionate tyrant, his most significant measures
The administration of Pisistratus was moderate and more constitutional than tyrannical. He was compassionate and gentle in every respect, and was indulgent towards the wrong-doers. He advanced money to the poor for their enterprises, so that they could support their families by working the land. He had two goals in doing this: firstly, that they might live scattered in the countryside, and not waste time in the city; secondly, that they might prosper and look after their private interests, so that they would not have time for attending to public affairs, or be interested in them. At the same time, the expansion of the cultivated land increased his profits, because he had levied a tithe on the produce. For this reason he also created the local justices, and often he would go to the country in person to carry out inspections and to settle disputes, so that the people would not have to go to the city and neglect their work.
[…]
The rule of Pisistratus was never a burden on the people. He always strove for peace and preserved tranquillity. For this reason, one could often hear people say that the tyranny of Pisistratus was the Golden Age of Chronos. In fact, as it happened later, when power was passed on to the sons of Pisistratus, the regime became considerably harsher.
[e] Hdt. 5.63.1: Sparta against the Pisistratids
The Alcmaeonids, as the Athenians say, sat at Delphi and bribed the Pythia with money to tell any Spartan who would come there to interrogate her on private or public matters to go to Athens and set the city free. When the Spartans were informed of this oracle, they sent Anchimaolius, the son of Aster, who was a respected man among the citizens, to drive the Pisistratids out of Athens with an army, even if they were their guests, because they considered the words of the god more venerable than those of men. They sent this contingent by sea on ships. Anchimolius landed at Cape Phalerum and disembarked his army. The Pisistratids however had already learnt about this plan, and so they had sent to the Thessalians to ask for help, since they had an alliance with them. The Thessalians joined together at their appeal and sent their King Cineas of Conium, at the head of 1,000 horsemen. Once they got these allies, the Pisistratids devised the following plan: they laid waste the plain of Phalerum, so that it could be ridden over, and then launched their cavalry against the enemy. The horsemen charged and slaughtered many of the Spartans, including Anchimolius himself, while those who survived withdrew to the ships.
[f] Hdt. 7.6: Ambassadors at the court of Xerxes, the Pisistratids and the Thessalians
There came ambassadors from Thessaly, from the house of the Aleuadae, who invited with all eagerness the king to come to Greece. The Aleuadae were the royal house of Thessaly. Then envoys of the Pisistratids also came to Susa and made the same plea as the Aleuadae, but they offered the King something more than they had. In fact, they had come with Onomacritus, an Athenian omen-monger, who had put in order the oracles of Musaeus […]. Whenever he came in sight of the sovereign, the Pisistratidae would start speaking about him in glowing terms, as he pronounced his oracles. Of those foreseeing losses for the Persians, he would make no mention. For he would choose and reveal only the most favourable prophecies, telling how the two shores of the Hellespont would be yoked up by a Persian man as he described their expedition. So, while the Pisistratids and the Aleuadae were exposing their thoughts, Onomacritus offered his oracles.
[g] Hdt. 6.34–6: Pisistratus, Miltiades and the Athenian interests in the Chersonese
The Phoenicians had seized all the cities in the Chersonese except Cardia. Miltiades son of Cimon son of Stesagoras was tyrant of that city. This is how, in earlier times, Miltiades son of Cypselus had gained power there: this part of Chersonese used to belong to the Thracian Dolonci, but when they were defeated in war by the Apsinthians, they dispatched their kings to Delphi to ask what they should do about the war. The Pythia answered that they should bring to their nation as founder the first man who would offer them hospitality after they left the sanctuary. Now, nobody offered them hospitality as they travelled through Phocis and Boeotia, going along the Sacred Way, and so they diverted towards Athens.
At that time Pisistratus held all power in Athens, although Miltiades son of Cypselus also had great influence. In fact, his household was so rich that they could support a team of four horses. Miltiades traced the origins of his family to Aeacus and Aegina; his later ancestry however was Athenian. Philaeus son of Ajax was the first Athenian member of that house.
Now, Miltiades was sitting on his porch when he saw the Dolonci walk by in their foreign attire and with their spears, so he called them to him and when they came over he offered them restoration and hospitality. The Dolonci accepted and once they had received Militiades’ hospitality they told him about the oracle and asked him to obey the god. Upon hearing their words Miltiades was immediately persuaded, for he could not endure the rule of Pisistratus any more, and wanted to get away from it. So Militiades set out for Delphi at once to ask the oracle whether he should do what the Dolonci were asking from him.
[h] [Arist.] Ath. Const. 18.1: Hippias and Hipparchus, successors of Pisistratus
Hippias and Hipparchus were in control of affairs owing to their rank and age. Hippias, the elder, was a wise fellow and a natural-born statesman, and was actually in charge of the government of the city. Hipparchus on the other hand was fond of amusement. He engaged in amorous affairs and was fond of the arts: it was he who invited to Athens the likes of Anacreon and Simonides, as well as other poets.
[i] [Pl.] Hipp. 228b–229c: The many accomplishments of Hipparchus
Hipparchus, the son of Pisistratus of the Philaidae tribe, a fellow-citizen of mine and yours, was the eldest and wisest of Pisistratus’ sons. He gave many and splendid proofs of his wisdom: for instance, he was the first to bring the poems of Homer into this land of ours, and required the rhapsodes at the Panathenaic festival to sing them in relay, one following on another, as they still do today. Furthermore, he sent a 50-oared ship to collect Anacreon of Teos and bring him to our city. He had Simonides of Ceos always at his side, having won him over with magnificent emoluments and gifts. Hipparchus did all this because he wanted to educate the citizens, so that he might rule over subjects of the highest quality. For he was a good and noble man, and thought that nobody should be excluded from knowledge. Once the people of the city had been educated by him and were admiring him for his wisdom, Hipparchus, now wishing to educate those who lived in the countryside, took to placing images of Hermes along the roads in the centre of the town and in all the demes, and having made a selection of the wisest sayings of Hermes, either learnt from others or discovered by himself, he translated them into elegiac poetry, as though they had been written by himself. These verses he inscribed on the images of Hermes as examples of his own wisdom, so that the citizens, before admiring those wise Delphic proverbs, I mean the ‘Know yourself’ and ‘Nothing overmuch’ and all the other such sayings, would first think of the wise words of Hipparchus, and then, having grown acquainted with and developed a taste for his wisdom, they would move from the countryside to complete their education.
These inscriptions are of two kinds: the one on the left side of each Hermes, in which the Hermes says that it has been erected in the centre of the city or of the deme, and the other on the right side, which says:
Monument of Hipparchus; walk with just intentions in mind.
There are many other fine inscriptions from his poems on other statues of Hermes; for example, there is the one on the Steiria road, where he says:
Monument of Hipparchus; never deceive a friend.
Therefore, I would never dare to deceive you, my friend, or disobey a man like Hipparchus. After his death, the Athenians remained under the tyranny of his brother Hippias for three years, and you might have heard all the people of the old generation say that it was only in those years that the Athenians experienced tyranny, otherwise, they lived as in the age of Chronos.
[j] Arist. Pol. 5.9.4: The Pisistratids build a temple of Zeus. A political ruse?
It is typical of tyrants to keep their subjects poor, so that they may not need to maintain a garrison, and the people, being busy with their daily affairs, would not have time to plot a conspiracy. Examples of this are the pyramids in Egypt, the votive offerings of the Cypselids, the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the Pisistratids, and the temples at Samos, built by Polycrates: all these projects have been undertaken with the same aim: to keep the people constantly occupied and poor.
[k] Thuc. 2.15.5: The Pisistratids and water supply, I
In this quarter of the city there is also the fountain which has been known as Enneacrounos, or Nine Pipes, since it was refurbished under the tyrants, but its original name, the one it was given when the spring was open, was Callirhoe, or Fairwater. In those days the fountain was used for the most important ceremonies, since it was so close to the temples.
[l] Paus. 1.14.1: The Pisistratids and water supply, II
Of all the objects you see upon entering the Odeion at Athens there is a figure of Dionysus, which is particularly noteworthy. Also nearby is a spring called Enneacrunos, or ‘Nine Pipes’, which was embellished in its present form by Pisistratus. Water cisterns are located all over the city, but this is the only fountain. Two temples are located above the spring, one dedicated to Demeter and the Maid, and the other to Triptolemus, where there is also a statue of him.
[m] FGH 3 F2: The creation of the Panathenaic festival
Hippocleides: the Great Panathenaia were established under his archonship.1
[n] Suda s.v. Thespis, the Pisistratids and the earliest dramatic festivals
Thespis. From Ikarion, a municipality of Attica. Tragic poet, 16th after the first author of tragedies, Epigenes of Sicyon, but according to some the second after Epigenes; others say that he was the first tragediographer. At first he used to perform with lead rubbed on his face, then he covered his face with purslane in his performances. After that, he also introduced the use of masks made of linen only. He produced his plays in the year of the 61st Olympiad.2 He is remembered for his tragedies The Funeral Games of Pelias or The Phorbas, The Priests, The Youths, Pentheus.
14. The overthrowing of a tyranny
Thucydides praised the Pisistratids as moderate and compassionate leaders [a]. Certainly they were tyrants, and like every tyrant they wanted to keep all the positions of power within their inner circle of friends and close associates, but this, as far as we can judge from our sources, seems to have been the only genuinely despotic trait of their rule. The Pisistratids in sum treated power as a personal belonging of theirs, which they had to defend from their internal enemies. Their foreign policy also seems to have been based on a network of personal relations with other influential houses in the cities of Greece.
The Pisistratids had occupied power, but the initiatives that they took in order to maintain it gave a vital contribution to strengthening the common identity of the Athenians. The asty, the urban heart of the polis, with all its new buildings, became the place where this identity was shaped and celebrated. At the great religious festivals in honour of Athena and Dionysus, the Athenians gathered to celebrate themselves as members of one community. Thucydides also gives a detailed account of the assassination of Hipparchus at the hand of Harmodius, a beautiful Athenian youth, and his lover Aristogiton, after which the rule of Hippias became harsher, which somehow affected his posthumous image [b]. The rule of the Pisistratids was finally brought to an end by the intervention of the Spartans
The tyranny was finally overthrown by the Spartan king Cleomenes, and by the exiled members of the noble house of the Alcmaeonids, who were the main opponents of the Pisistratids in Athens. Later on, democratic propaganda would celebrate Harmodius and Aristogiton as true national heroes. Soon after the reforms of Cleisthenes, statues were erected in their honour at public expenses (see, infra item 16), and their descendants were granted exemption from duties and other hereditary privileges [c–f].
[a] Thuc. 6.53.3–59.4: The two tyrannicides, myths and realities
The people of Athens had heard how harsh the tyranny of Pisistratus and his sons had become when it was brought to an end. Also, they had heard that the tyranny had been overthrown not by the people themselves and Harmodius, but by the Spartans. For this reason, they were always in fear and suspicious about everything. In fact, the truth is that Harmodius and Aristogiton undertook their daring enterprise because of a love affair. Giving a detailed account of this episode, I will demonstrate that the Athenians have no better knowledge than the others of the vicissitudes of their tyrants and the events of their past.
Pisistratus died an old man, while he was still in possession of the tyranny. He was succeeded by Hippias, his eldest son, and not by Hipparchus, as many believe. In those days Harmodius was then a youth in the flower of his beauty; Aristogiton, a citizen of middle rank, was his lover and held him fast to himself. Now, Harmodius was being pursued by Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus. Harmodius however was not won over, and told everything to Aristogiton. Seized by jealousy, and fearing lest Hippias might use his power to take Harmodius by force, Aristogiton immediately devised a plan to overthrown the tyranny, commensurate with his social standing.
In the meantime, following another unsuccessful proposition to Harmodius, Hipparchus, unwilling to resort to violence, embarked on a scheme to insult him in a more covert manner. In general, the regime was not a burden on the people, and power was exercised in an irreproachable manner; the tyrants practised virtue and conscience to the highest degree, they imposed a modest levy of five per cent on the incomes of the Athenians, and still managed to embellish their town, and wage wars and make offerings to the temples. In all other matters, the city continued to observe the established laws. Only, the tyrants took care that the magistracies were always in the hands of someone from their family. One of the men who held the yearly archonship was Pisistratus, the son of the tyrant Hippias, named after his grandfather. During his term in office, this Pisistratus dedicated the altar to the Twelve Gods in the agora, and that of Apollo in the precinct of Apollo the Pythian. The Athenians later built on and expanded the altar in the agora and removed the inscription, but the one on the altar of the Pythian is still visible, although it is faded, and says:
Pisistratus, son of Hippias set up this memorial to his archonship in the precinct of Apollo the Pythian.
I know for sure and have stronger evidence than others that Hippias, the eldest son of Pisistatus, succeeded him in the government. This can also be ascertained from this: Hippias alone of the legitimate brothers appears to have had children, as shown by the altar as well as the pillar in the acropolis of Athens, which commemorates the injustice of the tyrants. The inscription on the pillar does not mention any children of Thessalus or Hipparchus, but only the five, whom Hippias had from Myrrhine, daughter of Callias, son of Hyperechides, and it is likely that the eldest son was also the first to contract marriage. Furthermore, the name of Hippias is listed first in the inscription after his father’s. This is not strange, since he was the eldest after him, and had been tyrant. Nor would Hippias have obtained the tyranny so easily, as I think, if Hipparchus had been in power when he was assassinated, and he had had to set himself up in power on the same day. The truth is that the citizens had already grown afraid of him, and the mercenaries were well accustomed to obey him: this is why Hippias could prevail without any trouble, and without having to face the difficulties of a younger brother who is not acquainted with the arts of power. Hipparchus, as it happened, became famous owing to the misery of his fate, and posterity gave him the name of tyrant.
So, once Harmodius refused the suit of Hipparchus, the latter insulted him, as he intended to do: he invited a sister of Harmodius to serve as a basket-carrier in a certain procession, but then they rejected her. In fact, they said that they had not invited her at all because she was not worthy. Harmodius was outraged, and Aristogiton was even more so owing to his lover’s wrath.
Harmodius and Aristogiton had arranged all the details of the enterprise with their associates, and were now waiting for the day of the Great Panathenaea, because that was the only occasion when the citizens joining in the procession could gather together in arms without arousing suspicion. Harmodius and Aristogiton were to strike the first blow, and then their accomplices would join them immediately and repel the bodyguard of Hipparchus. The conspirators were not many, as security demanded. However, they hoped that those who were not involved in the plot would be inspired by their bravery and use the arms that they were carrying to recover their freedom.
When the day of the festival arrived, Hippias was outside the city with his bodyguard, in the area of the so-called Ceramicus, marshalling the various sections of the procession. Harmodius and Aristogiton had already their daggers in hand and were ready to spring into action when they saw one of their accomplices talking in familiar terms with Hippias, who was a man affable with all. The pair took fright; they thought that they had been betrayed and were about to be arrested. Nevertheless, they were eager to take revenge, if possible, upon the man who had vexed them and for whom they were running all those risks. So they rushed within the gates, as they were, and when they ran into Hipparchus by the so-called Leocorium, they furiously assaulted him at once, one moved by anger, and the other by love, and killed him. Aristogiton immediately escaped from the guards, as the crowd was running up, but was later captured and mercilessly dealt with. Harmodius on the other hand was killed on the spot.
When news of what happened reached Hippias at the Ceramicus, he did not rush at once to the scene of the murder. Instead, he went to the men who were carrying arms in the procession before they might know anything, because they were still some distance away. Having composed his expression for the occasion as not to betray himself, he indicated a certain spot, and ordered them to move there without arms. Accordingly, the men withdrew there, in the belief that he wanted to address them. At this point, he ordered the mercenaries to remove their arms, and immediately picked out those whom he believed guilty, and they were all found carrying daggers, whereas the weapons usually carried in the procession were shield and spear.
This is how an outraged love set in motion the plot of Armodius and Haristogiton, and the fear of the moment drove them to hasten their action. Following this episode, the tyranny became more burdensome for the Athenians. Hippias put to death many citizens owing to his growing fear, and at the same time he began to look abroad to see if he could find a place of refuge in case a revolution took place. So, although he was Athenian, he gave his daughter Archedice to Aentides of Lampsacus, the son of the city’s tyrant, since he knew that they had great influence with King Darius. Her grave is in Lampsacus and bears the following inscription:
This dust covers Archedice, daughter of Hippias,
Her father, brother, husband and children were all tyrants,
But her soul was never lifted up to arrogance.
Hippias ruled over Athens for three years, and in the fourth the Spartans and the exiled Alcmaeonids deposed him. Hippias was granted a safe conduct and went to Sigeum, to Aeantides at Lampsacus. Thence he went to King Darius. He left his court twenty years later, as an old man, and came with the Persians to Marathon.
[b] Ar. Wasps 488–502: Hippias, the Athenians’ obsession with tyranny
BDELYCLEON: Tyranny nowadays is all around us, large or small. I haven’t heard the word once in fifty years, but it is more common than salt-fish, it whirls around in the market-place: if you want to buy gurnards, but don’t want anchovies, the anchovy seller next door immediately starts shouting: ‘that’s the chap whose kitchen smells of tyranny!’ If you ask for onions to season your fish, the woman selling vegetables winks one eye and asks, ‘Tell me: you want onions? Do you want to be a tyrant, or do you think that the Athenians should pay for your seasonings?’
XANTIHAS: Yesterday I visited a whore; it was about noon. I asked her to get on top and she went completely ballistic. She said that I wanted to restore the tyranny of Hippias.
[c] Plin. Nat. Hist. 34.17: The overthrow of the Athenian tyrants and the kings of Rome
I do not know whether the Athenians were the first to erect statues at public expense in honour of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the men who killed the tyrant in the same year when the kings were expelled from Rome.3
[d] Plin. Nat. Hist. 34.70: The statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton by Praxiteles
Praxiteles also executed statues of Stephanusa, Spilumene, Oenophorus, and two figures of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the tyrannicides. These were taken away by Xerxes and later restored to the Athenians by Alexander the Great, following the conquest of Persia.
[e] Paus. 1.8.5: The statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton in the agora
Nearby are the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the men who killed Hipparchus. The reasons and mode of their act have been related by other authors. Some of the figures were the work of Critius, the old ones were made by Antenor. When Xerxes seized Athens after the Athenians had abandoned the city, he took away these statues with the booty, but afterwards Antiochus returned them to the Athenians.
[f] Dem. Ag. Lep. 18: Demosthenes and the honours for the heirs of Harmodius and Aristogiton
Now perhaps Leptines will try to divert you from what I am saying by arguing that under the current system it is the poor who carry the burden of public services, whereas under his law the wealthiest will perform all the liturgies. This may sound reasonable, but if you consider his words more carefully, his lies would emerge immediately. For, as you know, there are some services that are carried out by the metics, others by the citizens, and the exception which Leptines plans to remove would apply to both. But nobody is exempt from the special contributions for war or national security, or from the equipping of triremes, justly and rightly in accordance to the laws of old, not even the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogiton, whom Leptines has specifically mentioned.